User talk:Edgar181/Archive2008

Welcome to the Commons, Edgar181/Archive2008!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Yonatan ^talk 00:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice welcome! Edgar181 15:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Nice to see you around here, and thanks for the fine categorization efforts :) Fvasconcellos 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The chemical structure categories are a bit of a mess. I've noticed that others have done some cleanup, particularly Ben Mills, so I thought I'd help out. Edgar181

I found out about HotCat.js because I saw you using it.  :) It certainly makes it easy to categorize. Edgar181 20:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

PD-chem / PD-self solution

I've given the situation some thought. I still maintain that the images in question are ineligible for copyright, however, I also know the community is generally fine with these images being tagged with {{PD-self}} in place of a PD-ineligible tag. To some, this isn't the best practice, but to most, this is acceptable. Before undertaking the task of having my bot apply {{PD-chem}} to simple chemical structure images, I assumed this was a non-controversial issue—what the community wanted, even. This is why I set the bot to convert tags that weren't PD-ineligible to start with, in addition to those that were. I didn't see any difference and thought it would better to be consistent. Since a few of you have stress concern with my actions, I guess I was wrong. I apologize. I am planning to revert any changes my bot made to your images (also Physchim62's and Benjah-bmm27's images along with anyone else who wishes me to do so). Before I do this, I want to make this is what you want and if there's anything else you would like my bot to do. Cheers, Rocket000 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Though we have disagreed, no harm was done. And I certainly never thought that you didn't have the best interests of the projecet in mind. My preference would be to have the images I uploaded returned to being tagged as PD-self. If at some time the community decides that some or all of the images should be tagged differently (PD-chem, PD-ineligible, or something else) I will be fine with that. Despite what it may feel like at times, your efforts at cleaning up the images are appreciated. Cheers, Edgar181 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done I think I got 'em all. And thanks. Rocket000 02:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, your work is appreciated too :) Rocket000 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have change {{PD-self}} in {{PD-chem}}, in Image:Ethephon.png, I didn't see this message.
--Bvs-aca (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's ok. No problem. Edgar181 (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Allopurinol

Structure of Allopurinol is wrong! Structure depicted is Hypoxanthine! Please check! Thank You!

The image that I created, Image:Allopurinol structure.png, appears to be correct and is different than hypoxanthine because of the location of the nitrogen atoms. My image depicts allopurinol with the same chemical structure (although as a different tautomer) than two others I find on Commons, Image:Allopurinol.svg and Image:Allopurinol.png. Edgar181 (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Dimethyldinitrobutane.svg

I don't understand why this was deleted before I even managed to get the message. Also, as a vector image, a simple modification in Inkscape would have served better than deleting it. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There would have been largely enough time for a correction, see here. --Leyo 11:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that it was deleted so quickly after being listed for discussion - I'm sorry you didn't have a chance to comment. I'm sure the deleting admin can undelete it for you - I wouldn't object, of course. I had no intention of preventing anyone from fixing it. It just seemed reasonable to me that if it had been in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams for so long without action, that no one was interested in saving the image. I will add a comment to the {{Disputed chem}} template and category recommending notification of the uploader to help avoid this situation in the future. Edgar181 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@M1ss1ontomars2k4: Didn't you have this image on your watchlist? If so, you would have been able to fix after that {{Disputed chem}} was added. --Leyo 13:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bentazepam.svg‎

I have fixed it. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! That was fast. Thank you. Edgar181 (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Chemist admins?

Hi Ed. Is there any chemist admin on Commons? There is none crossing my mind at the moment. I think, it would be useful to have one, because (s)he could decide whether a structural formula is really incorrect and should be deleted or not. I my opinion, non-chemist admins don't like to make this decision. I think you would be one of the best candidates, if you agree to. --Leyo 18:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there are no chemist admins on Commons. I have thought about requesting adminship, but after looking at the unsuccessful requests listed at Commons:Administrators/Archive, I think it is likely that people will count the number of edits I have in the Commons wikispace and say I don't have the right experience on Commons. I'm sure you've noticed that I have started nominating some incorrect chemistry images for deletion, so maybe I'll continue doing that for awhile before requesting adminship. Have you considered requesting adminship? I think you would be an ideal candidate. Edgar181 (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Just compare this and this. Other candidates might be NEUROtiker, Fvasconcellos or Benjah-bmm27. Yes, I have noticed your nominations. It might be a good idea waiting a while and continue to nominate this kind of images for deletion. However, if you (as an en-WP admin for more than two years) state clearly that you would focus your work as an admin on the field of chemistry, where an admin is needed, I think you chance would be good. --Leyo 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that any of those other three would be great admins, too. Maybe I will give it a try soon. Edgar181 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ordinazole.png

Thanks for the heads up on the posting of this image to be deleted. However, since the presence of the image in the disputed diagrams category for a month was taken as consensus for deletion, the image was deleted 12 minutes after being posted to IfD. Can you please make sure that uploaders of images have actual notice of the dispute before they are requested for deletion? --Selket (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It is also worth mentioning that if you just create the new image at the same location as the old one, the file history is preserved (so people can go back and compare the two versions) and you don't need to update any of the wiki pages linking to the image. --Selket (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There has never been an image called “Ordinazole.png” on Commons. Are you talking about Image:Ornidazole.png?

If you have the images you uploaded on your watchlist, you will notice when the template is added and you have enough time to fix the image. However, that's not necessary in this case as there already is a correct image in Ornidazole. --Leyo 23:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Selket, I'm sorry that you didn't have a chance to weigh in on the deletion discussion. I'm surprised it was deleted so quickly. I don't recall if I was the one that originally marked that image with {{Disputed chem}}, but lately I've been informing active users when I list images at Category:Disputed chemical diagrams in addition to when I nominate images for deletion. As for Ornidazole.png, the related one that I created, Ornidazole structure.png, I uploaded long before nominating Ornidazole.png for deletion, and I don't think I even knew that Ornidazole.png existed (it wasn't being used anywhere, as far as I can tell). Edgar181 (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating

	Thanks for taking part in my RFA. It passed 29-5-0, and I appreciate and will take to heart all of the feedback, and do my absolute best to better Commons with the trust placed in me by the community as a whole. rootology (T) 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Disputed chem}}

I have a question. Are chemistry diagrams' accuracy ever seriously disputed? I've looked at many images tagged with this template, however, I never see any sign of disagreement. Unlike many man-made things, e.g. flags and maps, I don't really see much controversy surrounding what's "correct" and "incorrect" as far this area of hard science goes in general. Is there a reason these aren't being nominated for deletion? Is it because the admins don't understand and take a jaded hard-nosed blanket approach to anything and everything associated with the terms "dispute" or "wrong"? (Also, as for your RfA and my very likely support, would you be speedy-deleting these incorrect chemical diagrams instead of tagging them?) Rocket000(talk) 10:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing any situation in which someone disagreed that a chemistry diagram tagged with {{Disputed chem}} was inaccurate. However, in many cases the tagging has resulted in the diagram being fixed, which is of course a good thing. Nominating them for deletion often leads to very quick deletion, which doesn't always allow the opportunity for someone to fix them. The one month "holding pen" of Category:Disputed chemical diagrams works well in my opinion to give that opportunity. Although I have been recently nominating for deletion images that have been in that category for more than a month, others have been marking some of them with {{Speedydelete}}. Since seeing that there has been no "keep" votes for any image that I have put through the normal deletion process, I feel that speedy deletion after one month would be the appropriate course of action in the future, to reduce the load at Commons:Deletion requests. One caveat would be that if the image was uploaded by an active user, I would like to make sure that they have first been personally notified (since not everyone watchlists their images and might not notice that tagging of their image as disputed). Edgar181 (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems like the right process for these. I'm all for reducing the strain on COM:DR. And now I get why the template has that counter on it. :) Rocket000(talk) 12:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AIBN

Hi there. I drew that as a replacement for Image:AIBN.png, so keep my image at the correct name and I'll delete the incorrect summary. For the existing Image:AIBN.png I notice the uploader removed it from the list of disputed chemical structures (where it was due to the geometry). Perhaps we should add it again? TimVickers (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at this discussion first. ;-) --Leyo 23:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think drawing azo compounds linearly is not a good idea. But if someone objects to their image being marked as disputed because of it, I would just let it go. Edgar181 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Edgar181, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Also consider joining #wikimedia-admin, the cross-wiki coordination channel for Wikimedia administrators. Any member of the channel can invite you in temporarily, but you need an invite exemption from a channel operator to get in whenever you want. Please come to #wikimedia and ask for an invite. Any admin from any project is welcome.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references....
I hope to get to work more closely to you and my fellow biochemists and chemists around here! Please add yourself to Commons:List of administrators by adminship status in other Wikimedia projects if you have sysop tools somewhere else. Cheers, Patrícia ^msg 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Edgar181 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations also from my side. I was sure, that you would be elected. I am looking forward not to seeing any more incorrect or poor quality structural formulae on Commons. ;-) --Leyo 11:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement and support. Though getting rid of incorrect structures may not be so easy. Some of the incorrect structures I deleted have already been undeleted. Edgar181 (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done! TimVickers (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support too, Tim. Edgar181 (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, Ed. Nice to see you're already putting the tools to (good) use :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aminoacetonitrile.jpg

Hello! You're right, of course. I've corrected this image. Thank You. Margoz (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. Edgar181 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Request :)

Hey Ed. If you're around, could you change the content of today's POTD from

Life cycle of the Parasite [[:Category:Babesia|Babesia]].<noinclude>[[Category:Potd templates]]</noinclude>

to

Life cycle of the parasite [[:Category:Babesia|''Babesia microti'']].<noinclude>[[Category:Potd templates]]</noinclude>

?

Scientific names must... be... italicized... Grrr! :) Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Edgar181 (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Strychnina.svg

Thank you for information, I correct this image in next week, when I will be have more free time. Karol007 15:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymemazine.png

{{PD-self}} is OK for images of chemical structures, but {{PD-chem}} is prefered.
--D-Kuru (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that PD-self is better. Edgar181 (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Acrelic.png

Good morning, I don't understand what is the problem about [[Image:Acrelic.png]], it's the w:acrylonitrile unit used in the Acrelic polymer fiber. Regards --Aboalbiss (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The bond to the "CN" should attach to the C, not the N. As it currently is drawn, it shows an w:isonitrile (R-N≡C), rather than a w:nitrile (R-C≡N). Edgar181 (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Structure of Trehalulose.png

Thanks, I have corrected it. Sensonet (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Edgar181 (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)