User talk:Fvasconcellos/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit count · edit summary usage · blocks · deletions · moves · protections

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 14 |

Archive 15

| Archive 16 →

DYK update

You missed 2 things when you updated the template. First, you forgot to add the DYK talk page template to each of the articles. I added it to all of the articles in that group. Second, you forgot to credit me and User:Erich.a.knelsen. I credited Erich, but I think it looks better if someone doesn't credit themself. Would you credit me with the DYK credit template for Article One (band)? Royalbroil 05:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, we all got each other's back! Royalbroil 14:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

late reply

Hi Fvasconcellos, sorry for the very late reply to your message. I'm back now, in a limited fashion. Check your e-mail, please. Hope you're doing well! :) --Kyoko 16:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Guernsy

I was curious, what did you use to make the leaves? Did you do them by hand? Very nice stuff. §hep • ¡Talk to me!

Ahh, still got to get the hang of all the ins and out of InkScape. Thanks for the reply. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Loong Wiki-break

Thanks! I've had a pretty busy year so I had to resists editing! I'm amazed to realise that this wiki-break has lasted for nearly a full year! Sadly, I suspect the coming year might more of the same!!! But there has been a lull in the storm in the last weeks so I've been pottering about here and there on some of my old stomping grounds! Oddly, it was seeing a few of your images at work e.g. Bicalutamide that drew me back in ~ I thought hey I (wiki)-know this guy!!! Hopefully I can get a few more edits in before the wolves surround me once more !!! Don't worry it is not that dire, but free time is not so free at the moment. Hopefully you (and the others) can have all the fun editing until I get back in the swing of things again. Cheers again for the message -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sertraline for FA?

Hi, Fvasconcellos. I wonder if you could look at Sertraline. Do you think the article is ready for the FA nomination? I would greatly appreciate any suggestions and help. Many thanks Paul Gene (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you did take a look. Thank you again. Any general comments? Paul Gene (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I do not want to distract you from anything important. Your help is much appreciated. I owe you for what you have done. Paul Gene (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed 13–45 hours range—that was the result of my fight with dashes—forgot to replace one. I was surprised to see that wide of a range too. I am giving the range, because the average numbers (in the next sentence) do not give any idea of how variable they are. That range (13-45 h) was observed in just 10 volunteers, so both of the extremes (13 and 45) are likely to be seen quite often. Paul Gene (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing a lot of copyedits over several days. I take it that there are no major problems with the article that could interfere with FA nomination. Casliber is not sure about the readability. Are you a sufficiently lay reader to say that there is no excessive jargon, and the article is reasonably readable? ;) Paul Gene (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Drug patent information into info boxes?

Fvasconcellos - I believe you are interested in all things pharmacological - I wonder if we could include some patent information in the info boxes?? For example:

the "basic patent" (That is, the first patent to the active agent in the drug)
expiry date of "basic patent"
SPC number and expiry date of the SPC
originator of the basic patent.

For example the basic patent for Plavix (clopidogrel) is EP0099802 the originator is the Sanofi-Synthélabo. Another example is Ciprofloxacin is EP0049355 and Bayer is the originator -- Quantockgoblin (talk)

RE: Further information on Firocoxib

Hello. I have created a new article, which is about the veterinary NSAID firocoxib. Could you please edit the article? :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

request lockdown of my former discussion page

pls lock down my discussion page for ever and blank it. same applies to my user page...lock it down. i already made my account unaccessible. thx. AnubisGodfather 79.233.74.37 (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Unreferenced article

Hello. I have found out that the article buflomedil does not cite any references. That's why I tagged it as unreferenced. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Vandalized article

Hello. When I have accessed the article sumatriptan, it was empty. Could you please reverse it, and warn the user responsible for it? :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello, thank you very much for adding SVG structure and PubChem info to Tren! Kindest regards, AlphaEta 16:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Io io editor

Note this and this comment. Based on how it is received, I may start a post at AN/I. I thought you may be interested. WLU (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, looks like I'm going ahead. Will RFC/U instead, possibly tomorrow or Monday. In the meantime, I'll be building a case here. Feel free to add if you'd like, please separate into your own section though. WLU (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User conduct and content dispute are not the same—I'm not sure RFC/U would be the right focus. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it's a user conduct that's masquerading as a content dispute. The problem isn't that he's trying to add bad things to the article, it's the constant revisiting of the same issue, with absolutely no change of page content despite widely demonstrated consensus that there's no case being made. I'm talking to someone else about it, so I'm still in flux. Any suggestions or criticisms (I like being criticized, helps me learn) via talk or e-mail are gratefully accepted. WLU (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Redirected article

Hello. I have learned today how to redirect articles into a target page, just what I did to Eulexin. That article redirected to Flutamide. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work :) There are plenty of drug articles that could use redirects from their trade names. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jjj1987

Yeah, my first thought was it looked very Grawp-ish. As you say, with his latest string of attacks, its easy to come to that conclusion. I agree that User:Jjj1987 is probably just a newbie. Hopefully he/she won't continue in that vein. All the best, Gwernol 18:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

N page

Let me explain - I kept away from the N page Talk to see what you would resolve with User:WLU, as you surprised me by initially proposing putting PML into a single section. I thought to say "I agree" would be not only redundant but look counterproductive to whatever you would work out with him. And I definitely stayed away from the Wiki page itself, seeing the listing this morning on just the Talk page set off a fire-storm. I do see that I can revise the Liver section; I do not see that you are finished with the PML section, or are waiting for your reaction from others to your original suggestion, or if you want me to be Bold. If no reply, I will be Bold (probably tomorrow).io_editor (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Io io editor. You seem to be oblivious to the lack of support from others for your rosy view of Natalizumab. You give the impression of being a single-issue editor. From WP:COI, Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. Since you've avoided editing the article since March 30, that puts you on safer ground. Please continue to abstain from editing the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Johnston, I saw your comments yesterday evening; I was annoyed then, so I logged off, but I am still annoyed now. You refer to 1. my "rosy view of Natalizumab" 2. the "impression of being a single-issue editor", and extending your impression to your proven conclusion, 3. you write that I should "abstain from editing the article". Well I would ask to back your conclusions up with facts - I editted this page about a dozen times for 1 week in January, including (my 5th edit) inctroducing the Black Box description, and then never touched it until March. So please show me here the particular edits or even edit that you base your conclusions upon.io_editor (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Natalizumab picture?

Hola Fvas,

I was nagging User:Benjah-bmm27 about a picture for natalizumab and he directed me over to you. Is it possible? What's involved? And note that you enter a whole new level of cool if you can make pictures of molecules. If you can speak any dead or obscure languages in addition, I'm adding your picture to my user page. WLU (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No molecule pictures or dead languages? Oh man, you're now the least cool of my wiki friends.

I wonder if it's even available in Canada? [1], but I have no idea what this means. I'll still add it to the pag though. I'm an optimist. What do you think of silo-ing PML into the interactions section BTW? It's been quite silent on the page, I don't know if it's ominous (BUM-BUM-BUMMMMMMMM) or approving (TAH-DAHHHHHH!). I'm hoping the latter. WLU (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen it's only been in combination with other immune-suppressing drugs; the CD patient was on immune-suppressors (though not interferon I don't think) and both the MS patients. If you look at the link I posed above, it says the same thing (don't prescribe with immune suppressors). The funny thing is, some articles seem to say that the drugs are compared to interferon + Natalizumab treatment, which I thought was proscribed. If anyone turns up a reference saying there's natalizumab-only PML cases, I'll edit accordingly. Oddly enough when I reviewed the pubmed abstracts it didn't seem to come up. I'm torn, I may review. WLU (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since N is just an IgG4-kappa antibody, we could put something generic on the page, like Image:AntibodyChains.svg, although it would be much cooler to have something like Image:Antibody_IgG2.png (which is a very similar subtype). It doesn't really have to be the precise molecule to communicate information to the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to choose 'cause I don't have the expertise. Since it's not the actual molecule, could the picture still be placed in the infobox, or should it be moved down further? WLU (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The first one is less... challenge-able. And I'd put it lower on the page, under ==Mechanism of Action==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, it makes sense to put a close, but not exact, down the page. But it would be really nice to have a picture. I'll ask Crohnie if she'd be able to get one, ya never know... WLU (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not a bad idea. I do think putting it in the drugbox would be a little bit disingenuous, but further down the page, as a general structure, is not bad at all. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lotsw.jpg

Hi, you speedily deleted Image:Lotsw.jpg. I am the person who uploaded it and was never notified that it was tagged for lacking any sort of source information or I would have corrected it, as I am certainly not an absent uploader. I have been on vacation and could not take care of this until now. Could you please undelete the image and I will correct any problems the image was tagged for? Thank you, Redfarmer (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC).

Done :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Fvas (that is a user name that does not lend itself to short forms!)

Could I have rollback too? I already use reverting with popups but my understanding is it's even handier.

Thanks, WLU (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Gracias. I'll only use it in terms of blatant vandalism. Even now, if I'm reverting something I consider non-vandalism but not productive I tend to use the undo or edit old so I can rationalize in the edit summary. Please, if you notice me using it erroneously then please drop me a note - I like criticism better than praise 'cause it gives me something to work with. And now I sally forth to test! WLU (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Would I be incorrect in my assessment that there's not that much difference between rollback and a revert with popups judiciously chosen to be the last good edit? I hear people gushing about how great rollback is, but on a fast internet hookup it doesn't seem to be that advantageous. WLU (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the clarification. I wish I could use twinkle, but I'm stuck with nearly useless Internet Explorer :( WLU (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for DYK

Hi Fvasconcellos, thanks so much for your DYK notice and positive comments about Leviathan. Glad you liked it! Julia Rossi (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hatzfeldt Syndrome

I try my best to assume good faith when doing a quick copy-edit of an article, but I guess I didn't evaluate this one close enough. I think you're correct - it appears to be a well-constructed hoax with links to other pages to seem legitimate. It might also be a pseudoscientific article which masquerades as actual science (though that is, admittedly, less likely). The lack of information about it on PubMed suggests that it could be either a hoax or a form of pseudoscience, though I would guess that it's a hoax. I just wonder why anyone would go through the trouble of creating such an esoteric hoax - perhaps they were misled into believing it to be a real disorder.

Upon taking a second look, I realized a number of suspicious elements - everything in the article, in fact. Firstly, there are absolutely no references, and the people described in the article as being relevant to the discovery and diagnosis of the "syndrome" all have article red-links - which is never a good sign. Secondly, and far more telling, are the absurd abuses of scientific terminology, such as you pointed out - "systemic neuro-epiphyseal disorder". (I overlooked that silliness, so I suppose I need to brush up on my anatomy & physiology - I'd conflated sutures and epiphyses when quickly looking over the article.) But now that I think about it... the cranium is a flat bone, not a long bone, and therefore cannot have epiphyses. And a "hypertrophy" of non-existent epiphyses? And the adjective "systemic"? How can it be neurological and systemic at the same time? That's ridiculous. Presumably the author of the article was thinking of the "epiphysial plate", but that disappears in early adulthood - not to mention, no epiphysial plates exist in flat bones, since flat bones have no need for elongation.

There is various other nonsense:

"Patients are known to be narcoleptic and have increased difficulty of waking up during the morning, while being very unresponsive to external stimuli, a symptom attributed to deep REM." As far as I know, REM disorders tend to have just the opposite effect - e.g. REM behavior disorder.
"researchers hypothesize that the high levels of melatonin and serotonin are due to a malfunctioning of the neural arch innervating the epiphysis and the hypothalamic region of the brain" - What researchers? - nobody. Why would CNS monoamines be affected by a the malfunctioning of innervation by vertabrae (the "neural arch")? - they wouldn't. And what epiphysis is innervated in the brain? - none. What kind of vague language is "somatic abnormalities"? - that could refer to just about anything.

"The prevailing symptoms in most patients are related, however not limited, to sleeping patterns and behavioral abnormalities. A limited amount of patients have exhibited certain somatic symptoms." - "symptoms" related to sleeping patterns and "behavioral abnormalities"? It's never mentioned what these symptoms are, just that they are "related, however not limited to" other symptoms.

"These symptoms have been correlated to chronic exposure to the disease from a young age, therefore linked to the effect of epiphysial hormones during growth. - Symptoms correlated to "chronic exposure to the disease"? How is one "chronically exposed" to a disease? Seems to me that you either have it, or you don't. There seems to be a confusion of cause and effect here - related to the notion of post hoc ergo propter hoc, i.e., correlation does not imply causation.

"Patients show euphoric tendencies usually described by patient's family or friends as "annoyingly cheerful" and expressed by incessant and loud laughter." - Citations? Evidence? Didn't the article say that patients have difficulty becoming aroused? How would this behavior be possible, in light of the contradictory claims?

"Euphoria has been linked to the increase serotonin levels in the patients cerebellar cortex and deep nuclei." - Euphoria is usually caused by dopamine/norepinephrine, not serotonin. Not to mention serotonin is not found in any significant quantities in the cerebellum. As far as I know, it's GABA and glutamate that drive the (more primitive) functions of the cerebellum. And "cerebellar cortex"? Highly specious. Sleep patterns are determined by the suprachiasmatic nucleus, not the cerebellum. I doubt there is any melatonin in the cerebellum, either.

"Increased chocolate consumption has also been observed in SNED patients" - Is this a blatant joke? Patent nonsense?

"however most researchers claim that chocolate stimulates dopamine production in the hypothalamic region of the substantia nigra, a neurotransmitter with a similar action (yet less diffuse) as serotonin." - Totally false. Chocolate contains various xanthines (notably theobromine), which are adenosine antagonists. There is no evidence that xanthines stimulate dopamine production. "Hypothalamic region of the substantia nigra"? Suspicious, considering dopamine most certainly does not have similar actions to serotonin (other than the fact that both are "excitatory neurotransmitters", which is misleading since excitation/inhibition is determined by receptor sites rather than the ligands themselves. For example, GABA is excitatory to the receptor sites of insects and some nematodes - which allows a benzodiazepine-like drug to kill tapeworms, etc., through excitotoxicity.)

"Last, patients suffering to the chronic illness usually show severe mental retardation." - Horrific grammar aside, what is this implying? That all patients with a "chronic illness" show "severe mental retardation"? That's most definitely false.

The "Rare symptoms" section doesn't even need a critique - it's sufficiently absurd and unevidenced.

I think we ought to do a bit more research, to determine if this is indeed a pseudoscience article, and if it is, label it as such. If it turns out to be a hoax (which I feel is quite likely), we ought to have it deleted. If there's anything I'm incorrect about in my critique, let me know. Fuzzform (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Benzamil

Hey there. I must have deleted your lead expansion by mistake while I was fixing the CAS#.[2] Sorry about that! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Gilberto Gil

Hey there :-) Can you utilize your language skills (or ask someone else who might have time?) to check on comprehensiveness of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gilberto Gil? I believe we use English-language sources only when they are equal quality to foreign-language sources, so we need to make sure nothing significant is left out from Portuguese sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what you mean by an "excessively straightforward" tone in the article—I thought straightforwardness and ease of understanding was something generally looked for in articles. --Kakofonous (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a Portuguese-language document that might be useful for bulking up the article; hopefully there's some good material in it. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

City of Phoenix Seal

Original version created by you

Version modified by me

Very good work on the .svg version of the city seal. However, I had a request, more of a permission to do something before I did it for posterity's sake. The version of the seal you created (I assume, amyways) has a color scheme based on Image:PhoenixCitySeal.jpeg. I was wanting to replace the color scheme of the one you created with a different (and I think more visible) color scheme.

My basis for that color scheme is based on the color of the phoenix in the center of the seal as seen on city documents on the City of Phoenix Website, specifically this one. I decided the fill colors based on the raised parts of the seal on the original .jpeg image.

If I have your blessing, I'd like to replace the seal image in the Phoenix article with this modified version. Let me know what your opinions are. Thanks!

Ixnayonthetimmay (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Missing chemical structures

Hey there. Have you created chemical structures yet for carbutamide and fenspiride? There are no chemical structures yet in these newly created pages. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Done for fenspiride. As for carbutamide, Rifleman 82 beat me to it :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Bit of friendly competition always helps! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check

Hey, if you have the time, can you take a look at my talk for a sanity check? Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I don't see any evidence of untoward behavior from that user, FWIW. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. See you around! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Crazydoodles

I also noticed his vandalism, and, considering his previous record, I blocked him for 2 weeks. DGG (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC) -- mine would have been indef except he has also made a few useful contributions. I found him while patrolling speedy. I'll be there in 2 weeks to check. DGG (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sertraline FA

Thank you again for the copyediting and advice on Sertraline article. They helped me a lot with moving it to FA. Paul Gene (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Deletion of TIOH images now on Commons

Yeah, if you could go ahead and delete them, that would be great - makes it much easier to see which ones I still have left to transfer. Thanks a bunch :) --Nobunaga24 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Missing chemical structures on Rimiterol, Carbuterol and Tulobuterol

Hello. Could you create chemical structures for rimiterol, carbuterol and tulobuterol. Someone may beat you to it. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Artemether

Hello. As you expected, I have already split out artemether from artemisinin. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives