User talk:Cacycle/Archive 07

Commercial spam page for an absolutely non-notable insect repellant (and putatively ineffective scam product). The page has been created and edited by Pingfan (and an anonymous user). This user (and some other anonymous users) have also spammed articles with links to the product's website, e.g. on insect repellant and mosquito control. Cacycle (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sir Antimos is a product that has won many genuine awards in London, China, Malaysia, and Geneva. and recently selling in Korea, China, Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, in traditional supermarket. Just won a Top Brand Asia Pacific Award. I am wondering why did you mention that it is an ineffective scam product. Have you used it, did you used it correctly?

Base on our experiment. 50 mosquitoes with a single person WITH THE USE OF ANTIMOS in a single 30 m2 room, last for 20 days, the person gets only 3- 5 bites. 80% effectiveness Last for 20 days... A single person in a room of 50 mosquitoes without Antimos, will have 70 to 80 bites. in a single day...

Currently Antimos is sold by some of the largest supermarket chain in the world, and also all sold via pharmacies. I wonder if this product is a scam or ineffective...

Please review. and I will like to appeal for the publication of the company. It is a notable solution for pest control that mask the human smell, and make them invisible to mosquitoes, with effectiveness of 80%.

The reason why I place Antimos up in wiki, becos I have seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Pest_Control, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycogen_Seeds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentokil_Initial

All these websites above are company information, they have non notable products and mostly location base businesses. While Antimos is doing a worldwide business, except not selling in US, and doing sales to major departmental stores in Giant, Walmart, Cold Storage, Seven Eleven, Tesco, etc. And furthermore, it is the first to come out with a economic solution that is able to protect not individual, but a room from mosquito bites. lasting 20 days. I wonder why isnt it notable.

I have the full authorization to publish the experiment n lab result for the product from notable university, I will request that you take away the word :"scam" in your commentary. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingfan (talk • contribs) 17:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to check the following pages to get an idea of what is appropriate on Wikipedia and what is not: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Spam (BTW, these links have also been cited in the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antimos). If you feel that other articles are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, please feel free to list them for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). Cacycle (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimos Please check for any discrepancy. I will follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingfan (talk • contribs) 07:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I had to delete your recreated page as it gave no evidence of notability according to the guidelines cited above. Links to self-placed entries in business directories as well as trade show photo collections do not establish notability. The new text was written like an advertisement and violated our "neutral point of view" policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Finally, creating and editing articles about your own company [1] creates a strong conflict of interest and is highly discouraged, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Please refrain from recreating that article. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very True that it will violate the conflict of interest policy of Wikipedia. So I will ask the Malaysian Ministry of Technology and some scientist and my buyers to add a column, and my Korean pharmacy to add a column As for notability issue... Antimos is being selling in Olympic 20008 Village and and also in government website and in numerous hospitals.

All the listings are added by government pple in government website and invention award non profit organization website. http://www.psn.gov.my/program/inventiveness/enghtml/hew1.htm http://www.psn.gov.my/program/inventiveness/enghtml/hew.htm http://www.psn.gov.my/program/inventiveness/enghtml/hew2.htm

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/11/12/stories/2002111202130900.htm http://www.eureka-club.org/fullPageInv.phtml?ref=792

I appeal for a rewrite. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingfan (talk • contribs) 08:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some ambiguities and unclear/misleading statements in the LSD article you protected. Could you remove the protection? Not all IP users are vandals :)

Anyways, w/ Hoffman being dead for a bit, and LSD being out of the news now, I'd imagine whatever vandalism was related to the discussion of LSD in pop culture would have by now subsided. Thanks for the consideration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.93.86 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lysergic acid diethylamide vandalism was not related to Albert Hofmanns death. If you have some burning edits to make I can unprotect the page temporarily until you are done. But why don't you simply register a username - it's fast and you don't have to fill out any forms or respond to emails - name and password are enough. Also, it would hide your IP address and gives you more privacy. Cacycle (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to refer to pyrrolizidine alkaloids on a page about Ithomiini butterflies, but I suspect the article has yet to be written. Would you be interested in writing the article? I can send you a pdf with the chemical structures.--Wloveral (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about pyrrolizidine but most of that content should be moved to pyrrolizidine alkaloid. Feel free to send me a link to the pdf. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply. The pdf is a book chapter just released on the other side of the world. It was sent to me by the author and now resids on my computer desktop. The reference is:

• Trigo, José Roberto (2008) Chemical ecology of Ithomiine butterflies (Chapter 5, Pp. 1-25) In: Epifano, Francesco (Ed.) Current Trends in Phytochemistry, Kerala, India: Research Signpost. ISBN 978-81-308-0277-0.

--Wloveral (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to email me the file to the email address that I have sent you through the "E-mail this user" function. Cacycle (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to ba any way of attaching the pdf in the email this user page. Am I mising something?--Wloveral (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you you have to use your own email program to send attachments (I have sent you a new address). Cacycle (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved to User_talk:Cacycle/wikEd#wikEd_Bug. Cacycle (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for expressing your concerns on the recent issue Issue with TinucherianBot in Project Banner Tagging for WP:FOOD . I have make some comments at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#TinucherianBot and I am leaving this note just for your information -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 08:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that at the Atropa Belladonna article you removed a reliable source, with an odd edit summary about it being a "Google" ref (which it's not).[2] You also said in your edit summary that it was not a good source for "homeopathic" use, even though there was no mention of homeopathy in the article. Please be aware that the article has been subject to a great deal of edit-warring recently, especially about that particular paragraph. The article is within the scope of the ArbCom Homeopathy case. As such, uninvolved administrators have the right to impose discretionary sanctions on the article or the editors who are working on it. In fact another editor, ScienceApologist (talk · contribs), was page-banned from the article earlier today. I generally like to give editors a lot of latitude in editing, but I am concerned by practices such as deleting reliable sources (which is what ScienceApologist just did, and your edit was very similar to his). Generally in these cases it is better to change text, rather than just deleting good sources. Could you please give a more detailed explanation as to your reasoning, at the talkpage? Thanks, --Elonka 03:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply under Talk:Atropa_belladonna#More_homeopathy. Cacycle (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. You are receiving this note since I thought you may be interested in this disussion. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 13:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might want to have a look. --Leyo 21:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Cacycle (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, once upon a time you contributed to a discussion concerning a chart on the Psychoactive drug article, which was a Venn diagram depicting a classification system for psychoactive substances created by User:Thoric. I was under the impression that the community had spoken and that the chart had been deemed original research, and indeed the chart has been absent from the article for almost a year, but it has recently re-appeared and its creator is lobbying heavily for its inclusion. I would greatly appreciate your comments in the renewed discussion. Thanks! Steve Carlson^Talk 00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrochloric acid has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved to User_talk:Cacycle/wikEd#CSS-Error_in_wikEd.user.js. Cacycle (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

For heavens sake leave that digression in. We don't have to argue that it is a digression. But after reversing every 2 days an addition, which links neuroleptics to bugspray etc. etc. I finally added a conoisseur conspiracy section, which is really hard core and well funded by facts and references. We can remove that later, when the article is more than a stub, I guess. But for the moment it makes a whole lot of outpatients happy and makes their continuous editing efforts obsolete. And it is at least factually sound, much better than the other spurious associations which were regularly added before. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply on Talk:Piperidine. Cacycle (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we at least add that anabasine is an insecticide? Unencyclopedic tone: I noticed, that many articles are written in a contorted academic tone. In many cases this would not be required. Many facts can be stated in simple lay terms, without losing factual precision. This adds to WP educational value. (Trust me, have worked in R&D 35 yrs. Sometimes it is required to deprogram fresh academics from their academic babble, until they finally notice that they are not writing on their damned *thesis* any more.) So what was unencyclopedic? 70.137.181.232 (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure were the mentioned neuroleptics and Ditran etc. piperidine compounds. You have now a little bit focused on natural occurences of the structural motif. 70.137.181.232 (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: User_talk:Cacycle/wikEd#BUG_-_Linking Calebrw (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Looks like a nice tool, I'll have to give it a spin.

Can you check your screenshots on the commons for WikEd, etc. and add to the cat Screenshots of text editor software, or other subcat. You might consider a making an gallery and Info: page there on the gadget too. Thanks! // FrankB 18:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I hope you remember expressing serious concerns regarding category based WikiProject tagging by bots here. I made this FAQ list which tries to answer some of your concerns. Let me know if you have any questions . Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cacycle,

the Hydrochloric acid article, one of the first FA articles of WP:Chem is under FAR now regarding the 1c criterion (in-line referencing). At the time, you contributed significantly to the article. Would you please now too step in and add some explicit references to the sections with limited referencing? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DET.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 07:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:DPT.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. JaGa^talk 19:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit removing piperine, capsaicin. Colchicine should also be put back, I will change the definition of alkaloid in the article. It is now too narrow, agrees neither with established historical concepts nor with modern ones. See two refs and short explanation on alkaloid discussion page. 70.137.180.142 (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call the loosening of the definition arbitrary. First we would have to verify the correctness of the current definition in the alkaloid entry. I have given two book references you call sloppy. There are many more. IMO alkaloids are "nitrogen containing small molecules, naturally occuring in plants, animals and fungi, developed for defense, characterized by high physiological activity". This narrows the definition sufficiently from "natural products". In this sense the common amino acids would not be alkaloids, but "domoic acid" would be. Colchicine, piperine and capsaicin would be. The concept is a practical one, I want readers to find things where they expect them, and where they find them in scientific literature. The concept is not only a practical one but also a historical one. The line I follow here is historically founded, I don't want a new but incompatible definition, but we will do what the majority of literature does, even if it appears sloppy. After all the concept of alkaloids was introduced historically, to cover the active nitrogen containing plant substances after they were investigated, it is an ad hoc approach to nomenclature of already existing discoveries, and of a developing topic. If the books count piperine and colchicine as alkaloids, then we do too. 70.137.143.23 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree, please continue the discussion on Talk:Alkaloid. Cacycle (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im new to this group thing but this chemistry page talk group thing has really caught mt eye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inoimfo (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Know any command to the wikEd can open off by default after that I endorse? HyperBroad (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean. Please check User:Cacycle/wikEd_help. Cacycle (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cacycle. May I ask where you gathered the information on the stereochemistry? It's not in PubChem. --Leyo 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leyo, It is from this review article:

Elsohly MA, Slade D (2005). "Chemical constituents of marijuana: the complex mixture of natural cannabinoids". Life Sci. 78 (5): 539–48. doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2005.09.011. PMID 16199061.

I have just checked that the stereochemistry of my structure and the article agree. I might have validated the stereochemistry previously using the Beilstein database and/or the original literature. Hope that helps, Cacycle (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I replaced the ugly structural formula in Cannabicyclol with an SVG version before I was aware of your image. --Leyo 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cacycle, I've uploaded a new version of this image with the sugar group in Mills projection and no adjacent wedged bonds. I hope that addresses your concerns—could you check and let me know? Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Ben has also uploaded a clearer version of Image:Morphine-2D-skeletal.png. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the structures. They were still tagged, so I have removed the templates. Cacycle (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering what program you used to create the images of chemical structures (I was just looking at benzene) or if you knew of any free drawing software for Mac OS X.

Thanks ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanarae (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use ChemDraw and Chem3D from the ChemOffice. Unfortunately, both are not free (but there might be an evaluation version to download). Check molecule editor and molecular modeling. Cacycle (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Psilocin.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 01:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Psilocybin structure.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGa^talk 01:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have been checking images on IFD, what does that entail? Just seeing if the user's claims are accurate? I'd like to help out. --AW (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JaGa had listed some obsolete old chemical diagrams that I had made together with other chemical structures. I just checked that they were indeed low quality orphans that had been superseded by higher quality diagrams (this is sometimes tricky to decide and should be done by somebody experienced in chemistry). Hope that helped - Cacycle (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about other images? Can any administrator delete them if they feel the rationale is valid, or is there some process. I'm an admin and I'd like to work on the backlog. --AW (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not a regular there, just check the respective guidelines and policies :-) Cacycle (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just relist the debate. I'd rather do that than go through DR on something like this. It's not as if there were tons of viewpoints. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate has been Relisted. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Cacycle (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cacycle. I think the ether bonds should not have an angle of 180°. Can you adapt your structural formulas? --Leyo 17:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should they not? Cacycle (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Ether#Physical properties. --Leyo 21:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lowest energy conformation of aromatic ethers is perpendicular to the plane of the aromatic ring, so the straight orientation gives the closest analog of what you see when you actually look at these molecules... There is also no need to add the angle for graphical purposes as in straight hydrocarbons as we have the explicit O-center. :-) Cacycle (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation. --Leyo 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your productive edit on PFOA, it was very refreshing to see (been on my own with it for a while). -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some concerns/questions at Talk:Perfluorooctanoic acid for discussion thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took your advice (per Wikipedia policy!) of focusing mainly on secondary sources, by removing primary sources (even the one mentioning the Anarctic!), adding secondary sources, and swapping primary source citations for secondary source citations. this has put the article down a net of 10 sources and i wanted to get you to take a look. thanks again for pointing out the policy on secondary sources, it has helped me organize the page much more effectively today. -Shootbamboo (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dimethylformamide.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 10:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cacycle. I don't suppose you'd mind checking whether I got the stereochemistry correct in this structure? Its supposed to be the (R) isomer obviously, I was trying to work it out from the structural diagram in J. Med. Chem 1995;38(6):958-966 but its an old-style ORTEP representation which I find quite hard to interpret. Meodipt (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the correct (R) stereochemistry. (BTW, the hydrogen/wedged bonds are redundant, this would probably be a better alternative to draw that stereocenter :-) . Cacycle (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I had posted a message here, on the anti-vandal tool talk page for Lupin, with a quick patch that I think would add a nice convenience to the anti-vandal tool. I later realized Lupin hasn't been online since November 2007 (at least he hasn't edited). I can't make the patch myself because it's a protected user .js page. I noticed you have made edits to it in the past, frequently, and that you are an administrator, so I believe you still have write access to the script. Is applying a quick patch like that (and making sure it worked, just as quick) something that would be appropriate and something you'd be willing to do? If not, do you know of someone who's maintaining the script now? Thanks. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added these changes and it works :-) Cacycle (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you! ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 05:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know what you're doing when it comes to Javascript, and you seem to have some experience with Lupin's anti-vandal tool. Do you have any insight into what's causing User talk:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool#Rollback? There's a suggested fix, but it involves transcluding some javascript that the author explicitly recommends not to transclude. If you could figure out what he's fixed and fix Lupin's page, a lot of people would be very grateful. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray, it works. I just did some celebratory vandal-fighting. Thanks. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cacycle, I have just been asking for opinions at Structure drawing workgroup: Explaining Skeletal Structures and half the discussion (and part of the reason I looked at the page in the first place) relates to the section you started above on the topic of Colored atoms in structures. I was wondering if/how we can try and get more people in on this to try and come up with some proper procedures? Thanks --WhirlwindChemist (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a legitimate reason that mention of Who's Nailin Paylin should not be on the page, you should debate it on a talk page, not engaged in an edit war. It was a part of their prank call, and it is tied in with a cultural phenomenon; it is therefore relevant. Kuralyov (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was on vandalism patrol and it looked like vandalism. If you think it was a legit edit then in the future please add an edit summary and provide references. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]