User talk:Cacycle/Archive 06

Drug Structures

Hi, do you know why it is that some pages such as methylphenidate only show the 3D structure for the drug, even though the chembox has a 2D structure link in there? The 3D structures look pretty, but really the 2D structure is more important in my opinion as its very difficult for someone who doesn't know what the structure of the drug looks like, to interpret a 3D structure where bits of the molecule are hidden away behind other bits.

Yes, I also noticed this annoying image there a few minutes ago :-) Will check it. Сасусlе 02:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't suppose you would mind drawing a new structure for mesocarb? I put a png image in there but really it should be replaced with an svg, the thing is though mesocarb has a weird aromatic ring in the middle which looks like the true structure is actually a hybrid of a bunch of resonance contributors, and I'm really not sure what the best way of drawing the structure is. I drew it with permanent charges on some of the atoms so they all have the right number of bonds, but I don't feel thats really a satisfactory representation and it would be good for someone who's a bit more specialised in chemistry to take a look at it.Meodipt 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you like this one: File:Mesocarb chemical strucure.png I think it is the best way to draw it, even if it ignores the negative imine mesomeric structure (see also [1]). The mesomeric form with a maximal charge separation between the ring and the oxygen does not play a big role as charge separation costs energy. Сасусlе 03:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a beautiful structure mate, good job. A mesoionic sydnone imine eh, knew I hadn't seen another aromatic ring like that!Meodipt 05:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for all your work adding and creating pages for molecules, it has been a great help to budding organic chem majors everywhere!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.215.51 (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts regarding the List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs. I agree that the list could have been better sourced, but it was not nearly as bad as the others make it out to be. Deleting it all together was a mistake, removing unsourced entries is a much better route.C8755 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Pharmacology Update

Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:

• The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.

• The current Collaboration of the Month for November is Receptor antagonist. Please take a look at that article and contribute to it if you get a chance. Ideally, the article should adhere to the featured article criteria.

• Therapies for multiple sclerosis is currently a featured article candidate. If you are familiar with the featured article criteria, please visit WP:FAC and review the article.

• Anabolic steroid is the wikiproject's newest Featured Article, having been promoted on October 8, 2007.

• Theobromine was delisted as a Good Article. The Peer review and GA reassessment discussions provide suggestions on improvement. Muscle relaxant was recently reviewed for Good Article status, but not promoted. Please see the full review full review here for details.

Dr. Cash 22:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Rhodopsin in the membrane.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Rhodopsin in the membrane.png. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs

I am concerned by your restoration of this article, about which considerable BLP concerns have been raised. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs seems to me a valid AFD. Rather than restoring it, I think you should raise the matter at deletion review. WjBscribe 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to that, it's a BLP nightmare and should not have been undeleted. Please delete it again ASAP. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User_talk:Gmaxwell#Deletion_of_List_of_people_who_have_taken_psychedelic_drugs and Talk:List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs#Deletion of List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs for the details of this confusing and complex case. Please initiate a formal and valid AfD process to discuss the deletion of this article. Сасусlе 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unpersuaded by those arguments - the old AfD clearly covers this article. But I'm not going to argue over this forever. I will be starting a new AfD. WjBscribe 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid speedy deletion per WP:BLP, I cannot believe a fellow admin does not respect this. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the article again, per the consensus on the AfD, and the fact that it was completely against WP:BLP and should never have been restored. If you want it restored, please get a consensus to do so at DRV. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot seriously call a Wikipedia discussion that is closed after 5 min a consensus (BTW, the very same thing happened in first discussion). WP:BLP deals with content deletion, not with article deletion. Considerable effort has gone into the adequate referencing of this list and most entries had an adequate reference. Your pre-redeletion removal of content was indiscriminate, you were mass-deleting well-sourced entries, including those of proponents of the psychedelic movement and other persons whose main articles elaborate on their psychedelic drug use. Сасусlе 21:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, BLP deals with article deletion as well, if the article is in a similar state to the above. I removed every single name that didn't have a source by it. After I'd done it, I checked the sources that we in the article and they were poor, so I deleted the article. Deleted BLP violations should never be restored unless there is a real consensus to do so, I'm appaled that an administrator would restore one with not one single bit of dialogue with anyone else. I respectfully request that you read up on WP:BLP because that was a serious lapse of judgement. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list was not adequately referenced - it was a very shabby effort. The sources were hearsay in some cases, and none contained the context of the drug use. You cannot just lump together those who may have used such drugs once with those that make regular use and promote such use. The context of each entry's drug use would need to be made clear and everything sourced to the highest standards. I strongly advise that if this list is wanted, it be recreated from scratch with proper attention to given each entry context and sourcing. If you want to challenge the deletion, DRV is available, but there is now considerable Community (and ArbCom) support for the deletion of articles as incompatible with BLP as that one. WjBscribe 22:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Okey-dokey, deep breath time. Cacycle, the debate was short but four admins all said speedy delete, and that is never a good sign. Most of us agree that a BLP nightmare should not sit around while we gaze at our navels for a week, and the previous AfD covers the same content anyway. If you think a valid article can be made on the article, you can do that, with really strong sourcing, and without even needing to userfy the content as you can see it anyway. A badly-sourced article listing people who have taken drugs is a very bad idea, though, as I'm sure you'll agree. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am not even such a big friend of that page, I have generously removed unreferenced entries from that page in the past and I will not spend time on checking every single citation. However, the page is clearly not a "hate page" and as such does not fall under any speedy deletion criterion. It was listing prominent people who have written or otherwise commented in public about their use of psychedelics. Many were proponents of the psychedelic movement and many have main articles that give details of their use of psychedelics. Deleting questionable entries would have been the only acceptable move. Сасусlе 22:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs (2nd nomination). Thank you. WjBscribe 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wheel warring

Stop restoring List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs. It contains serious WP:BLP violations. You should talk about this with Ryan, or file at ArbCom if talking won't settle the matter. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aspartame structure photo

The section of the aspartame molecule +H₃N should be +H₂N instead. Counting up your H atoms goes over the known amount in the molecule.

Nevermind. I've found the alternate forms.Blackdakhma 16:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is either NH₂ / COOH or NH₃^+ / COO^− and both should give the correct number of hydrogens. Сасусlе 13:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feprosidnine

Hi, I found another stimulant that is a mesoionic sydnone imine. I don't suppose you would mind drawing a structure for it? Seeing as your last one looked so nice I thought it would be better for you to do it than me! Meodipt (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have also started the new articles sydnone and sydnone imine. Сасусlе 22:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfonic acid

Hi. Re the unstable / hypothetical! Have you any references for inorganic sulfonates or the acid? I would like to add this to the list of sulfur oxoacids, but none of the standard texts mentions either the acid or a salt. Axiosaurus (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have any references. Sorry, Сасусlе 21:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Acids like sulfurous, sulfonic and sulfoxylic which cannot be detected in aqueous solution, but have been quoted historically are a bit of a problem to describe. Obviously the chemists weasel word "hypothetical" doesn't go down too well. Personally I am not to keen on unstable either, but it is a good fix until someone comes up with something better.Cheers.Axiosaurus (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikiEd and RETF

Does wikiEd check for typos inside of links and template calls? MaxSem^(Han shot first!) 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. What kind of typos are you thinking of? Сасусlе 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are some naïve rules such as fixing accessdate parameter for {{cite web}} and so on. Looks like they should be used as neither AWB nor wikiEd can use them. MaxSem^(Han shot first!) 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2C (psychedelics)

I don't see how the mini-structures from the article 2C (psychedelics) are "NOT the 2D structure of the compound" or are unnacceptable. I have checked through them, they all seem to be correct. Please explain why you removed them. --Use the force ^(Talk * Contribs) 22:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that these images are NOT fragments or substructures of the drugs in question (which would be indicated by Rs for the sidechain and the methoxy groups). Instead they are complete molecules and they are not the drug - anisidine is not 3,4,5-methoxyphenethylamine and they are completely unrelated compounds. The second problem is that there is no need to show fragments and doing so is highly confusing to the reader. Сасусlе 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so would it be fine it these included the full 2-D structure? --Use the force ^(Talk * Contribs) 13:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure :-) Most structures already exist and can be found on the articles of the respective drugs. Сасусlе 17:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LSA (ergine)

Hi there. I'd like to add to the dispute over the psychoactivity or lack thereof of LSA. I note that you have stated that LSA is not hallucinogenic, and thus cannot be the active component of plants such as Hawaiian Baby Woodrose, Morning Glory and so on. However I believe that you may be mistaken. In TIHKAL, which is obviously accepted as the primary source in these matters, Shulgin states that LSA is not hallucinogenic at doses up to 2 milligrams. Other sources suggest that LSA may be active at larger doses. In "Pfaff RC, Huang X, Marona-Lewicka D, Oberlender R, Nichols DE. Lysergamides revisited. NIDA Research Monograph. 1994;146:52-73.", Nichols states that LSA has a relative potency of "3" (where LSD is "100"). This suggests that LSA may be active at ~33x the dose required for LSD, which would give an active dose of around 8.25mg. This is far enough above the dose range tested in TIHKAL to explain why a 2mg dose would have been dismissed as inactive, but still easily potent enough to be the active component in these plants. I would also note that LSA is considered to be the active component of Argyreia nervosa in the most recent literature available, although admittedly the authors seem unsure of this. Anyway my point is really that there just hasn't been enough research done to dismiss LSA as being inactive, and in the absence of any other suggested active components of these plants, LSA still seems the most likely contender. Meodipt 10:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relative potency does not reflect hallucinogenic quality. I am not aware of ANY human trial with pure ergine or isoergine that gave clear psychedelic effects. The crucial point is not to dismiss LSA as a hallucinogenic compound, it is to demonstrate its activity (see scientific method). You might be interested in reading Mixing the Kykeon (I have actually heard one of its authors stating in a recent talk that they were not able to experience psychedelic effects with ergine, isoergine, or a mixture of both). Сасусlе 17:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read Mixing the Kykeon, and I agree it does seem that there is a lack of evidence of hallucinogenic effects with LSA. However from a quick look around the scientific literature, LSA just doesn't seem to have been that thoroughly tested, and in vitro studies have shown LSA to be a 5HT2A agonist in isolated tissues. I'm just wondering if maybe LSA wasn't tested at a high enough dose to yield the psychadelic effects, there are several compounds where this is the case, i.e. EBDB ("Ethyl-J") was dismissed by Shulgin as being inactive when he tested it for PIHKAL, but subsequent recreational users have taken it at higher doses and found it to be quite active. Similarly Shulgin notes in TIHKAL that methysergide is hallucinogenic at 20mg, but if it was only ever tested at the clinical antimigraine dose of 2mg then you would never suspect it might be hallucinogenic. However I will conceed that these plants do not seem to have been fully analysed and there may be other active compounds in them - one paper I found on PubMed reported finding the monoethyl compound LAE-32 in Argyreia nervosa, so that does seem like another likely candidate as it is known to be active. Anyway I prefer working on new pages for compounds that don't have one yet so I'll leave this debate up to you guys! Meodipt 23:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thujone

Is thujone a toxin? Google agrees: thujone neurotoxin... GregorB (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The differentiation between toxic compounds and toxins is not always easy and absolute. Usually, the use of the word "toxin" implies a high potency and toxicity in the lower mg range and below. Thujone is a major component of certain essential oils and you need comparably high amounts of > 1 g to see toxic effects. Therfore, it is usually not called "toxin" although it is toxic (as all chemicals at high enough doses, see Paracelsus#Contributions_to_toxicology). Hope that helps - Сасусlе 23:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do I need copyright permission for your images?

Dear Cacycle,

I have used structural formulae of nitrogenous bases (C, T and U) you posted on Wikimedia to create an illustration for an encyclopedia article I am writing for Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (published by John Wiley & Sons). It is my understanding that, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License, I am allowed to use and modify these images and they to publish the result. Please let me know if this is not the case for any reason. GFDL stipulates that the "original document should also be provided". Will a reference to Wikimedia suffice to meet this requirement? Many thanks in advance.

Lev Yampolsky

Department of Biological Sciences East Tennessee State University —Preceding unsigned comment added by L Yampolsky (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lev, I double-license all my structural formulas under GFDL as well as under PD (Public Domain, see below). Some of the images do not yet carry that tag, but feel free to use them without restrictions. Please contact me if you need the ChemDraw files or a different resolution. It is my understanding that a use under the GFDL license would require to print the whole license text as well as a link to the image page on Wikipedia or the WikiMedia Commons - you might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Copyrights. BTW, it should be nucleobase, not nitrogenous base. Сасусlе 13:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. If this is not legally possible: I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law. PD Public domain false false

Image:Bupropion.svg

I'm sorry Image:Bupropion.svg was incorrect; thanks for telling me. I tried to make it as similar to Image:Bupropion.png as possible, though I now see from Image:Bupropion_chemical_structure.png that the circle was actually just oxygen, which I didn't realize. Superm401 - Talk 05:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deletion Proposals

I'm not sure why you want to delete my documents posted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nuklear

I have removed all the tags that index them to other files.

I dont think these are suitable to post in mainstream journals. I might be wrong about that but can you suggest which publishers would be interested in my work?

At first I wanted to make the references easy to hotlink and the editing is easier to do than on my homepage: www.hochemicals.co.uk

My homepage only allows for one page, large page border, and very slow at editing.

My main motivation for wikipedia then was ease of use, and also sharing my expert knowledge in CNS research with a more general audience of readers who are obviously interested in my work.

Clearly, it does not help with ones mental organization and physical communication just to do reading; In addition to this it is necessary to do some writing. These documents are essays of what I have learnt over the past decade in CNS research and development.

I have stripped the files of all synthetic data as people were at one time wrongly getting the impression that I was writing how-to information concerning the making of these drugs. This is not that convincing though since non-qualified individuals are more likely to select target drugs such as MDMA and methamphetamine which are genuine recreational street-drugs, than pharmaceuticals which can be sold to pharmaceutical distributors and wholesalers.

Wikipedia uses very unique computer coding. When I have tried to copy & paste these documents to other websites I get all of the coding regurgitated but not the same appearance as here. For example the reference tags: [1] and making words italic.

Please can you tell me where I can move my pages to where I can copy & paste the info. and get it's appearance looking the same as on this website? I'm not necessarily that worried about having to pay some money to do so. I just dont want it looking disguisting after I remove it though. That is probably the chief underlying reason why they have not already been removed. I understand that wikipedia has been reasonable to me and has allowed me time to respond appropriately and not just deleted my content without sufficient notification.

This is an example of what copy & paste looks like on google groups: http://groups.google.com/group/hochemicals/web/sndri

Interestingly, the reference numbers link back to wikipedia instead of to the bottom of the page. Hence, significant and timewasting editing appears necessary to get the articles into an appropriate format. Do you have any ideas?

You could install the MediaWiki software on a web hosting service (or even on your own computer [2]) if you like to have full control and are a bit computer-experienced. Alternatively, you could also use one of the free MediaWiki wiki farms to host your conten, start a new neuroscience wiki on wikia, or use wikibooks. Also, there should be tools to convert between html/wikicode/MS-Word formats (e.g. wikEd for html/MS-Word to wikicode). Сасусlе 22:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Searching tool

Hi, I thought you might be able to help on this one. Shannon bohle (talk · contribs) has been trying to write an extension that will rapidly search for the name of an article in a series of search engines. At the moment she is using separate templates for each article (e.g. {{Research guide Watson}}), which I think is cumbersome and prone to WP:DIRECTORY problems.

I'm not good enough with JavaScript to sort this one out. Specifically, for this to work we'd have to pass the page title as an argument to a script that will parse it into the search engine's format. Would you be able to lend a hand? JFW | T@lk 06:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am quite busy and cannot spend much time here. This sounds easy, just get the article name from the variable wgTitle and add it to the 'templates' of a link collection. Сасусlе 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref tags on wikEd

When you have a moment, please see my query. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. It will implement this but I am quite busy this week. Сасусlе 12:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Looking forward to the implementation when you have time. All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're editing on MSG

I hope you don't become the target of fringe vandalism like I was. I'll watch your talk page just in case. Cool Hand Luke 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undid your Resvertrol deletion

Hi Cacycle,

I was concerned to see you deleted a portion of tests regarding supplementation, and simply left this as part of your edit: "A number of companies have been created during the past 18 months with no previous experience in supplement manufacture to take advantage of resveratrol's popularity."

It doesn't sound professional, and no references are given for it as well. I think we can edit the tests a bit to reflect current tests done on supplements and made available to the public, but not delete this information altogether. I have seen wine lists mentioned as well as other lists. I presume if you would agree to limit the Resveratrol to information on the molecule, we may do away with the "Supplement" of that is more appropiate.

send me a post on this.

thanks Mabidex

Wikipedia is not a product guide. If a test finds that there was considerable mislabeling, then write about that fact. And most importantly, add a reference.

You might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, good starting points are WP:NOT, WP:MoS, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. It might also a good idea to start editing other articles to get a feeling for what is appropriate on Wikipedia (content-wise as well as behaviour-wise). Please do not revert the removal your test results without adequate discussion on the talk page. And finally, please sign your comments with ~~~~. Сасусlе 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transparent materials

Hi, I see you tweaked the category description to be "transparent materials used in optics", and accordingly reverted my edits that added the category on Polyvinyl chloride, Insulin, and Silicone. However, by design and by preference, this new category was not intended to be limited to materials used in optics. There are several reasons. The most natural interpretation by lay readers of the phrase "transparent materials" is one that does not exclude non-optic materials. Whether a transparent material is used in optics is, I think, a secondary consideration. There is already Category:Optical materials for that particular field of application. Conflating a field of application with a physical property seems undesirable. Keeping separate categories by physical property and by field of application is more logical and more flexible because the intersections of these categories — and of potentially multiple additional unforeseen categories — can be freely constructed by the reader (e.g. using catint on the toolserver), rather than being limited to whatever predetermined category intersections we come up with now. I also think the original category is manageable and well-defined, with the proviso that there is an unwritten restriction which I had in mind of solid or semi-solid transparent materials, and which I had intended to add to the category description. I have not reverted your change to the category description or the materials articles mentioned. I think it is worth discussing this with you, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Perhaps you could reply here to keep the thread of conversation in one place. Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Nearly) every pure chemical or biochemical compound is transparent, in your suggested broad sense your category does not make sense. This is nicely indicated by your categorization of insulin as a transparent material. As there is already Category:Optical materials I will list it for deletion on WP:CfD (or you can tag it yourself for speedy deletion). Сасусlе 07:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Hang on please regarding a CfD. I think the category can avoid being overly broad without limiting it to a particular field of application (which would make it a subcategory and possibly redundant to Category:Optical materials). I have in mind everyday materials that are likely to be familiar to lay readers, such as the transparent plastics and common minerals, rather than chemical compounds that are mostly likely to be unknown to lay readers. - Neparis (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going offwiki now, back tomorrow a.m. Please await a conclusion to our discussion. If we finish our discussion and there is still no agreement that the category is useful, then I won't object to your proposing a CfD. - Neparis (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is probably your definition of "material". The category might make a bit more sense if you would limit it to non-raw materials that are used in manufacturing products for their optical properties and that are not listed under Category:Optical materials. Then however, insulin, germanium dioxide, and monopotassium phosphate would definitely not fall under such a narrower definition. Сасусlе 15:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'd be happy to reach a compromise. Let's see what would be the best tightening of the category definition. While the definition could exclude raw materials, the problem with that is that transparent thermoplastics are raw materials in the manufacturing of several products, and the category was designed to include transparent thermoplastics. How about excluding just chemical compounds and biochemical substances because these both have large numbers of transparent members? The category was also planned to include materials that fall under Category:Optical materials. I don't see a problem with that. It seems more logical and more useful to include them too. There isn't a large number of them and many of them are familiar everyday materials which one would naturally expect to see in the category because of the category name. - Neparis (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikEdStrangeSpaces

(Moved to wikEd talk)

Regrading psilocybin molecule(s)

Hey Cacycle I think the psilocybin molecule is wrong. I'm not a chemist, but why is the the oxygen bonded to the phosphorus a anion? Also why is the nitrogen a cation? Lastly the same nitrogen cation should not have a hydrogen bonded to it. It already used up it's two hydrogens on the two methyls didn't it?

Look at Erowid's 3D structure. The nitrogen with the dimethyl doesn't have a extra hydrogen bonded to it, and the anion oxygen is a hydroxy. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. Take another look at the the psilocybin molecule when you get a chance. Thanks. --Astavats (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psilocybin is a zwitterion, Erowid shows a hypothetical neutral version of the molecule while the article shows the zwitterionic form (i.e. the H^+ has moved from the phosphoric acid-OH to the amino group). Both structures are valid ways to describe the structure, the zwitterionic form is what you find in reality in crystals and in neutral solution. Сасусlе 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my bad, as you were. I need to read up on zwitterions then, I'm yet to begin chemistry classes so I don't know all too much. Sorry to bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astavats (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

css gadget

Hi Prodego, I was just surprised by a the green-on-black layout of Wikipedia and I found the gadget checked in my preferences. Maybe I had it selected at some point in the past? Anyway, I see that it is only a test, but please could we discuss changes or additions on Wikipedia_talk:Gadget, MediaWiki_talk:Gadgets-definition, or Wikipedia:Gadget_proposals (or at least leave a note about planned changes). Thanks, Сасусlе 01:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was brought up a while ago, on VPT and VPP, and I created it then due to popular request, based on Brian0918's skin. However, it was buggy, so I removed it, and updated it to work. While I was doing so, all those pages you mention were created. Now that it is working, I re-added it. You probably had had it checked from when it was first added. Prodego ^talk 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Hi Cacycle.

I made a page for the CRF-1 antagonist antalarmin but have no idea what category it should go under, do you have any ideas? CRF antagonists are quite a significant field of research at the moment and antalarmin is the most widely recognised drug of this class so I thought it definitely needed a wikipedia page, but there don't seem to be many other pages I can link it to so its pretty much an orphan page right now! Meodipt (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you make a Category:Corticotropin-releasing hormone and put the receptors and ligands in there. You could then put the new category itself into Category:Neuropeptides. Сасусlе 01:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I made a new category for CRF-1 antagonists, made a new page Corticotropin releasing hormone antagonists, made a page for the other CRF-1 antagonist currently in clinical trials, pexacerfont, and put both antalarmin and pexacerfont into the CRF-1 antagonists category. However neither of these compounds are suitable to go in the neuropeptides category as they are both small molecule drugs. Meodipt (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about Category:Corticotropin-releasing hormone as a category for everything related to this hormone, including receptors, agonists, and antagonists. Сасусlе 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok did that too. Have a look and see if you're happy with how its all organised. Meodipt (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Anisole chemical structure.png

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Anisole chemical structure.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arsole

Hello, why did revert the isoelectronic wording? --Lordy Why Have You Foresaken Me (talk) 09:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have accidentally edited an old version, it should be fixed now. Сасусlе 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

psilocybin not an alkaloid

wow you actually really cleared this up for me. thankyou, there are alot of people very confused on this subjuect, me including. thanks 72.66.243.238 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quality chem and Template:Disputed chem

Hi Cacycle. I think it was a good idea to create such templates on commons. In my opinion erroneous images such as this or low quality images that were replaced such as this should not just be tagged. IMHO they should be deleted after a while (in order to allow the uploader to give a feedback), because they are of no more use and categories can be kept clean this way. You might also have a look at this discussion. I emphasize that it is not my intention to get good quality PNG structures deleted such as the ones contributed by Ben. --Leyo 20:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it wrong to be awaiting of a feedback on this issue? --Leyo 13:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, thanks for notifying me about that earlier but not continued discussion.

The problem is that there exist two fundamentally different kinds of files on the Commons: pictures and diagrams. The latter ones are in the same file format but have more similarity to written text than to photos. There should be different ways to deal with these two classes, allowing for an easier way to correct wrong content in diagrams. I am not familiar enough with the Commons, but I think that for diagrams they need similar guidelines as Wikipedia in terms of verifiability and quality. The problem seems to be that the experts are here on Wikipedia while the Commons seem to be dominated by photographers. It is further complicated by the fact that the Commons is a central place for all the different Wikipedia languages so that the English Wikipedia cannot serve as the only place to discuss Commons content. Сасусlе 02:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It's not only the English Wikipedia, it especially also the German Wikipedia (where I am mostly active). ;-) There, we don't allow replaced incorrect or low quality structural formulas (or other diagrams) lying around.

I added the feature to the templates to directly see for how long it has already been inserted into the image page. After a certain time allowing the original uploader to comment on this issue or to correct or improve the quality, the image should be deleted IMHO. --Leyo 21:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The low quality structures are included in the Category:Quality chemical diagrams. For me as a non-native English speaker, the name of the category suggests that high quality images are inside. If you agree, the name of the category might be changed. --Leyo 21:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. There are two sets of templates with identical names on the English Wikipedia and on the Commons (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Structure_drawing#Templatesw) and both should be changed. What names did you have in mind? What about Template:Low quality chem. Сасусlе 13:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the category, but it probably best to change also the name of the template (as opposed to the category, it's visible that low quality is meant in the template). “Low quality chem” might be the best solution, even though the name is quite long. “Ugly chem” would be shorter. ;-) --Leyo 13:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, should we move (i.e. delete and recreate) the categories and move the templates on en-WP and on Commons now? --Leyo 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead! Сасусlе 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Leyo 17:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delta opioid receptors

Hi Cacycle. I removed the stuff saying that delta opioid receptors mediate the hallucinogenic effects of pentazocine and are activated by salvinorin A, as it was wrong - it is the kappa opioid receptor that does this! Common mistake, but the delta and kappa receptors are quite different! Meodipt (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blush... Man, that was stupid... Thanks :-) Сасусlе 06:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awards Center Newsletter

I'm pleased to announce that the Awards Center will be getting its own newsletter shortly. If you want to receive the WP:AWC newsletter, put your name here. --Sharkface217 20:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag Icons

I reverted your removal of flag icons on the basis of WP:FLAGS#Appropriate_use. If you disagree, then please can you discuss it on the talk page before doing any further removals of flag icons. Thank you. Olana North (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply under Talk:List_of_town_tramway_systems_in_Europe#Flag_Icons. Сасусlе 13:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricarballic acid

I was wondering why you moved this article to a new name, propanetricarboxylic acid? Neither name is official, we are under no pressure to use either. And a redirect from your favorite name would have sufficed to accomplish your goal. I can check here for your response. thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new article name propane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid is what ChemDraw generates as the compound's systematic name in agreement with major chemical suppliers and PubChem. We usually use systematic names for articles unless there is a good reason not to, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry). I think that the systematic name is short enough and the few Google hits (306 for for 'tricarballylic acid', 92 for 'carballylic acid') do not justify to have any of these non-systematic names as the article name. I have actually created a dozen or so redirects from trivial name variants to this article, so it can be found from any of the existing names and spellings (I actually missed your variant 'tricarballic acid' with 28 Google hits, but will fix that in a moment). Сасусlе 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is ChemDraw the arbitrator or are you? Why not change acetic acid to ethanoic? Propanetricarboxylic acid is not particularly systematic. So I am bothered by this action done with no discussion. In the future, I suggest that you contact the originator of the article, especially a recently minted one, before unilaterally deciding on a rename. The talk pages also represent an alternative suitable noticeboard for discussing this kind of action. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not even IUPAC recommends "ethanoic acid"... Propane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid is the official systematic name and I did not see any potential for controversy and still do not. I simply applied well established Wikipedia rules (e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)) when moving the article. I definitely do not have to contact the originator of the article when making any changes, you might want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles to get an idea of how Wikipedia works. Сасусlе 00:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the pathology of article ownership, it's just that propane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid, IMHO, is clumsy and not highly systematic. The controversy is that the name I applied originally is probably more widely used by the insiders and would be more useful. I am sensitive to usefulness (defined how?) being trumped by nomenclaturists (not that I am accusing you of such an evil). Oh well, ... its not that big a deal, and glad that you added content.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikEdDiff

Just a heads-up - I've added wikEdDiff as a gadget since it's useful even without wikEd. --Random832 (contribs) 14:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added wikEdDiff, site-wide on a non-wikipediawiki. Though, we use a different color profile. Could you please add 'color: black to the css to change the text color to wikipedia's? --Mna Na H'Ereann 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.42.68 (talk)

I have added black text to the styles, please check if does what you want. Сасусlе 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

Hello, Cacycle. You have new messages at Rjd0060's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I fixed the wording a little and put it on my watchlist. Let me know if there are any further problems. DGG (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vandel

this guys a vandel 217.199.117.106 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.199.117.106 Alaskan assassin (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bureaucracy

addsection-plus was discussed in January; it wasn't added until now because it wasn't needed. --Random832 (contribs) 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Replace_.22.2B.22_with_.22add_new_comment.22 where it was mentioned specifically - and who put you in charge of gadgets anyway? --Random832 (contribs) 01:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to discuss this issue on Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals. We have that central place for reasons of transparency and peer review from experienced users. Сасусlе 02:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who decided this? --Random832 (contribs) 03:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Let me answer this one) This is common sense: interested parties (like me) don't have to jump to user talk pages to see where the discussion is taking place. —AlexSm 05:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to create bureaucracy for its own sake

When you claim that the fact that people object to your bureaucratic process is evidence of a need for an even more annoying process, you have a problem. --Random832 (contribs) 07:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refer specifically to The current discussion clearly shows that we do not need less, but more detailed and explicit rules and consent about what should become a gadget and what not - no, what we need is for you to stop trying to micromanage everything and just let things work. --Random832 (contribs) 07:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please put your efforts towards finding a broad consensus in the ongoing discussions instead of getting personal on my user talk page. Сасусlе 15:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

For the life of me, I couldn't figure out how to use my monobook. I recently discovered my gadgets tab. A few checks and my Wiki time improved hundreds of percent! We should have a Wikipedia improvement of the year award. My vote would go to Wikipedia:Gadget. Thank you! GregManninLB (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and congratulations ;-) But I am not responsible for gadgets in general, I am only developing one of them called wikEd. Сасусlе 18:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

Opioids template

Hi Cacycle. An enthusiastic anonymous contributor has expanded the opioids template somewhat and it is now rather messy. They have added several sections including a "components of opium" section at the bottom including all the other alkaloids from the poppy, plus plant fats etc. I feel this is inappropriate and that the "opioids" template should be restricted to drugs which bind to opioid receptors, and the "components of opium" should be split into its own template, with a link from the opium page. However I'm not sure how to do this exactly and I don't want to mess the template up, I don't suppose you would mind taking a look at it? There are a few inaccuracies in their categorisations as well which I will fix up when I get time, but splitting the templates is a bit beyond my expertise. Meodipt (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm after looking at it more closely I'm tempted to just revert the changes, as much of what they have done is just plain wrong! However they have clearly put a lot of work into it...what are your thoughts on this? Meodipt (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen such a template before, it is monstrous! Please, please, take out the redundancy, split into several templates, and change the main heading from Opioid products to Opioids. Having vitamins, minerals, and other common plant products is nonsense. :-) Сасусlе 03:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have split out "components of opium" as a seperate template, how do I collapse it? I will then get onto trying to resort the opioid compounds into a more sensible arrangement. Meodipt (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right I have done my best for now, the "components of opium" template needs attention from someone who knows how to edit templates properly though as I couldn't get it to collapse. Still not sure if the opioids are all categorised properly but I'll have another look when I got time, need to get back to my uni essays for now! Meodipt (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotics and Sedatives template

Hi Cacycle. There seems to be a problem with this template, it appears ok and all the links work, but when I try to edit it then it says that there is no such page and asks if I want to start a new one, any idea what is wrong? Meodipt (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were a few seconds faster and gave me an edit conflict ;-) Cacycle 12:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I fixed it, not sure what was wrong but managed to find a link to the history and revert to an earlier version that didn't have the bug. Meodipt (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was "name = Sedatives and hypnotics" instaad of "name = Sedatives". Cacycle 12:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Atrane

Cacycle, I think I may have treaded on your toes with regard to the above page (sorry). I replaced the .png image with a .svg image which you had in effect already reverted. In this regard can you see my comments on the talk page.[[3]] - thanks Quantockgoblin (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my edit ~ looks like you were correct all along! -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase i in PiHKAL and TiHKAL

Hi there,

Yesterday, you were reverting edits I was making to some of the tryptamines listed in TiHKAL. A quick look at your discussion page assures me that (like myself) you have an interest in psychedelics. I assure you, the lowercase "i" in the titles of the books PiHKAL and TiHKAL is intentional. Not just in the abbreviations, but in the full titles as well. The books themselves have this punctuation, if you'll take a glance at the cover artwork, or any mention of the titles within the books. It is also for this reason that the word "And" in the titles of both books is capitalized. Normally, the rules of English would suggest that "And", being a minor word in a title, should be lowercase. However, Alexander and Ann Shulgin specifically made it capitalized to draw more attention to the lowercase "i". The punctuation I've outlined for the titles of these two books is widely accepted. In fact, the titles of the articles themselves also have the lowercase "i". Swamilive (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have access to my copies to check it, but I could not find your small "i" in the full sentence title on the books online version on Erowid. Cacycle (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

importScript

Hi, I changed some of the installation instructions to use importScript. The reason is as follows: "use of write/writeln after the document is loaded can break, and requires blanking the entire page. onload handlers _should_ be getting run just before the completion of the <body> tag, but presumably there are mysterious circumstances where it's getting triggered late, or something." --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

importScript is not available on all wiki installations, either intentionally because they use a modified common.js (?) or because they use an older MediaWiki version. I will check it and might revert it. Cacycle (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the change for the moment. Please could you give me a link to that cited reason for more context. The way wikEd installs, I do not think that it could break anything and so far nobody has complained about problems. Cacycle (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I appreciate that.

Someone was bold and reduced the protection on Wikipedia:Upload.

I've cleaned up the page. I hope others find the page easier to understand.

That was an ordeal. I can barely keep my eyes open. I gotta get some sleep!

See ya around.

The Transhumanist 14:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editing your editing summaries

I am moving the paragraph that you wrote here from its current location (between "oppose" and "neutral") to "support." If I am wrong then just revert me (being careful to revert only this edit and not the 4 before that). Thank you. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Cacycle (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. [www.website.com] information about article here.