Do I deserve rollbacker rights? I would like to help Wikipedia as rollbacker. Regards, --Aleksa Lukic (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, you're now a rollbacker. Please just make sure that you know when it is appropriate to use it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I know - to revert vandalisms or nonsenses, but not to start a edit conflict. --Aleksa Lukic (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you didn't like that I did that. I wasn't trying to bother you, or anything. Hi878 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I just wasn't interested, that's all. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You should still keep the tag; you may not be interested, but I still "conquered" your talk page. :) But whatever. Hi878 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Edgar! You blocked IP User:123.237.180.181 after I issued a level 1 warning for spamming. Though I agree with the block in principle - you have been too fast IMHO (shouldn't you have waited for level 4)? →Alfie^±Talk 19:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a return spammer. The website that IP was spamming has been spammed by multiple other IPs that have been warned and blocked before, such as 122.162.195.177 (talk · contribs). If he returns again with a new IP, he can be reported without further warnings to WP:AIV for blocking. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. THX for the explanation. →Alfie^±Talk 21:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping on this problem and blocking this vandal. This user managed to create a fair amount of commotion in just a short period of time. --RadioFan (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad to help out. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Edgar, is the figure labelled as D-ribulose on the ribulose page actually L-ribulose? 222.154.7.253 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

After your original edits, I checked with Chemical Abstracts and PubChem. The image in question appears to be the correct structure D-ribulose, and not L-ribulose. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Edgar, it looks like in response to my report (the top one here) you blocked the wrong one from the list: 86.177.171.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This IP wasn't active at this moment, and I merely provided it to show his intentions. The actively vandalizing ones are 86.169.202.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 86.181.145.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both obviously the same user, namely the currenly one-week blocked 81.139.112.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Interesting case. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm not sure how that happened, but I have blocked the active IPs now and unblocked the inactive one. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Edgar181,

I just saw notice of a temporary block as a result of some vandalism and unconstructive edits from our IP address. It appears that we are no longer blocked. I apologize for the problems. We are a K-8 school and my investigation is centering on some middle school students "testing the boundaries". We will be dealing with this as soon as possible. We will use this as an opportunity to teach the individuals, this class and others about the proper use of Wikipedia, as well as other sites, and making positive use of the technology and privileges we offer them. Not to mention that the internet is not as anonymous as they might think.

Would it be possible to have any future incidents from our address reported to me directly through my talk page (Fdbfs) or e-mail? I am the technical contact for the school. The IP address in question is a static address (owned by Verizon) used only by our school. Also, does Wikipedia have any best practices or guidelines for schools related to editing pages, vandalism, etc.?

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdbfs (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, first post - forgot to sign. Fdbfs (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any way that you could be automatically notified of incidents of vandalism from your school's IP address. I can make a few suggestions though. At any time you can check the User talk:108.2.134.2 page and look for new warnings on the page. You can also put the the page User talk:108.2.134.2 on the watchlist for your account Fdbfs (talk · contribs) or you can view recent contributions from the IP address by using this link: Special:Contributions/108.2.134.2. Another option would be to have the IP address "soft-blocked" for a longer period. This would prevent any anonymous editing from the IP address, but wouldn't block any registered user from contributing to Wikipedia. As for guidelines for schools, you might want to have a look at this page: Wikipedia:FAQ/Schools. If you have specific questions that aren't answered there, I'd be happy to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Edgar. Excellent suggestions. Thanks for your help. Fdbfs (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Edgar, I noted that you deleted the topic "stealth adapted virus" last november. Part of the argument for doing so was the lack of acceptance of the term. Yet, by deleting the article you are helping to further delay understanding of the underlying concept on which the term is based. The statement that "Obviously, any virus has immunogenic proteins" is rather naive. I will be presenting research on stealth adapted viruses at an upcoming international virology conference. I would be willing to briefly discuss the topic by telephone. Kind regards, W. John Martin, MD, PhD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.140.251 (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The only reason that I deleted the article stealth-adapted virus was because it consisted of copyrighted text copied from elsewhere. Wikipedia simply cannot accept such material. If you think the topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, please feel to recreate the article (with text written in your own words). -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Edgar,

Thank you for the prompt response. Can you please provide me a copy of the deleted article on stealth adapted virus and reference to the copyrighted published article? I can provide you an e-mail address is necessary. Kind regards, John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.140.251 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was essentially a copy of this webpage: http://www.emergingworlds.com/pro_article.cfm?link=What_are_Stealth_Viruses.htm which I assume was written by you. If you wish to make the text available to Wikipedia, you can follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Edgar, Thank you for your last message. I have spoken with the owner of Emerging Worlds and confirmed that I am the owner of the copyright on the "What are Stealth Viruses?" article in question. I have accordingly completed the permission form for the article (included below) and would appreciate your forwarding it to the appropriate address at Wikipedia. I would like to update some of the information in the article before it is reposted on Wikipedia. Is it better that I simply rewrite a "Stealth Adapted Virus" article for Wikipedia. Thanks again for your assistance and guidance. W. John Martin.

I hereby affirm that I, W. John Martin, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the article “What are Stealth Viruses?” that is currently being presented online at:http://www.emergingworlds.com/pro_article.cfm?link=What_are_Stealth_Viruses.htm I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0". I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Signed /W. John Martin/, copyright holder. May 17, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.140.251 (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to accept this permission myself. Based on the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials (under the section heading "Granting us permission to copy material already online"), it looks like you will need to email this statement to the Wikimedia.org address given there and wait for a reply from them. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The image of Cobalt(II) naphthenate in commons does not correspond to the description in the article - the image is that of a naphthoic acid derivative, while the text describes a naphthenic acid derivative. See the discussion (in English) in the Dutch wikipedia - I think the error originates from a government site. Albmont (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that image was based on incorrect information that was in the article Cobalt(II) naphthenate at that time. When the article was corrected, the image should have been deleted. I have gone ahead and deleted the now-unused image. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Lead naphthenate.svg also has the same problem - the image is naphthalene based, but the text in Dutch nl:Lood(II)naftenaat is that of a naphthenate. The PubChem page is even more chaotic, because it describes cobalt naphthenates, and pictures a lead naphthoicate(?)! Albmont (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like the same problem. I have marked that image on Commons with the {{disputed chem}} template. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you initially gave an indef block to this user and then reduced it to 24 hours (which is is completely up to you). If it's a temp block however can you please drop a note on the user's page regarding this edit which is totally inappropriate and more than a little creepy. He's not going to listen to anything I say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree those comments were inappropriate, so I have removed them. I will watch this user and promptly reblock if the same behavior continues after the first block expires. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that there is ongoing discussion at [1] concerning your recent actions. Please feel free to submit any comments you may wish to make. Cheers! 79.75.230.195 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please find somewhere else to play. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you just suppressed a bunch of Barney Frank versions (thanks), and have a related request: see this entry, but this exchange was the last I heard about it. Thanks, AV3000 (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree those edits should not be visible, so I have removed them. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action on 208.108.152.177. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please could you semi-protect this article, it has been repeatedly targeted in the past few days.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Looks like the best thing to do. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep watching the article, but we all deserve a rest after the nonsense of the past few days.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the page created was of no use to you. However I see it as perfectly harmless. Do you know any way that i can at least retrieve the text that was on the page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhi8 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That page was completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. I don't see it as harmless at all. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you will not change your opinion of my page, however you did not answer my other question. Is there anyway that I can retrieve the text that was on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhi8 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not willing to give the text of such a page to you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me some advices about RfA. I would very much like to become an admin. What are the things that I need to do for becoming one? Thanks Aleksa Lukic (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

At RfD, people will want to see that you have the knowledge of policies that admins must work within. So I would recommend getting involved in some of the processes that require administrator's actions. For example, get involved in deletion discussion at AFD, and establish a track record of rational and reasonable recommendations there. Report vandalism to AIV, showing that you know when an appropriate block is needed. When you encounter an article that needs to be protected, make the request at RFPP. If you can demonstrate that you are requesting admin action under appropriate circumstances, then you are demonstrating that you are capable of being an admin. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ed. Would you mind unprotecting my user page? If vandalism becomes a severe problem I'll request it to be protected again. Thanks, —Tommy2010 14:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Edgar, I saw that you recently hid some content from Musa Ibrahim that was "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive". Another few sentences of material that could be described as such was recently added (and removed). I just thought I'd warn you so that you can hide it (if you think it should be hidden), and perhaps request a sockpuppetry investigation if the two edits were similar. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed one more edit. I think that is all there is at this point. Thanks for catching the problem and letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I noted that you blocked User:TrueBridge Capital Partners for a username violation. You might want to look at Lies Between and User:Lies Between. Just FYI, your call, of course. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone else already took care of it... -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you know the mechanics would you do the honours on Talk:Passiflora capsularis and Talk:Passiflora gibertii. (I've checked IPNI, and it appears that the latter is indeed gibertii and not gilbertii.) Lavateraguy (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Talk:Passiflora racemosa to the list. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, they are properly located now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

He's now created Talk:List of passion flower species. (Also Talk:Passiflora edmundoi, but I've worked out how to do that move myself.) Since we already have a list of species at Passiflora] this would be redundant, unless someone splits the list out of Passiflora). Lavateraguy (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He's now created both Talk:Passiflora jorullensis and Talk:Passiflora jorrulensis. Fide IPNI the first is correct. (And several others, but since I've rediscovered the move button I can deal with them myself - see Category:Passiflora Lavateraguy (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left the editor a note suggesting that he sign up for an account so that he can create articles with the appropriate title. It looks like you've got things under control for now, but if you need any specific help, please just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I had escaped my recollection that IP editors were no longer allowed to create pages, which is a partial explanation for why he keeps creating articles as talk pages.

I didn't know how to dispose of Talk:Passiflora jorrulensis, but someone else put a rapid deletion template, which dealt with it. But I doubt that I've got it under control - he's producing bad edits faster than I'm fixing them. (He's put back Passiflora hartwiesiana, which you had set up as a redirect. As far as I know - I knew next to nothing about Passiflora before I ended up fixing his edits - 'Hartwesiana' is a cultivar, and Passiflora hartwesiana is a nomen nudum, and therefore not a legitimate botanical name. I would have said that it's not notable enough as a synonym to warrant even a redirect, but I wouldn't argue the point.) The worst problem is that he makes stuff up - see Carica, Feijoa, Passiflora xishuangbannaensis, and assorted fake synonyms in various articles etc. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(User:Beeswaxcandle dealt with most his edits from last night.) Lavateraguy (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do at this point, as you have done at least once already, is to leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants whenever there is questionable information being added. Continuing to encourage the user to sign up for an account might help as well. Then at least the edits could be tracked a little better. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm a little confused. If memory serves, Tattare language was a redirect to Scandoromani language, correct? If so, I'm not sure why it was deleted. Did I make the redirect on the talk page by accident? ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like what happened. Tattare language has never been created, but I deleted Talk:Tattare language as an "orphaned" talk page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mmk. Thanks for clearing that up! Another late-night editing mistake. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Edgar. You have my respect for drawing chemical structures, as that is type of work, which is always needed. I just want to point that the structure of DMBA should be rotated a bit. This is not just an idea for esthetically pleasing the eye, but comes from recommendations of drawing structures of substituted polycyclic hydrocarbons. Please, take a look how Sigma is drawing it, or the folks from NIH. The compound is an substituted anthracene, and all additional rings by recommendation are in right top corner, which makes the other structures more "appropriate". If you have some time and energy, please rotate your structure since you are the uploader. BloodIce (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the best way to have drawn it. But I like the fact that the two images in the infobox match in orientation, and this will be lost unless both images are redrawn. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

why did you delete this page?....People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis, except for those that participated only in competitions that are themselves non-notable.- Curtis Jerrells is a FULLY professional basketball player in the NBDL and was signed by the Spurs on March 24th of this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njamesdingman (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The article I deleted had essentially no content; just two sentence fragments and not enough to even identify the subject. If you feel Curtis Jerrells meets the inclusion criteria at WP:ATHLETE, please feel free to recreate the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

sounds good Njamesdingman (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to add content to a page I created last year - haven't logged into it for a while... now when I log in and try to add to it, I see this message:

[This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

   * 01:23, 18 June 2006 Tawker (talk | contribs) blocked USERNAME (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (user..)

Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. Before creating this page, please see Help:Subpages.

To start a page called User:USERNAME/FelipeEsparza, type in the box below. When you are done, preview the page to check for errors and then save it.

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

   * 13:33, 6 June 2009 Edgar181 (talk | contribs) deleted "User:USERNAME/FelipeEsparza" ‎ (U2: Userpage or subpage of a nonexistent user)]

Does this mean I have to create this page all over again??? Is all of that content gone? (It was never published, by the way, it was still in edit mode but now I really need to update it and publish it this week)... Help, please! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipeesparza (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I see the problem here. It looks like you created the page in another user's area. You can learn more about "subpages" at WP:SUBPAGE. The block you point to, is not a block on your account, but rather on the user account named "USERNAME", so you shouldn't have any trouble editing. I deleted the page you refer to, User:USERNAME/FelipeEsparza, because it was an "orphaned" subpage. I have now undeleted that page and moved it to User:FelipeEsparza/FelipeEsparza. Lastly, you might want to have a look at these two Wikipedia guidelines, WP:BIO and WP:COI, which seem to apply here. I hope this helps, -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be prudent to block User:Ihateanatol as his/her very first edit was a BLP attack. -WarthogDemon 21:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Yes, definitely needed to be blocked. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The meaningful content of the book will be the end of chemist's poisoning animals and people with their ignorant compounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanne Mitchinson (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to tell me. If you want to know why I deleted an article, you have to let me know the title of the article you are referring to. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The article Seagate Technology is being run over with IP's. Now it may look OK now, but I want you to semi-protect it. 152.31.193.40 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you mean by "run over with IP's". Editing to that article has been done mostly by registered users. In any case, there is nothing inherently wrong with an article being edited by anonymous IP editors. Also, there does not appear to be enough edit warring to warrant page protection at this point. I would encourage you to discuss your concerns about the article with other editors on the article's talk page, rather than simply reverting to your preferred version. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed factual inaccuracies in three of your chemical structures. As such they have been tagged with {{Disputed chem}}, and will be deleted in a month if they are not corrected. These images are:

Commons:File:Norbixin structure.png

Commons:File:Trans-bixin.png

Commons:File:Bixin.png

It seems to be the same mistake in each one. I have checked them against PubChem. You might want to check some of your other images to see if they contain that mistake. As always please do not take the dispute personally; it is never intended as such (but you probably knew that already). Thanks. --Ephemeronium (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected them all now. Thanks for catching the mistake and letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Edgar181. My page was deleted several times upon my request yet my name still appears and is thus listed in the Google index. I would like my name and the deletion log to be fully suppressed at that point in order that no information appears anymore on Wikipedia and Google. Please provide me with with advice or help me contact the appropriate Wikipedia person if you cannot do anything, it has been months that my name appears on Wikipedia and Google and I do not know what to do. I have sent removal request to Google already and they deny them saying that my name was kept on Wikipedia and therefore cannot be removed. Thank you very much for your assistance, regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academic2005 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really know how to control what Wikipedia content (or former Wikipedia content) turns up in Google search results. I would have thought that deleting an article would eventually (especially after months) lead to nothing turning up in Google. I am not able to suppress any edits or deletion logs myself, but you can read Wikipedia:Oversight and maybe someone there can help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Edgar, picture of 2,4-Dichlorobenzyl alcohol that you have added is not correct.--Thetruthfinder01 (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is correct. Can you tell me what you think is wrong with it? -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! (IP Remvd) I just wanted to make sure that I won't get in any trouble from my internet provider, since the IP probably registered as mine at the time. Will this affect my account? If not, feel free to leave it blocked - I never use it anyway. Thanks for your time and you shouldn't see anymore disruption from it anymore. ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me  · 04:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It won't have any effect on your account because the block is a "soft block" that only affects anonymous users. ISPs are generally not contacted except in cases of repeated vandalism from the same source. IP addresses can change often, so it may not be the IP you are using any more. If you are still using that IP, you may want to see who else has access to it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 04:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me  · 04:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the disruptive edits in Michael Reghi. The same user made similar edits to Tony Rizzo on the Radio, so you may want to remove those as well. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think everything is cleaned up now. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you deleted the page on the 2010 Montreal Earthquake. I'm not the one who created the article, but I can tell you the article was supposed to be a placeholder for an emerging event. At around 1:30 p.m. today, an earthquake measuring 5.7 on the Richter scale hit the area around Montreal. The external reference to a news story in French gave a few early details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.160.10 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The article I deleted contained no meaningful content and was nonsense about Chuck Norris. If you wish to add content about today's earthquake, there is an article titled 2010 Central Canada earthquake. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Edgar. Having the above article included in my watchlist, I was alerted about some deletion activity that you handled but I could not ascertain precisely what it was. Your comment added that there was something "grossly insulting". I am simply curious to know precisely what that was because I know that I have been involved to some extent with certain redirecting as well as on the intro of the article itself. Would you tell me what you did and what was previously so bad. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lately I have been monitoring BLPs and removing certain edits using the new Wikipedia:Revision deletion procedure. In this case, there were some edits from last week that I removed from view because they contained insulting material (though with these particular edits, it wasn't all that bad - typical vandalism and slurs related to homosexuality). If you look at the history of the article, you'll see some edits that are now greyed out and cannot be viewed except by an administrator. This is just a way of protecting the subject of the article from defamatory material. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Clearly vandalism and wholly unfounded. I was worried that it may have involved my redirects on plain diacritical matters, but "insulting"? Surely not, I thought!!! No worries, thanks for the information. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Heyy, you deleted the page on one of scotlands biggest music producer's (Emmanuel Kahembwe). --EMKmusic (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The article was marked for speedy deletion by User:Bagheera. When I reviewed it, I agreed that it did not contain any content that suggested notability, so I deleted it. It also was written as an advertisement, rather than from a neutral point of view. You may want to have a look at WP:MUSIC and WP:COI. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir- PhD in medicinial chemistry!You must be awfully smart! I was an analytical chemist but nver really understood advanced chemistry, like kinetics and quantum mechanics. You must be a daring man to make trintro triazine and post it. I would be afraid i'd either blow myself up or have trigger happy stormtroopers kicking my doors down! Ther is one thing i have been wondering about, and have neither the lab nor the skill to investigate myself. evrybody knows about RDX, they've used it since before WWII. Powerful and nasty stuff, i gather. But from a strctly theoretical viewpoint it has one problem-negative oxygen balance. i was wondering if triazines that do not have a negative O balance exist, like say a tri-N-ntro cyanuric acid or cyanuric trinitrate. Or even tri-N-nitrocyanuric acid trinitrate! I saw your post that you made trinitro triazine. probably even wickeder than RDX-did you test it? But it occurred to me that it mightbe possible to make a ntric acid addition product, you know, adding to the double bonds (if i rememer my organic form 40 years ago)nad have a hexa nitro triazine! No record of it on Google. it also occurred to me that if you could make tetro nitro dioxane it would have a nutral O balnce. No record of that on Google. Very truly yous, joe smith aka GC-jockey,TheMadBlacksmith (used to make knives; nver did any recreational chemistry since compoundingblack powder and simialr rocket fuels as a teen-loogGC-jockey (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC) time gone!)

I haven't actually made that compound myself, I have just contributed a bit to that article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it's good to be acknowledged for once. Currently I'm scanning through Category:chemistry stubs looking for pure substance articles, adding chemboxes or adding identifiers to them. Although, soon I'll have run out of stubs, where can I find a new candidate category list.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, most articles about chemical compounds already have chemboxes or drugboxes. If you're done with Category:chemistry stubs, you might want to have a look at Category:Organic compound stubs too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

CatScan could also help identifying articles missing a chembox. This search shows that Aurintricarboxylic acid is missing a chembox. You will have to alter the parameters to find more articles. --Leyo 18:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice tool. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(1S)-1-Methyl-2,3,4,9-tetrahydro-1H-pyrido-3,4-b-indole - I think that this article should be deleted on the basis of its lack of notability. Compare with Tetrahydroharman and Calligonine, I also suggest that Calligonine should be merged with Tetrahydroharman. I'm not sure which templates to use for this maneuver.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to merge the three articles into one. You can tag the articles with {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} and see if there is any support or objection to this idea. If there are no objections after a week or so, they can be combined. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, could you please look at this DIFF and perform revision deletion to remove its crude and disrupting presence? TIA, ----moreno oso (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Guess the grass doesn't grow up your feet. ;) ----moreno oso (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You caught me at the right time.  :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not yet notified Fart2000 (talk · contribs) of there block for vandalism and an inapprpriate username. Please do so. Best wishes. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 13:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done now. Yep, I seemed to have missed that one. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I am kindly requesting that you grant me rollback rights because I know how to use them and I know my way around Wikipedia. I have read when and when not to use this tool and what it does. I know the difference between good and bad faith edits as well. Feel free to take a look at my recent edits to back up this request. Thanks --Ratinator·Talk 15:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, you're now a rollbacker. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did you check his talk page and/or User talk:JoJan#Rollback rights before granting rollback? —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw his talk page, but not JoJan's. In my opinion, rollback rights should be given out easily, and removed quickly if abused. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just exactly how low do you set the bar in granting someone rollback as a "trusted user"? Wouldn't you want to see some minimal evidence that the user understand what vandalism is and how to respond to it? Or at least the absence of pretty glaring evidence (see last section at [2]) to the contrary? Nsk92 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

True. However, it looked like a forum shop—as soon as one admin took the rights away, he asked another. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This does not just look like forum-shopping, this is forum-shopping, especially since JoJan, when revoking the rollback rights earlier today, specifically told[3] Ratinator to submit his request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions the next time. Nsk92 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with C.Fred. This user has been causing issues on Wikipedia which he hides by clearing his talk page. JoJan saw this and realized he didn't deserve rollback rights and took them away. He then asks a new person for rollback rights. He should not be given them so easily. He has already shown to overreact to good faith edits and not care about it. JDDJS (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection if someone wants to remove his rollback rights. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering there is more going on here than I realized, I have gone ahead and removed the rights myself. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions seems like the proper forum. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI. Just doing a little due diligence here before granting rights, and I found your thread. Ratinator, I'll respond on my own talk page, but I'd like to see you do at least a couple weeks good work before asking again. Cheers both, Antandrus (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it. He's done it again. Now he is asking User:Fastily for rollback. JDDJS (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for this forum shopping incident. I personally think I do deserve the rights for the following reasons: Never misused the tool, been recently making good edits and reading the vandalism policy, reading when to use and how to use warnings. If I continue to make good edits like another administrator has said before, do you think it is possible I will get these rights back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratinator (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to make good edits, and continue to be a trusted user, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be given rollback if you request it at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions after a while. Just focus on improving the encyclopedia, rather then focusing on getting extra tools, and everything will be fine. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it's good to be acknowledged for once. Currently I'm scanning through Category:chemistry stubs looking for pure substance articles, adding chemboxes or adding identifiers to them. Although, soon I'll have run out of stubs, where can I find a new candidate category list.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, most articles about chemical compounds already have chemboxes or drugboxes. If you're done with Category:chemistry stubs, you might want to have a look at Category:Organic compound stubs too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

CatScan could also help identifying articles missing a chembox. This search shows that Aurintricarboxylic acid is missing a chembox. You will have to alter the parameters to find more articles. --Leyo 18:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice tool. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(1S)-1-Methyl-2,3,4,9-tetrahydro-1H-pyrido-3,4-b-indole - I think that this article should be deleted on the basis of its lack of notability. Compare with Tetrahydroharman and Calligonine, I also suggest that Calligonine should be merged with Tetrahydroharman. I'm not sure which templates to use for this maneuver.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to merge the three articles into one. You can tag the articles with {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} and see if there is any support or objection to this idea. If there are no objections after a week or so, they can be combined. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Good morning, could you please look at this DIFF and perform revision deletion to remove its crude and disrupting presence? TIA, ----moreno oso (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Guess the grass doesn't grow up your feet. ;) ----moreno oso (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You caught me at the right time.  :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not yet notified Fart2000 (talk · contribs) of there block for vandalism and an inapprpriate username. Please do so. Best wishes. Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 13:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done now. Yep, I seemed to have missed that one. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I am kindly requesting that you grant me rollback rights because I know how to use them and I know my way around Wikipedia. I have read when and when not to use this tool and what it does. I know the difference between good and bad faith edits as well. Feel free to take a look at my recent edits to back up this request. Thanks --Ratinator·Talk 15:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, you're now a rollbacker. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did you check his talk page and/or User talk:JoJan#Rollback rights before granting rollback? —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw his talk page, but not JoJan's. In my opinion, rollback rights should be given out easily, and removed quickly if abused. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just exactly how low do you set the bar in granting someone rollback as a "trusted user"? Wouldn't you want to see some minimal evidence that the user understand what vandalism is and how to respond to it? Or at least the absence of pretty glaring evidence (see last section at [4]) to the contrary? Nsk92 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

True. However, it looked like a forum shop—as soon as one admin took the rights away, he asked another. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This does not just look like forum-shopping, this is forum-shopping, especially since JoJan, when revoking the rollback rights earlier today, specifically told[5] Ratinator to submit his request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions the next time. Nsk92 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with C.Fred. This user has been causing issues on Wikipedia which he hides by clearing his talk page. JoJan saw this and realized he didn't deserve rollback rights and took them away. He then asks a new person for rollback rights. He should not be given them so easily. He has already shown to overreact to good faith edits and not care about it. JDDJS (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection if someone wants to remove his rollback rights. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering there is more going on here than I realized, I have gone ahead and removed the rights myself. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions seems like the proper forum. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI. Just doing a little due diligence here before granting rights, and I found your thread. Ratinator, I'll respond on my own talk page, but I'd like to see you do at least a couple weeks good work before asking again. Cheers both, Antandrus (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it. He's done it again. Now he is asking User:Fastily for rollback. JDDJS (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for this forum shopping incident. I personally think I do deserve the rights for the following reasons: Never misused the tool, been recently making good edits and reading the vandalism policy, reading when to use and how to use warnings. If I continue to make good edits like another administrator has said before, do you think it is possible I will get these rights back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratinator (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to make good edits, and continue to be a trusted user, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be given rollback if you request it at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions after a while. Just focus on improving the encyclopedia, rather than focusing on getting extra tools, and everything will be fine. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that there is a proper license. Can you help me? Alex ^discussion 00:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what the proper license might be for that image. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. WCCasey (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Even a barnstar is not enough...

—I-20the highway 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'm curious: why did you revert that request for comment from a journalist? You didn't give a reason in the edit summary. (This revert here: [6].) --Tango (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Because he not a journalist he's a troll. Same edit to Jimbo's talk page was made by this user whose other contrib was vandalizing a user page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. A comment to that effect in the edit summary would have been advisable. --Tango (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It seemed obvious enough to me, but I'll be sure to leave a non-automated edit summary next time. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been noticing a large number of San Antonio AT&T IP's adding comments like that one you just deleted to Jimbo's talk page. Is there anything more we can do besides revert, RevDel, block, next? Should this be taken to ANI? N419BH 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best to revert, RevDel where appropriate, and otherwise ignore. Most of these types of silly vandals recognize the futility of what they are doing fairly quickly. For the less intelligent ones, a little more patience may be required, but WP:RBI still seems to be the best guidance. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

K willdo. Thanks! N419BH 19:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edgar181. Please identify yourself please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.86.42 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to have a look at my user page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How familiar are you with Wikipedia policy - what Wikipedia is and isn't?--Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to whether or not neutronium should have an info box or not, I don't think it is really a matter of Wikipedia policy or not. It's more an editorial issue - something to be discussed on the talk page.-- Ed (Edgar181) 11:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

More precisely, I'm concerned with the notion of whether the article should have an element infobox or not. Any other type of infobox is fine, but not an element infobox. Using an element infobox infers that it is a fact that Neutronium is an element, which is just not true. I have a problem with this, presenting a contested idea as the truth. Note, the IUPAC contests this idea, and as I'm certain that you're aware of, they have the last say about such matters.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have left a comment at Talk:Neutronium. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please help enforce the decision on neutronium? A tally has been made; there is more support than opposition to prohibiting an element infobox. I cannot do it personally due to past disputes over the infobox.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be at least a slight preference for removing the infobox, so I have gone ahead and done so. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure someone will revert sometime in the future, but for now this is good enough.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Thanks to do that. That user will keep vandalising my page by creating more users or other IPs, if you see his past comments (see the history of my Talk Page) he has promised to do that until my last breath. Tell me what i have to do in case (almost sure) he will come back to vandalise my userpage. Do I have to leave Wikipedia because a madman ? Maxcrc (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping the block will prevent him from continuing. However, if he does continue after the block expires, just let me or another administrator know and he can be promptly reblocked, perhaps permanently. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I wrote it out wrong so it became a red link, check their contributions and talk page you'll see they've editted since the last block, thanks anyway--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited since being blocked. They were blocked at 11:56 (Eastern Time) and the last edit was 11:55. It looks like the confusion may result from the fact that the blocking admin didn't put a block notice on the IP talk page, so I have gone ahead and done so. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright I'll go and check (the block notice on there contributions says snowwolf blocked them, he must have forgot)--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not satisfied at all with this mild action. This user has promised to keep doing that until my last breathe , as you can see in his statements and insults in the history of my Talk Page. I would need to delete my account than, since vandals are given green light to insult, threat and vandalise userpages. I don't think this is fair for Wikipedia, every good user (well, i might not be so good, but i am not problematic) will be forced to leave and vandals will become the owners. You can be sure, after 1 minute his block expires, he will vandalise my page again. What a shame i will have to delete my account. Me out and he in. If you think this is fair... Please can you apply a BOT or a protection or something ? I have been up for over 2 days without sleeping for reverting dozens of vandalism of that user. I really prefer to close my account than be forced to monitor it 24 hours a day. Maxcrc (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

He is currently blocked. There is no reason to assume that he won't learn from it. If he persists after the block expires, he will be blocked again, permanently if necessary. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Edgar, but if you read his dozens of insults and threats,. he said he and his team will keep doing that FOREVER until i will change my wikipage in the ways he wants. This what he has said over and over again in the past days. I have been up without sleeping for 2 days for reverting dozens of his vandalism and the administrator warnings did nothing to stop him. After 1 second of being warned, i did the same thing. So, there are many reasons to assume he won't learn from it. See his threats and what has the warning did: no results. I will be thankful if somebody can keep an eye on it for awhile, since it has been 2 days without sleeping to revert his hundreds of insults and threats in my page. Thank you Maxcrc (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is best to wait and see what happens. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You just blocked a few editors (Corsoslapdog and Shawnkemprules1) as they're blatant vandals and sockpuppets of an indefinitely blocked editor. I missed another sockpuppet when I reported those two: Bobthebuilder2222. He or she fits the same pattern as the rest.

It might also be worth semi-protecting Lee Corso as that is his or her favorite article to vandalize. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have blocked that user, and semi protected Lee Corso. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a robotics enthusiast, and am trying to figure out what the issue was with Robotic operating system. The deletion log says - the article was deleted because it referenced a now-deleted article. Was the content identical to Robot operating system? If so, then a redirect might be in order.

Is there a way for wikipedia contributors who aren't editors to be able to see revisions of deleted articles? Since the article's discussion page seemed to disappear shortly after the article is deleted, it's not clear to me how articles can be resurrected with different content without knowing what the previous content was.

I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. rhyre (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The article with the exact title Robotic operating system has never existed, as far as I can tell. I did find a deleted article with different capitalization, Robotic Operating System. This article was deleted by the administrator User:Ryan Postlethwaite according to the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion policy. It can therefore be undeleted at any point, if that's what you want. If so, please just let me know. The text of articles that are deleted can only be seen by administrators, but if you are interested in the text of any deleted article you can usually just ask any administrator. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It has come to my attention over the last few weeks that the structure of Halofuginone, as drawn on Wikipedia, is incorrect. The CAS number and chemical name are correct (i.e. in the 2R,3S configuration) however, the structure as drawn is 2S,3R. Could you please fix this? Don't worry, the Merck index from years back has the incorrect chemical name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.104.226 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Chemical Abstracts listing for halofuginone, I see that the CA Index Name contains the (2R,3S) stereochemistry, but the image in the listing shows the (2S,3R) stereochemistry. So there definitely seems to be a mistake there, one way or another. In my edition of the Merck Index (11th edition), the image shows the (2S,3R) configuration (but the name does not specify stereochemistry). The image at CID 62891 from PubChem shows (3R) stereochemistry, but leaves the 2-position unspecified. So at this point, my image here at Wikipedia matches the structures given by Chemical Abstracts and Merck Index, but I can't say for sure that this accurate. Can you suggest a reference in the primary scientific literature that unambiguously assigns the stereochemistry? -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now switched the stereochemistry to your suggestion based on this reference: J. Org. Chem., 2010, 75 (2), pp 518–521. Thanks for calling this to my attention. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

How can you call the block edit warring? It is clear unexplained removal of content with no explanation...ie vandalism. CTJF83 chat 22:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Either reason seems to apply. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well vandalism could result in indefinite block, since the user is not productive in their edits, also nothing was done with the IP, that my report said was making the same edits. CTJF83 chat 22:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not all the edits are vandalism, so indef blocking as a vandalism only account wouldn't be appropriate. Also, blocking the user puts a 24 hour "autoblock" on the IP, so both are taken care of. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, CTJF83 chat 23:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi.

I am an IP user, as they say, and I came on to wikipedia to look at a page. I was met by a 'you have messages' popup, and it said my IP address has been blocked for vandalism of a page on Dave Jones. I have never edited the page, or any page on Wikipedia. I am not particularly disappointed to be banned from editing, as I said I have never edited Wikipedia, and am not planning to in the future. However, I don't know why the IP was banned, was it mistaken identity or somebody else using the IP address?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.15.199 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Somebody using the same IP address as you are currently using vandalized a Wikipedia article. The IP address was consequently temporarily blocked from editing. Since IP addresses often change hands, you can simply ignore the messages on User talk:86.31.15.199 if it wasn't you. If you wish to avoid future confusion with other IP users, you may create an account and log in. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok thank you. I was just making sure, I'm not very familiar with the system as I don't use Wikipedia very much. Thanks anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.15.199 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking him,indefinitely.It looks he will never try to vandalise pages.

_Contribs Muslim Editor ^Talk 07:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Recommend fully blocking User talk:99.155.53.32 so it cannot edit its talkpage. Seems like it doesn't like you according to the last edit summary. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. For some reason Wikipedia vandals don't seem to like me. :) Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, there's this article called Wikipedia:Don't poke the bear which makes sense to this bear. Wonder what part of "Don't poke an admin" is not inherently understood on Wikipedia? ----moreno oso (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess if they had any sense, they'd have better things to do than vandalize Wikipedia anyway... -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, who you preaching to? Or are you saying I lack oxygen? Grrr! ----moreno oso (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking him. Apparently he's too stupid to know that even if he mimics other's signatures, we can still know by looking at the page history. TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you would like the attacks removed from your talk page history, please just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You can do that now? Please! Thanks, TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But those on my talk aren't the only ones. If you look at his "contributions", he also attacked Will Beback's talk. And possibly someone else's. TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but are they just hidden, or are they removed? TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The edits to your talk page are deleted. They won't show up in the page's history anymore so no one can tell that they were there. Only administrators would be able to see them. The edits to the user's own talk page have been hidden using Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Placeholders for those edits show up in the page's history, but editor's can't see the content. The other edits from this user were to Will Beback's pages, and since he's an administrator he can take care of them himself if he wishes. Cheers, -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please revoke his talk page access, as he is now blanking the warning notices. TEK (talk • e-mail) 21:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, users are allowed to removed warning messages from their talk pages. Edit warring with them to restore the warnings just exacerbates the problem. In any case, since this editor seems intent on being disruptive, I have removed talk page access for the duration of the block. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What next? He's an IP, so unfortunately we can't permanently ban him. TEK (talk • e-mail) 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As with any IP address, if vandalism again occurs after the block expires, the IP address will be blocked for a longer duration. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Edgar. I've added prod deletion tags to some articles about Indian TV Programs like Woh Rehne Waali Mehlon Ki and C.I.D. (TV series),which does not cite any reference and contains loads of original research,and they are very deformed articles,specially the first one.Fans of the series have repeatedly removed {{prod}} tags.I don't want an edit war,so please will you help me there? Coercorash^TalkContr. 05:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles do not meet criteria for either speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Proposed deletion is only for uncontroversial situations - if you add a prod tag, and someone else removes it, you should not re-add it. If you think the articles do not cite enough references or contain original research, in my opinion the best thing to do would be to make improvements to the articles to fix those problems, rather than to delete the articles. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm doing some research on nisin and I was looking at the chemical structure you posted. I was especially interested in the stereochemistry of the Methyl-lanthionine bridges since I didn't noticed it in other publications.

Then I noticed that in my opinion the stereochemistry of al Ca's of the amino acids is inversed. They are mainly L-amino acids so S-configuration and for instance the first Isoleucine has R-configuration in the picture. Maybe you should have a look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punicajack (talk • contribs) 08:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to have gotten flipped somehow. I have now fixed it. Thanks for catching that and letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am strongly against your edit block on the Jan Brewer page. Travis in travisland (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been a little while and the block is still in place. I am sorry if you are busy and havent had a chance to rethink this issue, but I would like to say again: Adding a block to this page will do no good at all Travis in travisland (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering the history of abuse that has taken place at that article, and in particular the recent highly offensive attacks including death threats, semi-protection of that page is necessary and supported under Wikipedia's Biographies of living people policy and the Protection policy. Registered editors such as yourself are unhindered from editing the article. Unregistered editors are still free to contribute at the talk page to discussions about improving the article. And contrary to what you suggest, the semi-protection has helped. There has been no further vandalism or attacks against the subject of the article since the semi-protection was instituted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There might, I emphasize might, have been a reduction in vandalism but there is also a reduction of useful contributions. Could you please bring up a verifiable source on the death threats on her person? I have only been able to find vague hints online. It would make a wonderful addition to the article. Travis in travisland (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism and threats I was referring to were made in the Wikipedia article. That's why the article was semi-protected. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So people were actually threatening her via the article? Travis in travisland (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to take your word for it. I cant seem to find it in the history.Travis in travisland (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what happened, but I strongly disagree with the deletion of the Species List of the game Viva Pinata that you commited. I don't know if there was graffitti and proffanity on the page but i don't agree with deleting it all together. If you could do anything like recreating the page, I would appreciate that. If there is anything that happened that made you decide to delete the page, please tell me why. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.243.199 (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know why I deleted an article, it really helps to let me know the title of the article you are referring to. If you are asking about List of Piñata species from Viva Piñata, the entire contents of the article were "this dum with a Sqauziil", so I deleted it because it obviously meets the speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#G1. According to the deletion log, an older version of the article was deleted by User:Closedmouth. If you have questions about that deletion, you can ask him. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Edgar181. I saw you were on the admin list to give rollback rights to users and wanted to ask if I could be granted them. I am currently doing a lot of counter-vandalism work with wikiguard but am finding twinkle's rollback feature quite slow, especially since my internet connection is not the fastest. Thanks for your time. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. Please just make sure you understand the situations where use of the tool is appropriate and where it is not. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I too noticed that you're willing to consider granting rollback rights, and I was wondering if you'd grant me them. I'd really like to get involved with fighting vandalism, as it is ubiquitous on this website. If it's not a problem, please respond on my talk page. Thanks, MR. PreZ 19:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The answer is yes, I have read Wikipedia:Rollback feature. No, I did not know that administrators remove remove rollback rights like this, as it is not stated anywhere that I've read about the latter. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is anything said about this in the article about the rollback feature, nor the first part of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Also, like I said, I wish to get involved in fighting vandalism. I am perfectly aware that I haven't done so too much in the past. MR. PreZ 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have given you rollback access. (I didn't mean to imply anything about you, just wanted to be clear.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. MR. PreZ 23:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In light of your deletion of Harvest Technologies Pvt. Ltd., you might be interested in this discussion at the CSD talk page. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I do find that discussion interesting. However, I don't think the Harvest Technologies article I deleted was the type of article being discussed. To me, the promotional language used throughout the article clearly fit the deletion criteria of unambiguous advertisement. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Edgar, can I ask for your help here? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks but you left out this and this. =P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to post this reply, but got an edit conflict: I'll help out if I can. I have reverted some of the recent edits, removed from view some of the more disruptive edits in the IP talk page's history, and blocked the IP. Since I'm not familiar with this apparently ongoing problem, if this is not sufficient for now, please let me know if there is something else that might need to be done. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've gotten the other two edits now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again Ed, this guy is a pain in the ass for me and PMD with his continued posting of that phone number of <removed> spread across a range of IP, which he has been at it for months already. What we are doing now is whack-a-mole... I really wish that there is more that can be done to stop his persistent patent nonsense/silly vandalism. Do you think it is too tall an order? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If this person is persistently posting the same thing, I would recommend requesting an edit filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested to catch and block each edit before it is saved. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm... Will it be too much to ask you to help make that request? *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I'll need some information first. Have there been identical (or nearly so) edits at pages other than User talk:218.186.8.233 that contain the telephone number, etc., or was it just those edits that I deleted? If the offending edits are different each time, the edit filter won't help much. And if it's confined to just one page, it can probably be best handled by protecting that page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Basically, it has always been the same MO for this anon editor, it's always the same <removed> (note the way he spelt out 1 instead of i) and that same cellphone number which he would plaster over that IP range. Hope this help somewhat. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have filled out an edit filter request here: Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Personal_information_of_specific_individual. Please correct it and/or expand upon it as you see fit. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the conversation there, it seems like an edit filter won't be much help. So if the problem persists, please contact me or another admin to delete the edits. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Noted, so basically I'll keep you updated whenever the pesky bugger strikes again. Cheers. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Edgar181!

I am new to Wikipedia and in fact the only reason I signed up for an account now was because I got so terribly mad over the misinformation posted here by a user called Dolomin. I was doing some research about Omega-3 fatty acids and got very puzzled over a "special novelty" called E-EPA. I was left with the impression that this E-EPA is something very special and much better than EPA. So I googled it and it turned out that this E-EPA is a product of a company called Biovita. Now since this is a Finnish company I also stumbled upon a Finnish forum where I finally realized that this is all a very well orchestrated scheme to convince users such as myself that E-EPA is something very special with science to back it up. So I started to look up who created all of these entries to this page - the user is Dolomin. He has changed EPA to E-EPA (whereas in the original research only EPA was mentioned) and also made numerous additions to other wiki articles, all of which correspond with the products this Biovita company is selling.

Can you please help me with this thing? It just seems Dolomin is here to distribute misinformation and to help fool us into buying his or her special E-EPA and other products.

--Mmeir (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

PS

I now looked at the whole history of his existence here - turns out he's the one who started the whole E-EPA page by himself. --Mmeir (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also it seems that the Finnish wikipedians have kept him out of here. Most of his claims have been discredited. All in all I suggest you delete the enitre page of E-EPA as the only purpose it seems to carry was to promote his products that have no special benefit when compared to regular EPA. --Mmeir (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article, but I don't see the same problems that you do. I don't see either direct advertising for Biovita or any "scamming". For the article to be deleted, it would have to be blatant advertising. Most of the article is well-referenced to studies published in the primary scientific literature. However, it seems that much of what is claimed in the article about E-EPA actually pertains to EPA, a different chemical compound. Also, the article relies quite a bit on research that may not translate to human health (such as preliminary animal studies). I have noticed that this is a common problem with many health-related Wikipedia articles. I'll see if I can find the time to take a closer look and see if the article can be trimmed down to some of the more significant research that directly relates to E-EPA. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thought ... if you feel this issue would benefit from a wider perspective, you could post a message on the talk page of one of the relevant WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, or maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The unblock request of Nycapple123 you granted, but he was never successfully unblocked. Hes now requesting it again. I'm keeping a close watch on his articles. — raekyT 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look and reply there. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that revocation of talk page privileges may be warranted here. WuhWuzDat 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Looks like User:Kuru has already taken care of it. Thanks for letting me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think his edits are content dispute?. Here is a list of his edits [7]. Apart from pushing ethnic-pov, the user is insulting users as well. Pashto language is spoken by around 27% of Balkh Province's population, but the ip removes Pashto from the list of main languages spoken in the province from the infobox while leaves Uzbeki language which is spoken by 10% of the population. it clearly indicates that the ip is anti- Pashto language and Pashtun people. All his edits clearly state that he is pushing ethnic-pov and bias against pashtun people. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

dear Edgar,

This Ketabtoon is well-known here by many wikipedians and writers. Specially when it´s about Iran-Afghanistan-Tajikistan related topics, he push his own POVs or deletes informations. Many writer know him as an uneducated Pashtun, because he do not respect reliable sources but uses whatever he gets to underline his own bias POVs. He is actually a sock-puppet of banned User:Alishah, Khampalak, Afghan4Real and others but he again come and come and push his ethnocentric and to a certain rascist POVs. Dear Admins, don´t get fooled by him. He uses possibly a IP-Program that provide him every hours with new IPs so he can come under different names. Just take an eye on him. He is a vandal account only. The rest of his claims are just pure BS and lies. He also asked me if I had vandalized the article about his Pashtun hero Sayaf. Of course, I didn´t.

Ps: His newest mode is to use own-made references from his own websites best regards--94.219.198.90 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest whatsoever in getting involved in this dispute. Both of you, please seek dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If there are issues of sockpuppetry, a report can be filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello dear Edgar,

I got it but I just want to give you just one proof more to understand who Ketabtoon is and why and how is is falsyfying/vandalizing articles and even uses own-made sources. Just read it a last time. Thank you brother.

The best proof is to see by yourself, dear Steve, how this boy Ketabtoon play with facts and falsify them for his own Pashtun ethnicity. Just take a look on the following click here. Please compare the two different versions with eachother and the number of the ethnical composition. Here is the original more and lesser authentic source the original source that he exchanged with with this and used the numbers of a language´s speakers not underlining that the population of Badghis are tri-lingual and speak, no matter to which ethnicity they belong, where they live either all three languages or forced, when they live among a dominant Pashtun group, to speak in Pashtu and thus are counted by the sources, as in the past of Afghanistan politics happened many times, as Pashtu-speaker and thus make 40% while their ethnical composition make only 28%. That´s how Ketabtoon fool people and vandalize articles. Nearly all his edited articles are falsified, just ask some Users like User:Tajik, Nepashgarsalar, Inuit18, Persian and some Pakistani User. They all will tell you this banned user ketabtoon who is als a sock falsify and vandalize everything--94.219.198.90 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! You "nominated" some of these files as disputed. Perhaps you could take a look and check if they really are wrong and if they are perhaps nominate the files for deletion? It seems they have been marked as disputed for a long time but nothing happend. --MGA73 (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've nominated a bunch of them for deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the block! Someone at 207.34.115.78 kept adding stupid or degrading remarks. It was very annoying. Big Roger (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Per banning policy, banned users may not edit regardless of the edits themselves. That IP's contribs, and based partially on the language, looks like an IP sock of User:Grawp. I could be wrong, but I think it's worth looking into. Tommy! [message] 18:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocking an IP that is making productive edits because one edit summary that might be suspicious probably isn't a good idea. Am I missing something? Is there anything more than this tenuous connection to Grawp? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"For epic justice;" Ive also left a note at AIV. Tommy! [message] 18:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with quite a bit of Grawp (and imitators) vandalism, but I don't think using that phrase is "practically a dead giveaway". It's certainly a possibility, but I personally don't think it's worth blocking over at this point. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright. If I were an admin, I wouldn't have blocked him either, but I reported it anyway; I don't agree with Mazca that it was "extremely bitey" but nevertheless suspicious. Thanks for the barnstar. Tommy! [message] 19:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

- Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Edgar, we had revised sunscreen to reflect correct story of founding of gletscher creme and source can be found here http://www.pizbuin.com/v1/en/brand_story.html

we also think that it is relevant that a widely marketed sunscreen currently goes by Glacier Creme. Can you allows these changes back?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/76.116.245.179 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google search seems to connect Will Baltzer with the first sunscreen in 1938. Though much of that may be because people just copy Wikipedia. The website you cite has a later date, 1946, and a different name. So I'm not sure what is right. Maybe we can find something more authoritative. As for the statement about Glacier Creme being a "brand name of a widely marketed premium sunscreen line", that just came across like advertising to me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly people are just copying the incorrect wikipedia info. If you read the entire page (http://www.pizbuin.com/v1/en/brand_story.html), Piz Buin states that gletscher creme was invented by Franz Greiter after climbing "a mountain on the Swiss-Austrian border, in 1938. In a small laboratory in his parents' home, he formulated a product that would protect the skin against the adverse effects of the sun, a product that would later become known as PIZ BUIN®." Regarding the current use of Glacier Creme®, its not advertising, it's merely stating the fact the name lives on as a trademark for a brand name of a widely marketed premium sunscreen--which is historically relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/76.116.245.179 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 19:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure which is accurate. Pizbuin.com probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources), but at least it's better than nothing, so I have reverted back to your version. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on Greiter issue. Your current revision on Glacier Creme's current use is incorrect. The brand name Glacier Creme is not currently affiliated with Piz Buin. The website citation shows a company unaffiliated with Piz Buin and marketing a premium sunscreen under the trademark Glacier Creme. I corrected to: Glacier Creme® lives on as a trademark for a brand name of a widely marketed premium sunscreen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributions/76.116.245.179 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I don't think it is relevant.-- Ed (Edgar181) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed User talk:Certification Training Program which contains a promotion made by a user that you blocked a month ago ("Spam / advertising-only account"). You may want to remove their talk page access and blank the page. Johnuniq (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore above; Dirk Beetstra also noticed and has blanked and blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I saw it here. {{db-spam}} could be applied to the page, anyway. I indeed revoked talk-page access for the user. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnuniq, for letting me know. And thanks, Dirk, for taking care of it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edgar, are you a scientologist? Why even mention Tom Cruise, MD/SD (medical doctor/sans degree) much less the "church" of scientology in a pharmaceutical's "scholarly article" thus giving them credit for having some sort of say in scholarly articles without discrediting them for their ridiculous science fiction religion. Some gullible person will read the article about Methadone, and then believe Tom Cruise actually knows the real truth. Scientologists, or potential members will think he knows something everyone else knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.9.108 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit that you made to methadone was completely inappropriate. It was inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, so I removed it. It puzzles me how you could draw the conclusion that I might be a Scientologist. In any case, if you feel there are improvements to the article that could be made by removing certain content, you could discuss such changes on the article's talk page: Talk:Methadone. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the SLS article. I was about to reverse the changes I had made with a note about the DOI number. Ataranlen (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that there was a problem in the first place. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Edgar! How do I get a copy of a pdb file for pralatrexate? I couldn't find it at http://www.pdb.org/pdb/home/home.do and a google search did not show anything either. -Tee 137.100.159.30 (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, pdb.org only hosts such files for protein structures, so unless you are looking for a structure of pralatrexate bound to a protein, I don't think you'll find it there. Depending on what you want it for, there are fairly simple ways of generating a pdb file with molecular modeling software. What do you need the pdb file for? -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Edgar181, just wanted to say thanks for blocking ip user 187.102.79.26. Cheers, MC Rocks (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Edgar, would you be willing to make a diagram showing the proposed metabolism of mephedrone, as described in figure 3 of this paper? It would be useful if it had numbers in it like the original, so that the reactions could be noted in the text and also if it could start off with a molecule that looks the same as File:Mephedrone-2D-skeletal.png. Thanks Smartse (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out, if my institution's library has access to that journal. I'll be able to check on Monday. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, if not I can email you a pdf of it. Smartse (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to a subscription for that journal. If you email the pdf to me, I'll create the image. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just sent it. Smartse (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: File:mephedrone metabolism.png. Making changes would be trivial, so just let me know if you would like any changes or additions. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! I think that the arrow between 2 and 5 is the wrong way round, but otherwise it's excellent. Could you spin it round and upload a new version? Thanks Smartse (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I flipped that one arrow. Thanks for catching that. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I blocked a user who might have been violating an ARBCOMM parole. Do you know which list I should enquire about this? I'm not sure ANI is right. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would probably just email someone on the arbitration committee. Otherwise, maybe Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I just figured out that board - it seems like a pretty heavy weight process to go through when I'm not sure of the history. I think the email is the way to go. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)