User talk:Novangelis/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia! I have messed around with the albumins, if you do not like it say so on the talk pages - or revert and improve, if you think that is the best way.

Below are a couple of links that people like to throw at beginners. If you leave them here, you can check them out when you feel like.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Be bold

I would also suggest you to check the page on edit summaries, which greatly helps others to check what you are doing. If you need any kind of help, feel free to ask at my talk page. There is also Wikipedia:Questions, or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Edit away! See you in the albumin forest, hope we'll be able to see the trees

// Habj 21:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Are you a pathologist? I'm a med student. Don't you have any images that you could upload? :) Just drop me a message if you need any kind of help! Good work here! NCurse _work 12:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out all the issues about ownership (the hospital and/or the practice may hold the copyrights). Once I get through the ownership and privacy issues, I hope to generate some images (I'm really good with a photomicroscope).Novangelis 19:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! Please let me know whe you upload images. Thanks in advance. NCurse _work 22:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider reading this.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:MED

Hi,

the main page of WikiProject Medicine has just been redesigned, comments are welcome! Please consider listing yourself as a participant.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome on board, hope you enjoy it, feel free to ask if you need help!

The project has a userbox, feel free to move it to your user page.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Examineroftruth

This might have some info you could use in your sockpuppet accusation case; I filed it this morning. FusionMix 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and enjoy your wikibreak. Novangelis (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

IP welcomed

Thank you, Novangelis, for extending a welcome :-) I have been lurking about doing the odd anonymous edit from various hospitals and only now have decided to get a proper log in. I would be delighted to help with Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. It was my disgust at finding Flutter valve listed under gastroenterology stubs and thought to be the lower oesophageal sphincter that initially prompted my sojourn into wiki editing. I'm sure I shall see more of your comments around the place. Orinoco-w (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sidefall

Thanks for comment re minor edit box. Point duly noted - I'm still relatively new to all this! Sidefall (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Spontaneous Generation

Hi Novangelis.

On spontaneous generation I'm just looking to add something to point out that the whole Aristotle thing is currently being disputed. Looking at what Template:Dubious links to, I see that it isn't quite right (as you point out, it's not really a dubious claim, just one that an editor is disputing), but I'm not sure if there is any better inline citation. I'd prefer not to tag a whole article or section with Template:Disputed because of this, but I suppose that would also be an acceptable route. Thanks for all the help on this article! -Verdatum (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll open a new thread on the talk page to clarify where things stand. I don't like having to find sources, just to protect a work in progress. I would rather have the article grow organically. Novangelis (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

d'oh, for some reason, I thought you had just removed the tag outright, don't know where that idea came from. If i had seen your edit properly, I wouldn't have even mentioned anything. Again, good stuff, thanks. -Verdatum (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A long flag to a ^[1] is an easy one to miss. My comment, Not dubious: "Aristotle gathered the different claims into a real theory." looks like yet another flat revert if you don't see the quotation marks. Sometimes you can't predict how people will see things. I'm try to follow a basic idea: Don't get mad. Get sources. This can be a really good article. This is a subject that everyone has heard of, but few people know in depth, and there are so many colorful aspects. I'm glad someone took the effort to make this more than a preface to abiogenesis.Novangelis (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nova,

I am proud of where SG is going. It is the most important piece I have been involved in. Realising that there was no page for this was in intself quite exciting and watching my baby be created without much input from me is great fun. IceDragon64 (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to be of help. This is the most complex subject I've worked on from such an early stage. I'm far more a scientist than a historian or philosopher, so it's good to go back to fundamentals. Novangelis (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light

I reversed your edit on speed of light. The speed of light is a defined value, not a measured value. So the observation can be made that all electromagnetic radiation travels at the same speed, but it cannot be observed what this speed is. Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The speed of light is measured to define the meter. The definition of the speed of light depends upon the measurement of the speed of light. Novangelis (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Differential scanning calorimetry

Thanks for your spelling corrections - I have always been rubbish at spelling... It's made me now to try to use Firefox, as IE7 lacks any spelling checking. Ronhjones (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Cleanup is easy. Good content is worth it. Hopefully Firefox will be the tool that let's you do the latter without needing the former. Novangelis (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Stability disambig changes

Please be careful when changing links to general Stability to the very specific BIBO stability. BIBO stability describes the behavior of a linear system with a very special input. However, it makes no sense to apply to nonlinear systems (i.e., systems that do not have impulse responses), and it doesn't make sense to apply to systems with no input (e.g., the linear system $x'=-x$, which is stable but is not BIBO stable). In many cases, the original author used the stability link in order to emphasize that the system would always return to its origin. Changing to an input-to-output notion of stability confuses the issue. If you must disambiguate, consider changing some stability links to point to Lyapunov stability and others to point to BIBO stability and yet others to point to Input-to-state stability based on their context. —TedPavlic (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was being careful, but it has been a while since I did any engineering work. I'll look over all my changes. I know that there are a number that I will not change. There is nothing for calibration stability or frequency fluctuation. I'll also make sure not to edit if I'm tired or distracted. Thanks for the heads-up. Novangelis (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

...and I've used stability theory, which is more general than Lyapunov stability, a fair amount. Novangelis (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- MifterBot I ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

	Thank you for joining Cardiology task force, a collaborative effort to make the project more comprehensive and allot of improvment needed for many articles. Below are some ongoing tasks for you to take part in, or you can add a task to do. Another great place to check out is Category:Cardiovascular system stubs. Happy editing, T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Cardiology task force, tasks you can do:

Heterogenesis

My little page about heterogenesis got deleted. The reason given is that it was only a dictionary definition- which is quite true in itself. I produced a simple definition and the apt links, which, given that all sorts of information is there on the other pages seemed all that was neccesary. Obviously we should have a page, but what else should go on it? Are there things to say about heterogenensis that is not on the other pages? Or should a little about each sense be on that page, or should we insist on reinstating the page as it is? Best Wishes,

IceDragon64 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how to best approach that. I saw the deletion. I'm trying to decide if it warrant's a new page or not. I'm far enough along in my reading to know that I'm about to expand beyond Pasteur. When I'm done with that, I'll revisit heterogenesis. Expect to see some expansion in the section. Many of the terms are ambiguous as certain translators applied them to the ancient writers in retrospect. In different works, they have different meanings, and in different translations different terms reflect the era of the translation. This is why I looked to Huxley who coined the term abiogenesis, but the term has multiple meanings with different synonyms for each. Huxley's writing even contains the portmanteau, spontogenesis. I'm close to writing some more; expect a few expansions in the next 10 days. Novangelis (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Consciousness shift

Great minds think alike, I guess, as I was just about to prod that article myself. I looked around for an appropriate place to redirect that term, but came up short. Prod seemed the next best course of action. Thanks for beating me to it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always nice to have an independent confirmation on these matters. Novangelis (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. You can return the favor, if you are amenable, by taking a look at Utopian music, which I prodded earlier this afternoon. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A topical theme is not a musical genre. It's on my watchlist.Novangelis (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite so and well said! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Testicular cancer

wonders why this user is ripping the testicular cancer wiki page in favour of him self or friends? and deletes usefull links and support links and famous survivors? he mite want to look at the rules of wiki abuse of powers before i do and so something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.55 (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage you to look up the relevant policies. I am enforcing the "rules" of Wikipedia and have no conflicts of interest to disclose. I will not tolerate meaningless threats, especially unsigned threats.Novangelis (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice!

[1] Well done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. After the flurry of activity last month, I'm surprised it wasn't done sooner. I guess the blogosphere has a shorter attention span than Wikipedians.Novangelis (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason for reverting addition of portrait of Sagan

Is this not related and appropriate for the external links section? How could it be accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewg42 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not appropriate. Links normally to be avoided #11: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites..."Novangelis (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What

What do you mean I know better? 80.195.252.128 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who can cite policies about blanking user pages must know that article page blanking is wrong.Novangelis (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

PZ Meyers

That was a mistake, I apologize (removing the references was just an error I made while editing). The previous "editor" removed the whole section about the "T-shirt incident" because he claimed the references didn't mention it. I check the references and they didn't mention that specific incident or the student's name, so I inserted ref from the Creation "museum" owner's blog about the incident (this was the only notable source I could find on Google relating to the student being expelled - and since it was the owner's own account of the incident, quoting it in the article as a statement from the owner would seem to solve the previous editor's concern). Thanks.--SuaveArt (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur C Clarke

Hey, why do you keep reverting my edits. It may create an edit war. I am trying my best to add to the page. You are trying to discourage me. Do you have an issue with Arthur C Clarke? Maybe you want to look after Michael Crichton and H G Wells' pages. Don't get sentimental. Use logic. Logic dictates. All my edits were useful and not useless. Moreover they are "factual". ankit 18:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs)

You are ignoring all comments. I am not try to discourage you. I am trying to get you to write in an encyclopedic manner. If you looked at page history, it is clear that I do not have an issue with Clarke, but with your edits: the weight you are giving to weak sources and your editing the lead without regard to the established content in the body.Novangelis (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I was puzzled by the removal of so many external links, including a number of obituaries. Surely each obituary is a unique resource?--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No. In fact, "so many" and "unique" are contrary. I kept IAF because Clarke was a member. In fact, he was at an IAF conference when Sputnik was launched and the site includes his 50th anniversary remembrances. Blind reversion can restore links that should not be restored and lose other changes.Novangelis (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not contrary, unless all the bio' information in each obituary appears in the article and/or are copies of each other. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. The fact that the text differs does not make something a unique resource. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Links should be included because they add something that cannot be added merely by doing good research and writing a good article. Stringent criteria should be applied.Novangelis (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's crap. Obituaries are a very good resource, but I can't be bothered anymore. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Euclid Vandalism

The user Novangelis, keeps reverting information on historical euclid data. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclid&curid=9331&diff=340981569&oldid=340980627 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Euclid&curid=76413&diff=340975187&oldid=340962285 He quote states "Link does not support claimed content or display any content text" If you follow the link or read which was posted on the talk page you see that there is historical data on oriental origin of euclid. Please stop the vandalism or im forced to report your action. --DuKu (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Novangelis keeps reverting a link ( http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Euc.+1 ) i try to add to the wiki of euclid and seems to always find another execuse. - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclid&diff=341002912&oldid=341002772 - reason: remove duplicate link to one in - →References - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclid&diff=341002912&oldid=340980627 - reason: Link does not support claimed content or display any content text http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclid&diff=341002912&oldid=340972918 -reason: misformatted, unnecessary link --DuKu (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Just flagging that this seems to be turning into an edit war. I've tagged Duku's page and am assuming they're a new editor Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Novangelis accusation continues. He claims i deleted something under a report of the user Finell. If he keeps up with his wrong accusations im forced to report him aswell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Finell.27s_accusations_.28related_to_my_bann.29 --DuKu (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Skepticism

I see you have noted the edit war at Skepticism and have notified Wiggalama. I have invited User:Wiggalama to participate in a discussion. The edit warring needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch

[2] I didn't know there was an overarching subject. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Pointless legal threat

Extended content

REFRAIN FROM LIBEL, REFRAIN FROM CYBER-STALKING Your gang said: "Edit warring, promotion of fringe views Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Your edits to macroevolution were promoting a viewpoint held by such a small minority among biologists as to fall under WP:FRINGE guidelines. Our articles have to conform with WP:WEIGHT policy when it comes to showing such minority views. You were also using AiG as a source – verification is required from a reliable third party source, not from creationists promoting their own views. Please discuss your proposals for changes on the article talk page, and refrain from edit warring which is not the way to get anything in articles. Thanks, dave souza, talk 21:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Information.svg Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. — Scientizzle 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Scientizzle 16:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)" All you are doing is making mere accusations and of the very things you do. I will not be drawn into an endless fight against your cyber-harassment. If you want me to press charges against for breaking federal law against Internet harassment and libel, keep it up.Oriclan (talk)

Indef blocked per WP:NLT Vsmith (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw it. I was in the process of filing a sockpuppet report when it happened. Given the prior series after the master was banned, I didn't think it was moot.Novangelis (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... wasn't aware of the socks. Vsmith (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hostile

I perceive Verbal's approach to me to be "hostile", iow unfriendly, unhelpful, negative. This is my judgement, and I am quite entitled to make it, on my own Talk page. TickleMeister (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are not so entitled: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia."Novangelis (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Characterising another editors comments as hostile is not a personal attack. Stop harassing me. TickleMeister (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Healthcare Informatics Tools

Any advice on how to get a list of Healthcare Informatics Tools? We need a good discussion of these tools, Wikipedia would be a big help in developing an international consensus on these tools. --Dirkstanley (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for generating novel ideas or nomenclatures. Wikipedia will only follow published data. Out in industry, there are groups trying to get their nomenclatures recognized. Wikipedia should reflect what is happening, not be a battleground for the standard. About the farthest you can get on Wikipedia is trying to keep articles consistent in terminology by consensus (using what seems to be the most recognized published standard). Getting a vibrant working group together for the project would be a challenge. You could try to drum up interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, but that is languishing. If you look at the activity at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week, you will see the problem.Novangelis (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So - I think I can provide references for these tools - I just need a few minutes to build them in. If I can provide references, do you think this is something that won't be deleted? (The Healthcare Informatics community is small, we just need a little time to develop the references and I think we might be able to make it fly.) Or do you think this is something better left to CMS or Joint Commission? Willing to listen to your opinions. --Dirkstanley (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be best off working outside of article space. Develop a simple example and allow time for comments. A request for comments wouldn't hurt. Keeping terminology consistent (e.g. not having three articles for three synonyms) in Wikipedia is a job for Wikipedia, but the published standards must be developed externally.Novangelis (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your help - I'm actually trying a crowdsourcing approach through Twitter and the Healthcare Informatics community. Give us a little bit to work on the references, I think we can pull it off. Appreciate your comments and help.--Dirkstanley (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC) By the way, how do I work outside of article space? And how do I establish the synonyms for those other tools? --Dirkstanley (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are specific policies for working pages. Also, you might want to ask people to identify that they were summoned to Wikipedia. There is a fine line between generating interest and canvassing. A little disclosure goes a long way in avoiding misunderstandings.Novangelis (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I appreciate your input and guidance. Certainly not looking to canvas - But the healthcare community would benefit greatly by a robust national discussion of these healthcare informatics tools. Thanks again, and I will help guide good referencing. If at some point you think it's failing, feel free to delete the entire page and its contents. :)
--Dirkstanley (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there is an active and robust discussion, including some of the nation's biggest healthcare informatics people, currently underway to develop citations and better discussion about these tools. Will continue to work on this over the next seven days. Thanks again for your help. Dirkstanley (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on things with interest. If what you do turns out not to fit in with Wikipedia (for example there is a policy that Wikipedia is not a technical manual), but is working for the group, you might arrange to have the on-site material, complete with revisions, stored. It should then be possible to to set up a private wiki for the group to continue collaboration. Any transferred materials would need to be attributed by the open-source license. I don't know all the technical details on what exactly can be done, but in general, you can find someone knowledgeable about such matters fairly easily.Novangelis (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Doppler guided transanal dearterialization

Hi. You recently participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THD method. You might like to know that the article has been re-posted yet again, word-for-word identical, but my speedy request was declined so I've started an AfD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doppler guided transanal dearterialization. andy (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Euclid

Hi. You deleted my insertion of Bellos' book, "Here's Looking at Euclid", into the Euclid article without discussion saying it was off the topic. I knew it wasn't 100% but there were enough interesting references to Euclid in the book that I thought I might add it, despite the title pun. You were quite quick in unilaterally moving in on it.

• Bellos, Alex, Here's Looking at Euclid, Free Press, June 2010. ISBN 9781416588252

--- Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "not about subject" in the edit summary means off-topic. The book does not add anything except the fairly obvious pun for someone trying to learn more about Euclid. It only takes a brief perusal to reject such a link.Novangelis (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. There are a lot of references to Euclid and his mathematics in the book, not just simply the title. I wouldn't have added it, as a veteran editor, otherwise. It's not high-brow, even though the author Alex Bellos studied Maths at the University of Oxford, but one thought it might pertain obliquely. You didn't read it. I did. Hmm. Pity, that. Bests, anyway. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer Waters 10:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HIV exceptionalism

Hi Novangelis! Thanks for participating in the AfD I initiated, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HIV exceptionalism. I have a question concerning your vote. Please answer there. Again, thanks. Spatulli (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops!

Re this message: some mistake surely? This guy is a pain in the arse but he has never touched that template, nor has that heavily used template been nominated for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A very stupid error. I had the template window open, at the same time as the AfD window and copied the text to paste onto the user page from the wrong window. The template shows the self-referential advisory. A classic case of what can happen when using an unfamiliar computer while distracted and rushing.Novangelis (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Nalidixic Acid

Thanks. The reference for nalidixic acid as a byproduct of *chloroquine* synthesis is: Wentland MP: In memoriam: George Y. Lesher, Ph.D., in Hooper DC, Wolfson JS (eds): Quinolone antimicrobial agents, ed 2., Washington DC, American Society for Microbiology : XIII - XIV, 1993.

See the Wikipedia article on quinolones, which mentions the work of George Lesher. Lesher is also credited with nalidixic acid discovery on the Bayer Healthcare Website, http://www.baytril.com/6/History.htm

The reference for quinine not being manufactured (the synthesis of quinine, among other things, is what got Robert Burns Woodward the Nobel) is the Wikipedia article on quinine. Because of its toxicity, quinine is currently a niche drug, reserved for chloroquine-resistant P.falciparum malaria if alternatives are unavailable- especially the cerebral malaria variant, where one advantage of quinine is that it can be given intravenously. Its major use today is as a food additive - it is the bitter principle of tonic water.

See also the detailed Wikipedia article on quinine total synthesis - a new synthesis was achieved in 2001 by Gilbert Stork - but again, this process has not been industrialized.

Prakash Nadkarni (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your changes - I just didn't want to erase the incorrect Andersson reference without stating a reason for it. Incidentally, "quinine" refers to a single molecule, not to a organic chemical family. The -quine suffix in the names "chloroquine", "primaquine" etc. was*inspired* by quinine, since these are antimalarials, but the chemical structure is quite different and much simpler to synthesize. (The heterocyclic ring in quinine, which is really a three-dimensional rather than a planar structure, is very tricky to duplicate.)

Prakash Nadkarni (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Lynne McTaggart

Hi Nova, just a note to say thanks for your contributions on the article. Sorry about the Revert of your edit. I wanted you to know it was nothing personal, just seemed like the most efficient way to get some of the text back in and yes, citations are needed for that text and I'm working on that. Again thanks, and sorry for any misunderstanding the revert may have created. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Re aspartame controversy editing

I did a cursory review of the edits of User:Arydberg, and here is what I saw:

• Addition of some information (sourced) about Phenylketonuria, reverted by Brangifer with the cryptic comment "I hope you understand why your addition was reverted." I think I know why it was reverted, but I can understand why someone with under 200 edits might not know.
• A request at the talk page for an explanation (exactly the right step) Marked resolved fairly quickly.
• A warning on user talk page regarding disruptive editing. Not the clearest case I've ever seen, but possibly useful as a start to a dialog.
• A snarky response by Arydberg.
• A final warning.

In my view, the final warning has followed far too quickly, with too little discussion of problematic behavior. Unless I'm missing something, the only explanations on Arydberg's talk page is that editor is in violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, without an example supporting the claim.

Please note that while Arydberg's edits go back to 2007 s/he has only 157, so is still quite the newbie. The discussions taking place are far tamer than many internet discussion areas. You and I both know that Wikipedia has different guidelines, but it is a bit unfair to presume that Arydberg fully understands that at this point.

Let me re-emphasize that I haven't reviewed all the edits - and after writing much of this, I realize there is a discussion at Talk:Aspartame which may bear on the subject, but while I agree that Arydberg's editing is problematic, I'd like to see a little more patience in terms of how to respond. Do you disagree?--SPhilbrickT 13:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The crystal ball comment followed this post; it was the last post prior to the advisory.

There is an important context to his behavior. He shopped noticeboards, trying to get approval for his website to be included:

• Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 4#testimonial evidence
• Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 30#aspartame controversy
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 85#personnel testimonials

It could be established that he should have known his testimonial would not pass muster by December 28, and yet he was trying to bring testimonial evidence to the talk page on January 5, for which he was advised that it was not a forum: [3]. Other previous advisories: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Although some could be construed as cryptic, several were quite explicit. With the number of times that policies were brought to his attention, and the both the nature and the timing of the response (he had intervening edits on the day between the talk page advisory and the day he decided to copy it to the noticeboard), I felt it seemed more like willful disregard rather than naïveté.Novangelis (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'll look at them shortly.--SPhilbrickT 17:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a combination of willful disregard, naïveté and lack of competence. He (yes, it's a "he") simply hasn't a clue as to how science works, is too far into conspiracy theory thinking to get the point, and doesn't seem able to understand our sourcing requirements. Wikicluebats don't work. Just look at his comments on the talk page. That's where most of the warnings and advice have been provided, and he's gotten lots of advice and explanations that are received like water off a ducks back. My "cryptic remark" was a sincere wish that he understood, but it also alluded to the distinct possibility that he hadn't a clue, in spite of numerous previous explanations and pointings to policy that should have meant he would "understand why".

A topic ban for him and User:TickleMeister (TM) would be a good thing. They are both fringe POV warriors, especially TM who is a pure single-purpose account who would rather complain and use the talk page as an anti-mainstream science forum than provide constructive examples of specific wordings backed up by good sources we could use. THAT'S what the talk page should be used for. Lately he actually did come with a possible source, and it's got to be the bottom of the barrel as to an example of what we definitely DON'T allow here: Talk:Aspartame_controversy#Huffington_Post_article. This reveals a gross lack of competence. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Some more background on my entry on Arydberg's talk page: User_talk:Arydberg#Phenylketonuria. The reason I call it incompetence above is that Arydberg had been working on preparing this for some time and we had been watching him do it, yet he repeatedly tried to use it, but didn't understand that when the subject had already been covered, we just didn't need it. It's not that the content wasn't good, it was simply unnecessary, but he pressed on anyway. I'm not going to out him, but he's easy to find on the internet where he tries to get people to send him their testimonies. He frequents discussion forums where these conspiracy theory advocates gather to share their stories of how they are suffering from the awful and deadly effects of aspartame poisoning. It's there he finds his anecdotes and he considers HIS collection of these stories is somehow real scientific evidence which we should use and link to. We have disappointed him by repeatedly denying his wish. I think you can understand why! -- Brangifer (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is outrageous. It was from a previous discussion that I came up with the idea that personal testimonials are indeed important evidence. It this doesn't work for wikipedia I can understand and accept it. This is still important data and serves a purpose. My complaint is that, after refusing to publish personal experiences, you allow paid commercial websites (that are clearly biased to promote aspartame) to be used. If a disclaimer works for them, why not a disclaimer for personal experiences? I am retired after 9 years of working for the department of Neuroscience at an ivy league university. While not a professor I do understand scientific principles. As well as basic fairness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 01:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That's a classic "own goal". I really don't need to say anything. My point is proven. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's another example demonstrating a lack of competence. Note the very next diff in response. It seems that anything that even mentions the subject, no matter how unreliable, out of date, weird, etc. is fair game for this editor these editors. It seems like our RS policy is totally foreign to them. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

...and yet more. Take a look at this and the next four(?) edits which show what happened and its resolution. This happened in an article, not on a talk page! -- Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)