User talk:Fvasconcellos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1: Apr–Nov 2006 Archive 2: Nov 2006–Jan 2007 Archive 3: January–March 2007 Archive 4: March–April 2007 Archive 5: April–May 2007 Archive 6: May–June 2007 (aka "The RfA files") Archive 7: June–July 2007 Archive 8: July–August 2007 Archive 9: Aug–Sep 2007 Archive 10: Sep–Oct 2007 Archive 11: Oct–Nov 2007 Archive 12: Nov–Dec 2007 Archive 13: Jan–Feb 2008 Archive 14: Feb–Apr 2008 Archive 15: Apr–May 2008

Contents 1 Chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine 2 DYK 3 Drugs on trial 4 Just to say hai 5 Question about moving pages 6 RfA thanks! 7 Referencing sections 8 RE: Tiludronate 9 Welcoming 10 Cystatin C 11 Irofulven 12 Committed identity 13 DOI bot 14 RE: Chemical structure needed 15 Image 16 TS protection 17 Epiboxidine 18 About Friendly Warning 19 image 20 Thanks again 21 Sertraline lead 22 Anthracycline

[edit] Chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine

What do you think of this article? Keep, Delete, Merge into other article(s)? Are there any kind of guidelines for articles about drug combinations?

Personally, I feel that articles dealing with drug combinations shouldn't exist, except in very unusual circumstances (e.g. vicodin - which is, by the way, a very messy article). Butalbital is a good example of a centralized grouping of drug combinations; this should probably be the standard way of dealing with drug combos. Though in the case of Chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine, it's unclear which drug would take priority (i.e. which article should have the information about the combo; perhaps both, or neither?).

To me, the issue is that there are many thousands of drug combos, and most of them are so obscure that they're never mentioned on Wikipedia (and many can never be adequately referenced). For example, brompheniramine and pseudoephedrine are combined in a form trademarked as "Bromfenex PD" - which is pharmacologically nearly identical to the Chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine mixture - but it's not listed in any large consumer drug database, such as rxlist. Also, the Paracetamol article doesn't even come close to listing all the drug combinations it appears in (it's arguably the most common compound in drug combos). Let me know what you think.

Cheers, Fuzzform (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

It's not my fault that the update is 3 hours late! I only just got here. I am now putting the update together, if you are an admin who was thinking of posting it, please don't, I will let User:Bedford know when I have finished and he will do it. Thanks for your interest. Gatoclass (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. That edit summary was not supposed to be in caps, by the way—sorry! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drugs on trial

I enjoy making images of molecules, so I have been happily following User:Carlo Banez's trail. But I wonder if all those drug stubs are really desirable. As in, other than being on trial for xxx disease, so what? Without anything interesting to add (synthesis [yes! I'm a chemist!], mode of action, etc.), could they just be rolled into penicillin drugs? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just to say hai

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 11:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Have a great day yourself :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about moving pages

When exactly is a move/rename considered "controversial"? I'm not sure what to do in the following situation: Hopewell culture should be named "Hopewell tradition", since it isn't a monoculture, but a network of distinct local cultures connected by common trade routes (sometimes called the "Hopewell Interaction Sphere"). There's no discussion whatsoever on the article's talk page, on any topic. I've provided a citation to back up my proposed rename, but it could be months before anyone looks at the talk page and provides feedback one way or another, so that a consensus might be reached. I don't need an admin to move the page for me, so the rename request template isn't appropriate here. However, I'd like to allow a week or two for other editors to provide feedback on the proposed rename. Is there a different template for this purpose? Or in this case, should I just go ahead and move the page? It doesn't seem at all controversial, especially in light of the empty talk page, and the very explicitly worded citation I've provided saying that this isn't a single culture at all. How should I proceed?

Thanks, Fuzzform (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to our ranks ;) If I can be of assistance in any way, let me know. Very appropriate image, BTW. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and glad you liked the image. I figured that if I was going to be "spamming" over 160 user pages, I might as well contribute something of some interest. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing sections

Hi, not quite sure what the issue Arcadian and yourself are reverting over at Anti-diabetic drug referencing, but surely either single section of "References and notes" (with bulleted reference sources and then the reflist-tag numbered list) which I intensely dislike, or two equal top level headings of "References" and "Notes" (aka "Footnotes"). But why the multi-level "References" top-level with then "Notes" and "Sources" as sub-sections? Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and descriptions suggests (emphasis is mine):

'See also, Notes (or Footnotes), References, Further reading (or Books) and External links
These should all be "==" headings.'

and this is mirrored by WP:MEDMOS#Sections... or am I missing something :-) David Ruben ^Talk 18:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Tiludronate

Hello. Could you please move tiludronate to tiludronic acid? :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcoming

Thanks for the welcome, and I'll see you around :) Adolon au (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cystatin C

Thanks for the image! I downloaded PyMol but couldn't be bothered with finding out how it works. Thank you, cheers --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a steep learning curve, but worthwhile once you get the hang of it :) Nice to see you around! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irofulven

I have an IP on my talk pavge claiming that the ref in this article is not relevant. One of the other authors (User:Mjkelner) seems to disagree. Can you have a quick look? Rich Farmbrough, 09:38 23 May 2008 (GMT).

[edit] Committed identity

Fvasconcellos

I note you have moved your 'committed identity' to a separate page and locked it.

Seems like a wise idea. I've also moved mine to a separate page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Quantockgoblin/committed_identity

I don't think I have the ability to lock this page - can you do this for me!

Thanks

QG

Thanks -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DOI bot

Super, glad my work is paying off! Thanks for your feedback. All the best, Smith609 Talk 14:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Chemical structure needed

Hello. Could you please draw a chemical structure for difloxacin? I have already added the IUPAC name for it. :-) Carlo Banez (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Great! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TS protection

Thanks; gosh, I get on a plane, and the IPs go nuts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Anytime :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epiboxidine

Hi there. Would you mind taking a look at this page? Someone slapped a clean-up tag on it (1 minute after I created the page!) and told me off for removing it, so I guess it could do with rewording or something, but I'm not really sure what needs doing to it so thought I should seek a second opinion...Meodipt (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that, looks heaps better. Yeah I tend to use the drug box as standard, as most of the compounds I make pages for are used in humans (or at least in vivo) to some extent, but you're right that with this compound its only really used in vitro and a chem box is more appropriate. That will do nicely for now at any rate :-) Meodipt (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Friendly Warning

Actually, if you look at the source to the image, you will see that it clearly constitutes copyright infringement. That is an official cd single cover. That user did not make it. Also, if you look at the history of his talk page, the user has done this more than once. It wasn't about the fair use, it was about the user claiming the image to be self-made when it clearly is not. ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] image

Hi Fv. For a moment there, I thought I saw "Archived every 30 seconds", and wondered how fast I'd have to type. My mistake was to copy the category/justification for a previous WP image we used in a Dispatch article. This one, then, can be our model for the future. Thanks for your help.

Things are fine, even in the aftermath of my spectacular tumble down a long flight of stairs at the gym a few hours ago. Hobbling, and sore left hand. Will survive. TONY (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Here's hoping copy editing and FAC will not suffer long while you recover. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again

I sure appreciated the time and effort you put into giving post-concussion syndrome that very thorough review. I'll keep working on the article as you suggest, definitely let me know if you have any more comments. I didn't think you were too harsh at all (as you mentioned you thought you might come across), everything was very reasonable. I've seen your work around other areas as well, and always thought the same thing—the project is lucky to have someone so dedicated, hard working, and committed to quality as you. delldot talk 12:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sertraline lead

Come on, FV. What if some idiot starts challenging every word of the lead, even though everything has already been discussed in detals in the article? We have a choice not to accomodate him. WP:LEAD does not mandate references to everything. And fluxetine vs sertraline comparison is completely uncontroversial, it was just some lazy bum who did not want to bother with clicking on the link to the comparison section. Paul Gene (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We write for the reader, Paul—whether a layperson or a pharmacologist, and the average Joe who knows nothing about the drugs he takes has just as much right to read the very best. Fluoxetine vs sertraline may be completely uncontroversial to you or to others familiar with the topic, but it clearly isn't to all—otherwise, why mention it anyway if it's common knowledge? :) No, WP:LEAD does not mandate references to everything, but it does for statements likely to be challenged. That one was more than likely to be challenged; it was challenged, and there is absolutely no harm in including a reference (sorry if I added the wrong one, though.) As for the "lazy bum" part, I'm sure I don't need to remind you of WP:AGF now, do I? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the average Joe would say - What an interesting fact!, and would not think to doubt it. The person who inserted the fact tag clearly thinks that he knows something. As for the "lazy bum" part, he is a lazy bum in good faith, I do not say that there was any bad intent in his part, only negligence. WP:LEAD requires consensus for putting the references in the lead. I could revert it, and I agree to it only out of respect for you. Paul Gene (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just read your discussion at User talk:Life.temp. Now you see... Paul Gene (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was mistaken. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

...and I've been thinking. WP:V trumps WP:LEAD, and if some editors are unhappy with referencing in the lead... we should accommodate such requests, as long as they're reasonable (e.g. nothing along the lines of "Sertraline is an antidepressant^{[citation needed]}". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All WP:V says is that the citations should exist in the article and that they should be easy to find. So there is no contradiction with the WP:LEAD. In the case of Sertraline, the citations exist and all the reader have to do to find them is to click on the link to the corresponding chapter. Would you want to ask that question at WP:LEAD? It would be interesting to see the resulting discussion. By the way "Sertraline is an antidepressant" may be considered controversial by some people. David Healy for example notes that the effects of SSRIs on depression are non-specific, unlike those of tricyclic antidepressants, so it may not be a "true" antidepressant.Paul Gene (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthracycline

Fvasconcellos, don't you think that the introduction to Anthracycline would be difficult for a non-specialist reader? Discuss in Talk:Anthracycline Nbauman (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)