Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:12, 7 March 2008

Please do not remove any information from this page.

• Archive 2005-2006

• Archive 2007

• Disemvoweller

Tacrolimus

Can you provide a 2D molecular image (in svg format) of tacrolimus as offered on your user page? -- 212.41.120.19 (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I sure can, and I will, as soon as I'm back from vacation. I don't have the necessary software here at my current location. Fuzzform (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Milnacipran.svg

Hi there Fuzzform, I've copied Image:Milnacipran.svg to Commons so it could be used on the German WP. Would you mind if I deleted it locally? Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would, and yes, it is possible :) Just create an account over at Commons and start uploading over there instead; it's as simple as that. (Fair use images are off limits, though, and can only be uploaded to WP.) If you need any further information, this link can provide some, or you can just ask me on my Talk page. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

DrugBank

No, I wasn't aware of that; DrugBank has undergone quite a major overhaul.

As for copyright, the site states:

DrugBank is offered to the public as a freely available resource. Use and re-distribution of the data, in whole or in part, for commercial purposes requires explicit permission of the authors and explicit acknowledgment of the source material (DrugBank) and the original publication (see below). We ask that users who download significant portions of the database cite the DrugBank paper in any resulting publications.

I can't think of any WP articles that have been copy-and-pasted from DrugBank; have you come across any recently? As for growing credibility and clout—isn't that what we're here for? :) I, for one, am really glad we're doing our part to make sure the quality of content matches (or outstrips) WP's credibility! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The article was created after a WP:AFC request by an anonymous user. Do you think there are more such stubs (C/P'd from DrugBank, that is)? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Zopiclone

That's already the racemic compound. The image is a little bit misleading at thumbnail size; it has a "squiggly" bond (undefined stereochemistry), not a hatched wedge (S-). If you'd like to upload a new version anyway, you could use a filename like "Zopiclone racemic", "Zopiclone structure", or "Zopiclone skeketal". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Adinazolam.png

A tag has been placed on Image:Adinazolam.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Guide v Guides

I have entered a reply to you on Style Guide Talk. I wonder if you could direct me to where such a debate would be reviewed?
ThisMunkey (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Style Guidance

What about that one?
ThisMunkey (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review of Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah

Hi. I noticed you took part in the debate at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox and I was wondering if you might want to participate in a debate I have started at deletion review of this category and accompanying userboxes here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. I got your name from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members. I've got too many things going on at the same time. My apologies for the confusion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

your Opinion

What is your opinion about the guidelines for scientific names, third section, Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Alternative_names? What category does mammal/mammalia fall under?
ThisMunkey (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I new you'd something interesting to say about it. I am not familiar with the IUPAC. But, where heavy water (in paricular) is concerned, it promotes a little learning to find "deuterium oxide", which I was also unfamiliar with until reading your message. This is what I am trying to promote. I dont underestimate the negative value of overcomplicating or "ridiculating". I have a vested interest as I am often interested in these type of things but have little formal education. My case for it also is that I would have found a great interest in that stuff long before the age of learning it in school and wording stuff correctly not only makes for more info but makes for easier digest. This type of thinking is mathematic and ancient. That promotes the knowledge to kids as well as unlearned adults like me. Not the math of constructing it, but the waterslide of reading it.
The thing to pay attention to, I believe, is in a case such as "mammal" vs. "other wording" is not the understanding but the provision of (providing) understanding/avoiding over complicating words. With "heavy water" versus "mammal", mammal is very early understood as such and mammalia would be complicated, whereas with "heavy water", it implies sientific terminology (ie: Heavy water?). Including "dueterium" provides something of extra interest. The same applies to baking soda/sodium bicarbonate which could be titled:- Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda). I think that plurals do a secondary role in the debate of naming convention.
I knew when looking at the article "Style Guide" that the title did not reflect a document of learning the subject (only the word, its hard to make that sound convincing). Whereas "Style Guidance" is the subject as opposed to "Style Guide" being the product of the subject. IE: "Style Guide" is merely a part of that article albeit the largest. Example: Humans or rodentia are probably the largest part of mammalia and most signifigant by far. Although a style guide does not bear a seperate name to style guidance and is the most signifigant part, it is merely the product of the tree. I would not dispute the validity of "Style Guide", but I would promote its development (the idea of a specific style guide is unsurprising, but the details of the conventions are new to me and interesting, I couldnt help seeing that "Style Guide" was a part of a bigger "Style Guides" history hence "Style Guidance". The subject may have a Latin name or other I have no knowledge of).
Although plurals may be avoided I think that "Style guidance" refers to a subject and "Style Guide" only suits a dictionary definition. "Style Guides" was a bit irrelevant.
ThisMunkey (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• My main view of input to the encyclopedia beyond providing a fact or a reference is putting the words around as is often more important than spelling corrections (ie: encyclopedia versus reference book). My argument to WP:DICT because the debate was very well articulated in some cases but the response was not entered into in any reasonable way (going back years). The articulation should delete the ignorance every time (human) as opposed to creating a rebellion to get a response. The wide consensus has always been that ignorance (not lack of knowledge) is a bad thing. In some circumstance ignorance has an excuse but as a broad leaf it could be plucked.
  ThisMunkey (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  

Actually it turns out that the policy is on maximising search engine hits (Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions), whereby Style Guide may be top of the list regardless. I would still say that the subject is notable (Im sure there will be a good article on that page about the development of style guides).
ThisMunkey (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Scholar

The way the term scholar was treated at that time was ridiculous and all contibutors to the disscusion were intelligent, hence "FOS" remark and apology here for offense. Note lack of apology on certain user:talk page.
ThisMunkey (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is gaelic football. It is a bit like soccer football where they carry the ball but they must bounce the ball off the foot while carrying it and a rugby tackle would get you sent off the pitch. See also hurling. As for what I was talking about here was a similar remark I made in December to someone else on a different topic (how scholars and scholasticism have no place on wikipedia, I said "You are full of") You are right, this isnt the place to be rude even if someone is a bit ignorant, just a pointless redirect was set up for some time whereas the proper link would have shown a very good article.
ThisMunkey (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Main page#Computer game article yesterday

If I am annoying you just tell me. What do you think of this?

What do you think of this - ?

An administrator replied to this that books are boring and he would prefer this book about child abuse. I want to have a go at getting him de-admin-ed. Where would I bring that up? (go see Talk:Main page#Computer game article yesterday) ThisMunkey (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)