This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Edgar181.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 thecurrent talk page.

Sorry about that, misread it :(.Ale_Jrb^talk11:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all.  :) --Ed (Edgar181)11:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading a corrected structure.

Lhynard (talk)04:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just switched to an image that someone else uploaded. In any case, thanks for catching the error in the other structure. --Ed (Edgar181)11:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw in your edit summary of an IP you were blocking 'cannot edit own talk talk page'. I was wondering about this earlier because another annon blanked theirs. What I want to know is, what is the best course of action (in your experience) if someone blanks their own talk page? Regards,RaseaC (talk)20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I used the "cannot edit own talk talk page" setting because of the personal attacks on the talk page, not because they were blanking their talk page. Normally, users are allowed to remove warnings, etc. from their own talk pages, but in this situation, I restored some of the blanked content so that other users can know the reason for the block. If this user blanks the talk page after his block expires, it should just be left that way. --Ed (Edgar181)20:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it would be something like that because as I read it the policy suggested not getting worked up over something so trivial. Thanks again for your help.RaseaC (talk)20:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me why you deleted the link to lakelivingston.com. it is the FIRST website in east texas and is contributed to by the towns folk with information they want to see. let me know what I can do to keep it from being deleted again. mary—Precedingunsigned comment added byC21cg (talk •contribs)18:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the articleWeb Site for Lake Livingston Texas Recreational Area because it did not make any assertion of notability. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines (seeWikipedia:Notability (web)), a website should meet certain listed criteria before being included in Wikipedia. These criteria are, for example, being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. If you think lakelivingston.com meets these criteria, you are free to rewrite the article in a way that demonstrates the subject's notability. --Ed (Edgar181)19:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you accidentallyremoved the header from the bot report page at UAA. This stops the bot from working. No big deal, I have fixed it. Please try not to do that in the future.Chillum14:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... don't know what happened. Thanks for catching it and fixing it. --Ed (Edgar181)17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Edgar181. IsJames Bristow notable?James Bristow was a low rank British soldier. He had written a very popular narrative in 1793:A narrative of the sufferings of James Bristow: belonging to the Bengal Artilley. His narrative is widely cited by secondary sources. (Google Book search on the narrative). Being the author of such a popular narrative, is he notable? This article was previously deleted by you underWP:CSD#A7 on 21 December 2006. Thanks,Kensplanet^T_C08:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The article I deleted 3 three years ago was completely unrelated to the James Bristow you describe (some kid in Australia wrote an article about himself and his schoolmates.) Please feel free to create an article about the person you describe if you think it meets criteria outlined atWP:BIO. Based on what you describe, I think the subject probably meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. --Ed (Edgar181)11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

...but IMO the block on166.205.5.19 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log) was over the top. If you look at the timestamp for my test1 warning, it was after the ip's last edit to Irony. Essentially, they didn't edit after my warning. ;)Syrthiss (talk)13:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)(cut and pasted from my mistaken post on Cirt's talkpage)

though I guess in retrospect it was good, considering they jumped ipshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irony&diff=312779282&oldid=312775758 after the block.Syrthiss (talk)13:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I could have made it clearer in my block summary, but the user I blocked has been vandalizing Wikipedia pages with the same edits using multiple IPs all morning. Any IP found making these edits should be promptly blocked without additional warning. --Ed (Edgar181)14:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the part I was missing. Thanks!Syrthiss (talk)14:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Edgar181 - You recently blockedUser talk:217.23.233.244 and as he/she/they is/are back at it - making several vandal edits at each article visited - maybe you could consider a somewhat heftier block. Thank you. --Technopat (talk)19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now reblocked that IP address. Nothing but vandalism since that last one expired. --Ed (Edgar181)19:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being out there when needed!--Technopat (talk)09:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

19:02, 7 September 2009 Edgar181 (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Simon Willson" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)

I was wondering why this article was deleted I was the first foreign DJ to ever play in China and have about 40 Hong Kong movie credits as well as working as a producer presenter for Hong Kongs' premier English language radio service since 1989.—Precedingunsigned comment added by218.250.64.41 (talk)04:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the pageSimon Willson was deleted by the administratorJclemens (talk ·contribs). I only deleted the unneeded discussion page,Talk:Simon Willson. You can contact Jclemens about the deletion of the article itself. --Ed (Edgar181)11:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A recent edit to the image caption onphosphate (File:Phosphate.png) points out a problem. The two dashes connecting the P to the top O are interpreted as indicating a double bond. I doubt that is what was intended, so thought I'd ask here for clarification from the creator.Vsmith (talk)12:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The image correctly depicts the general chemical structure of organophosphates. I have edited the image description accordingly. Thanks for letting me know. --Ed (Edgar181)12:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that edit to my bot's userpage :) -Kingpin¹³ (talk)13:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Ed (Edgar181)13:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Edgar181. Would you mind giving a second opinion about this page? In general my standards for notability are fairly low and I'm prepared to make pages for any compound that has seen some human use or is otherwise interesting for some reason. However in this case I have never seen the compound mentioned in the scientific literature, never heard of any instances of its illicit use, and the only discussion of the 4-(chloro or iodo) methcathinones I have seen on the "drug chat" websites is a general agreement that they are likely to share the neurotoxicity of their amphetamine counterparts to at least some extent and are thus unlikely to ever appear on the illicit research chemical market, as it just wouldn't make sense from a business perspective no matter how unscrupulous the seller. I think perWP:CRYSTAL this page is not encyclopedic and have added a prod template but I feel like should try get consensus or at least see what other people think? I wasn't really sure of the process for deleting pages, as I said I'm quite the inclusionist normally.Meodipt (talk)02:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the content of the article and a brief websearch, I would agree with your assessment. It doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion based on either notability or verifiability. I can do a literature search to see if there has been any academic interest in this compound, but I won't have a chance to do that until tomorrow morning. I'll let you know what I find out then. --Ed (Edgar181)14:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been deleted already... --Ed (Edgar181)11:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you double-check this?User_talk:TimVickers#File:Biliverdin3.svgTim Vickers (talk)17:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears correct to me. I replied on your talk page with details. --Ed (Edgar181)18:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Tim Vickers (talk)18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that :D. I've never created an article while tagging it for speedy deletion manually before, although Twinkle does it all the time :D. -Kingpin¹³ (talk)17:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it happens on occasion. --Ed (Edgar181)19:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a comment toTalk:Felicia tang suggesting that the article should be undeleted because of the person is now the subject of headlines (she was just murdered), and you deleted my comment very soon after. The G8 criteria specifically excludes deletion discussions. I don't think it should have been deleted under that criteria.dtfinch (talk)18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Felicia tang was the talk page for aredirect, rather than for an article with content. The article that had the deleted content wasFelicia Tang (different capitalization) which was deleted due to the discussion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicia Tang. In general it would be best to start a discussion atWikipedia:Deletion review if you would like to contest the deletion of that article. However, if you prefer, I can undeleteTalk:Felicia tang, but it's unlikely that anyone will encounter your comments there. I hope this helps. --Ed (Edgar181)18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why did you delete the page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Safetekusa.

I deletedTalk:SafeTekUSA because it was the discussion page for an article that does not exist (SafeTekUSA has never been created). According to Wikipedia's policy, such pages are to be routinely deleted. --Ed (Edgar181)

Please re-create the article about "Joe Baptista". This is not a personal attack. The Gymnasium Querfurt High School is currently under attack by Joe Baptista because we are Public-Root member, TLD registrar, and registrant of the TLD .gqnet. The article was referenced with links to the press releases of INAIC. We are not more affiliated with INAIC or the Public-Root than in the described way.We've received a dozen of emails almost every hour only on last Friday. He published an article about our school at joebaptista.wordpress.com - this is personal attack. He is an Internet terrorist and there is no part exeggerated.

As written, the article served no purpose but to disparage the subject of the article. This is not permitted on Wikipedia. --Ed (Edgar181)18:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The article served the purose of telling the people attacked by him the truth about him. Not publishing this article on the Wikipedia just encourages him to continue his freaky terrorism. The article "Joe Baptista" was backed with references, so there is no doubt he attacks the Internet community. Fortunetely, Wordpress deleted his blog, joebaptista.worpress.com now but I am not sure for how long it will make him stop, but I guess not that long. We've set up a spam filter which waves his emails automatically once they get in, hope ignorance works.

Hi please explain in simple beginner terms why you have deleted the Blok Audiovisual Furniture page. Thanks

I'm not sure which article you are referring to. There has never been an article titled eitherBlok Furniture orBlok Audiovisual Furniture. Can you give me the exact title of the deleted article? Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181)11:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blok_(Furniture)

OK, I'll take a look. --Ed (Edgar181)12:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The article appeared at the time to be a direct copy of another website's text, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Either the website has since changed, or I was mistaken the first time, because it doesn't seem to match now. I have asked the editor who originally marked it as a copyright violation to take a look also. In the meantime, I have undeleted the article. --Ed (Edgar181)16:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

hey who are you and why did you deleted the real hearts. . . It was like an insult because you didnt ask any permission to deleted. . . .— Precedingunsigned comment added byJharamie 08 (talk •contribs)

I deletedreal hearts because it had little meaningful content and did not meet Wikipedia'snotability guidelines for articles. I would encourage you to read those guidelines before creating any other articles. --Ed (Edgar181)11:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Edgar181, this is an automated message fromSDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added toKairine has been removed. It was removed byLifebaka with the following edit summary '(decline PROD, as it could set a dangerous precendent, suggest AfD instead; has reference; formatting and flow)'. Please considerdiscussing your concerns with Lifebaka before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article toAfD for community discussion. Thank you,SDPatrolBot (talk)20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)(Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Can you change the block expiration of 66.240.8.178 to June 18, 2010? By then, the students will be out of school. Best,GlacierWolf11:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have set it to expire June 18, 2010. But, unfortunately, considering the history of edits from this IP, I expect it will end up being promptly reblocked whenever this block expires. --Ed (Edgar181)12:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you already know this, but this IP is shared across all the school system's high schools.GlacierWolf03:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to it :-). It was way too late last night to start drawing structures, so I just added the names - intending to do more tonight. C'est la vie. You will not be surprised to note that your drawings perfectly match my Beilstein printout. Since you changed the boxes to a Chembox - I have added the BRN numbers. All the best. Ronhjones  ^(Talk)19:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused duplicate work.  :) --Ed (Edgar181)19:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No. I hadn't started drawing, I saw the edits first :-) Ronhjones  ^(Talk)20:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Edgar, can you tell me why you removed the above? Best wishes, --Janeyjo (talk)16:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The content I removed didn't make sense because it lacked context and was unclear. Perhaps it can be reworded if you want to add it. However, it already seems to be covered in the article anyway. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks: Did it say anywhere in the article about opium being produced all over Europe, as well as in the UK - and did it mention criticsms of the Senlis Report - where?--Janeyjo (talk)12:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I am Lego648! and you deleted my article, Lego City tv series! Recreate It Immediately!Lego648 (talk)22:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I deletedLego City tv series because it didn't contain any meaningful content. Also, if you want to write an article about an upcoming TV series, you should first find a reliable reference describing it and then you can write a more thorough article in a way that demonstrates that the subject meetsWikipedia's notability criteria. --Ed (Edgar181)11:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Potassium nitrate is KNO3The formula is correct, but only one of the oxygens of NO3- has a negative chargeThe drawing of NO3- shows two negative chargesThe negative charge should be on the oxygen O- by the potassium K+The negative charge on the other oxygen should be deletedYou can check this information by looking at the structure of potassium nitrate on the site for the sigma aldrich chemicals catalog (www.sigma-aldrich.com, I think but it should be easy to find)

The chemical structure of nitrate group depicted atpotassium nitrate is correct. The nitrate has a net charge of -2 on the oxygens and a net positive charge of +1 on the nitrogen, to give it an overall charge of -1. --Ed (Edgar181)11:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Edgar, I just realized I never thanked you for the barnstar you gave me, so thanks I really appreciate it.Pikiwyn^talk18:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your contributions to chemistry articles are appreciated. --Ed (Edgar181)22:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For your rapid response onUser talk:Tom and sawyer lol. Cheers,DBaK (talk)13:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Ed (Edgar181)15:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you deleted the article on Guthrie's Pop-tart, and indeed used a speedy deletion. However I have read this "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or othercreative works." I do believe that his idea is a creative work, and that the article was on said creative work, not on the individual itself.

I believe a better option would have been to make it a candidate for deletion rather then a speedy deletion. One may argue (based on one's opinion) that there was no indication of importance yet, but I can find 1000's of article that are of no importance.

I would understand the speedy deletion if it fell into any of the guidelines. But I cannot tell why it hasn't. Please inform.

As I am sure you realize, Guthrie's Pop-tart is an inappropriate subject for Wikipedia (guidelines can be found atWP:NFT,WP:N, for example.) It simply does not have any chance of surviving a deletion discussion. If you can find 1000's of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, you are free to nominate them for deletion. --Ed (Edgar181)16:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This new user seems to object to your deletion of a page - see[1]. I'm not an admin so I can't see what was deleted. I've reported the user atWP:UAA as (IMHO) it's over the boundary of being a promotional username. Perhaps you can contribute to the debate, or help the user achieve their aims in a better way?Philip Trueman (talk)12:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. Thanks for letting me know. --Ed (Edgar181)12:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the Cermex article yesterday.The reason is that we created the same page twice as we could not fully figure out how this works.Now, we cannot create this page again. Please advise so we can move forward on this page creation.

Thank you

Cermex Team—Precedingunsigned comment added byCermexCorcelles (talk •contribs)12:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has been deleted five times by four different administrators, each time because it was considered blatant advertising, which is not permitted here. You should not try to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertisement. I would suggest also that you look at Wikipedia'sconflict of interest guidelines, which seem to apply here. --Ed (Edgar181)12:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was about to mark it as a wait. I won't unblock, but in the future you shouldn't block "is gay" usernames on sight. It's not inherently disruptive nor a signal of disruptive intent. Drake might be wanting to beout on Wikipedia, after all.Daniel Case (talk)20:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, usernames like these are exclusively intended as personal attacks. But I suppose you're right that it might be someone wanting to out themselves. If you would like to unblock until the user edits, I won't object. --Ed (Edgar181)20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Edgar, since you seem to be quite involved in theBioavailability article, I'd like to ask you about rewriting the article. There's much more to Bioavailability than just pharmacology. I've already pointed out in thediscussion page. Let me know what you think of it. uuuǝıɹ 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added byRiennn (talk •contribs)

My experience is in the pharmacology area, so if you are interested in expanding the article beyond that field, I'm not sure that I can help much. I think your suggestion of broadening the scope of the article is a very good one. --Ed (Edgar181)10:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Edgar181 has been identified as anAwesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today asEdgar181's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Edgar181! Peace, Rlevse 00:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kepthere.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, seeUser:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. —Rlevse •Talk •00:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Ed (Edgar181)10:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Vitamin has been nominated for agood article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article togood article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns arehere.--TonyTheTiger(t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)02:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to ask whether I could be granted the rollback feature to easier revert nonsense edits etc. I'm a trusted user on Commons, if that helps :) RegardsHekerui (talk)08:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. --Ed (Edgar181)11:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Hekerui (talk)12:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello there,

I am writing concerning the listing for cetyl myristoleate. I placed much of the initial info in the article, which was largely taken from my research of NIH and a historical perspective written by Dr. Cochran. I notice that you have taken issue with the editorial slant, as though it was written to endorse Dr. Diehl, whom I have never met or had any affiliation with or his family. I must admit I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, but I would like to know how I could better present the information and satisfy your concerns. I certainly defer to your expertise in this matter, both for your credentials and for your involvement with Wikipedia. There really isn't much more info that I can add, I have looked everywhere, online and offline for more. Thanks and I will check back for some guidelines so I can get to work.

````secondeffort—Precedingunsigned comment added bySecondeffort (talk •contribs)17:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern is mostly that the article seems to be more about Harry Diehl that about the chemical compound itself. It is certainly a good idea to have some of the history, but the article gives undue weight to that aspect, in my opinion. I actually looked a bit to see if I could find more sources about cetyl myristoleate, but wasn't able to. That's why I simply noted the editorial concerns without making much change to the article. Thechemistry wikiproject has a page that describes what the outline of an article about a chemical compound should look like:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Chemicals. If you would like to take a second look at cetyl myristoleate and see if you could get it to conform more to that guideline, I think that would be helpful. Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia's chemistry articles. If you have any other questions, just let me know. --Ed (Edgar181)19:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi this is Exampledoe123, MAY i ask why you deleted my webpage article thingy, because i worked SO hard to make it,Please answer me via email at silenthill9520@yahoo.com, or the hunted monkeys will come and get you, besides I'm getting it back, I am Sorta computer person myself.
Thanks alot, James Reyes—Precedingunsigned comment added byExampledoe123 (talk •contribs)12:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I deletedThe J Page because it was obviously inappropriate as an encyclopedia article. If you would like a copy of the text, let me know and I can give it to you. --Ed (Edgar181)12:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your attention to thevandalism by one of our students here at The Bentley School. The notification for the block you put on our IP address did not make it clear whether you were blocking our entire IP address (and hence, everyone at the school) because the actual vandalism was done while the offending user was logged in here on campus, or because he had created the ID via this IP address and had done nothing but vandalism since then. His contrib page shows the time of his edits, but how do I find out the IP address he was connecting through at that time? History pages only show IP address for edits made by anonymous editors.Fredwerner (talk)22:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The block was applied directly to theUser:Sean Hannah 898 and has no expiration date. This block also puts a 24 hourautoblock on any IP address used by Sean Hannah 898. After 24 hours, the autoblock expires and the IP address can be used again for anonymous editing. I do not know what IP address(es) are affected - that information is kept private. The only way to get information about IP addresses used by registered users is to have acheckuser request done, and this is permitted only under restricted conditions (not in cases of routine vandalism, such as this). If you have problems with being blocked from editing because of the actions of other editors on the same network as yourself, you may want to look intoIP block exemption. I hope this helps. --Ed (Edgar181)11:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Edgar181 - you recently blockedUser talk:170.185.169.19 and they're back at it. --Technopat (talk)23:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it has stopped now, but I'll keep a watch. --Ed (Edgar181)14:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Edgar181. I realized that the page was vandalized shortly after deleting it. I was going to revert myself but you'd already done it. Thanks for cleaning up my mess though. Regards,FASTILY<sup>(TALK)</sup>00:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, no problem. It would be nice if the software had some kind of notice about deleting an article with non-trivial history. Then an admin couldn't unknowingly delete an article with a significant number of revisions. --Ed (Edgar181)00:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For your prompt action on User: 12.46.128.14 and the vandalism of Al Martino, Bob Hope and others. I have had a very hard time getting the hang of reporting reverts for vandalism and violations of 3RR. I get so tired of being slapped for not doing this right and having the vandal just get away with their actions. I'm still trying to learn, but I wanted to thank you for not ignoring the report. Triste Tierra - a rank tyro! (cannot log in at work)24.176.191.234 (talk)23:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for helping stop the vandalism. --Ed (Edgar181)00:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I try, and I understand it is made a little complicated to keep people from reporting others just to be jerks - but it's also a little too hard for some of us to get the hang of and makes people like me just want to give up. I do not have the ability yet to get Twinkle or one of the other programs to help me out yet (especially at work where I cannot log in), but I will try not to get discouraged from doing the right thing. TT24.176.191.234 (talk)00:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to contribute a page "Bilingo" that I think is very relevant and useful in today's schools. Yes it is a new web term but I read the restrictions on adding web names / terms and I feel I fits well with in the acceptable criteria. My addition is no different from the pages for Webkinz or uglydolls please advise why it has been deleted?

Please let me know. user BilingoThank youBiLingo (talk)22:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the article because it did not make any assertion of notability. If you think Bilingo meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion (seeWP:N), you may recreate the article with more thorough content. Also, you should be aware that Wikipedia does not permit usernames to match the names of businesses or products, so I would recommend signing up with a different username. You may also want to take a look at theconflict of interest guidelines which seem to apply here. --Ed (Edgar181)10:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess you were right when you deleted it, but you could've let us have our harmless sports-related fun! Oh well, fun times were had while it lasted.—Precedingunsigned comment added by84.105.250.95 (talk)12:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sense of humour failure from you on this subject. I hope you feel ashamed.—Precedingunsigned comment added by217.33.8.245 (talk)12:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There are better places to play - maybe you can tryUncyclopedia. --Ed (Edgar181)14:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is part ofan educational project. I see you've deleted it; please userfy it so the students can continue their work. Once you userfy it, could you inform the students of the new location of the page (the editors are listedhere (group 7) and could you explain on talk of the article why it was deleted? Thanks, --<sub>Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk</sub>16:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there has never been an article with that title. Can you please double check the exact title, including capitalization, of the article you are referring to? --Ed (Edgar181)17:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. I guess there was only a talk page:Talk:Gender aspects of globalization in China. Could you userfy that at the userpace of whoever created it? --<sub>Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk</sub>19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I should have checked that. I have now restored the talk page, moved it toUser talk:Dagypt/Gender aspects of globalization in China, and informed the three contributors. --Ed (Edgar181)20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --<sub>Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk</sub>21:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now twice tried to make a page for a lesson tomorrow about the unreliability of some web pages and they have both been deleted. These pages were clear 'joke' pages with important lessons for new HSC students to consider.

Is there a way you can un-delete them?

Mr Drummond—Precedingunsigned comment added byAndrew.drummond (talk •contribs)13:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to create joke pages with unreliable information is obviously an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. Please do not attempt to create the article again. --Ed (Edgar181)13:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but would you please also add a block template toUser talk:199.72.217.110 to match the actual block you performed? It really helps to figure out whether a user is a persistent vandal if the talk page notes the dates and lengths of blocks consistently. I'd add it myself, but from the instructions on the template page it appears this is a template reserved for Admins (which I'm not). --ShadowRangerRIT (talk)15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's done now. I usually do it right away, but got distracted I guess. Thanks for letting me know. --Ed (Edgar181)15:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added something to this page due to the lack of redable information - please get back to me here about whether i was right and if i should say something different.78.150.63.7 (talk)17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Dioctyl sodium sulfonsuccinate is a synthetic chemical compound, so it shouldn't be an ingredient in any product that claims to be "natural". --Ed (Edgar181)19:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed autoblock from your block of ... as it is affecting other users.FredTalk14:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. But please be aware that this user's edits are similar to vandalism that I have seen before, so this user may be abusing multiple accounts which could be among those requesting relief from the autoblock. Thanks for letting me know. --Ed (Edgar181)17:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I spent an afternoon at the library and found a few more useful facts, including that it has been used in foods such as cheese and chocolate. I reformatted the article into sections, and placed the History section in a secondary position in an attempt to make it less about Harry Diehl than the subject itself. I also added in the two new resources I found, including the ISBN number of the books. Hopefully this will be enough to satisfy and pull down the neutrality content notation. I am now looking into proper footnote and citation formatting to see if I can improve on that comment. Please take a look and any further comments or suggestions are welcome. I'm trying.....:) Someday I'll be good at this!—Precedingunsigned comment added bySecondeffort (talk •contribs)00:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I think the article looks good. --Ed (Edgar181)12:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with that promotional user/page so promptly.  Chzz  ► 11:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Ed (Edgar181)11:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

hi, I think you deleted the page about the motorcyclist - Ghost Rider. Wiki told me to contact you but not really why, I suppose it would have to do with permisson from you I guess, but I would like to create a new page due to the fact some people are interested, he has received some noteworthyness (I'm in Australia) even if his activities are deemed illegal, after all are we going to delete references about Jack the Ripper or other seemingly "pure" criminals and I think Wiki should not actually have a moral/legal standpoint or opinion as that inherently inhibits the reason for it - the free encyclopedia.cheersmancer—Precedingunsigned comment added byBlackmancer (talk •contribs)16:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, you don't need anyone's permission to recreate an article that has been deleted, as long as you believe that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion (seeWP:N). Doing a search, I find thatGhost Rider (motorcycle stuntman) was deleted by the administratorUser:Orangemike as the result of this discussion:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Rider (motorcyclist). Articles that were deleted as the result of discussion such as that generally shouldn't be recreated, but that was over a year ago and maybe the subject of the article has become more well known since then and he may meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines now. But I'm not sure that's the article in question - it's difficult to give you a specific answer in this case unless you can let me know the exact title of the article you are referring to. --Ed (Edgar181)18:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the chembox and data toThymidine diphosphate glucose.Pdcook (talk)17:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, andCytidine diphosphate glucose.Pdcook (talk)17:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you for creating the articles in the first place. --Ed (Edgar181)18:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

...here's another of LC's socks:79.75.0.228 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log).

←Baseball Bugs<sup>What's up, Doc?</sup>carrots→21:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, blocked. Thanks for letting me know. --Ed (Edgar181)21:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And another one:79.75.124.170 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log).

I suppose if we disabled the entire UK, that would fix his wagon.

←Baseball Bugs<sup>What's up, Doc?</sup>carrots→22:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to add a page I'm calling "Photoinitiator" as a subclass ofRadical initiators. However, when I try and access the page, I get redirected to theInitiator disambiguation page. Is there anything I can do to get my page added successfully? If not, would it be possible to get it changed? I know little about html source-code and can't figure out how to do it myself. Thanks!

Pkornbl2

When you are redirected toInitiator, you should see "(Redirected from Photoinitiator)" right below the title. If you click on the word "Photoinitiator", you'll be taken to the redirect page itself. You can then click the "edit this page" tab and then add whatever content you like. --Ed (Edgar181)19:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Pkornbl2—Precedingundated comment added20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC).

If you are around, and it's not too late, it would be great if you could commenthere. Thanks!Plastikspork<sub>―Œ</sub><sup>(talk)</sup>01:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Since there didn't seem to be much input, and there was no objection to the merge, I've been bold and completed the merge and closed the discussion. --Ed (Edgar181)12:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Even better. Thanks!Plastikspork<sub>―Œ</sub><sup>(talk)</sup>16:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That was a speedy deletion, clearly you accept no other views, yours being the only correct one allowed, despite a lot of controversy sourrounding the banning of a natural food additive to satisfy big pharma's desire for profit and control of the US government. But I'm sure you don't think of yourself as a fascist. Basically what you are involved in is retaining the status qwuo, and censoring anyone with an alternative viewpoint, however many scientific studies have occurred which cast doubt on your received wisdom. But then you are an employee of the chemical cosh industry so I guess one can't expect otherwise. You certainly have the secret policeman's alacrity in stamping out dessent. One more reason to doubt Wikipedia has a lot to offer. Evidence which you call hearsay, but which is based on many people's personal experience, is dismissed by you elitist 'experts' who think ou know everything there is to know, while millions suffer from cancer and all you can offer is chemicals which make them sick, and cause their last few months to be miserable. You don't offer cures, we are all lab rats to you.—Precedingunsigned comment added by87.115.157.220 (talk)14:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Before continuing with the silly insults and making ignorant assumptions about my motives, please read Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view in all articles:WP:NPOV. Thank you. --Ed (Edgar181)14:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Why did you, if the wikipedia comment is correct, delete the entry for Amy Knight on the Mitrokin page?–Cheers

Jim—Precedingunsigned comment added byJimstutt (talk •contribs)20:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I did delete an article titledAmy Knight about two years ago. I assume that is what you are asking about. The entire content of that article was, "Amy Knight - Born on March 8, 1986". As such, it met the criteria for speedy deletion (A7) because there was essentially no content to identify the subject of the article or to suggest why she is notable. If you think Amy Knight meets Wikipedia'scriteria for notability, please feel free to create an article with sufficient content to explain who she is. --Ed (Edgar181)21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking this persistent vandal earlier. I'm wondering if a block from editing user page is warranted, based on the user apparently using his talk page as a sandbox for his vandalism. --McDoobAU93 (talk)00:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that editor. The edits are certainly disruptive, but I'm not sure that they are ill-intentioned. I have reverted the talk page additions, but I don't want to prevent the user from requesting an unblock in the case of a desire to contribute less disruptively. I'll keep an eye on the talk page and see what happens. --Ed (Edgar181)00:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for trying to give new editors the benefit of the doubt andWP:AGF, but I've attempted to communicate with the editor andoffered assistance, but no response. Since the editor is using their talk page, it's not like the editor isn't seeing these warnings or requests. The user hasn't requested unblocks before, but I admit that maybe a long-term block could get them to wise up. --McDoobAU93 (talk)00:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will promptly block talk page access if that privilege is abused, but for now I'll wait and see. --Ed (Edgar181)12:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Edgar181,

I noticed that you have recently substituted the images onTetrahydroharman,(1S)-1-methyl-2,3,4,9-tetrahydro-1H-pyrido[3,4-b]indole, andCalligonine.

If you are using a tool to automatically generate the images, does your tool export toSVG as well asPNG? SVG is anXML format for images that has a significantly-smaller file size than any rasterization. Also, SVGs describe the image, whereas a raster image describes the location of individual pixels. So, SVGs can be scaled to any dimensions without an artifact of transformation. If your tool easily supports SVGs, then you might want to consider using SVGs for those reasons.« D. Trebbien (talk)01:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently, I do not have access to software that is capable of generating reliable-quality SVGs of chemical structure diagrams. Also, I am not convinced that using SVGs is better than using PNGs. A high-resolution PNG has an appearance that is just the same as an SVG at reasonable scales, and the file size difference for generally small files is not an issue. There are also quality issues with the way that the Wikimedia software displays SVGs; check out some of the SVGs in this Commons category to see what I mean:Category:Low quality chemical diagrams. --Ed (Edgar181)12:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correction of my miscorrection of the structure of "metabolite B" of sevoflurane. I looked at the reference you gave, and indeed you were correct. The extra methoxy seemed unlikely to me, but I guess stranger metabolites are known.Wiki editor art (talk)14:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is an odd degradation product, which is what prompted me to look it up. --Ed (Edgar181)20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Edgar. I'm the one who added the Hunter S. Thompson reference to the Popular Culture section of the Ibogaine article, which you deleted on grounds that it was speculation. There was no speculation: there is indisputably an extended reference to ibogaine inFear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, and that book was indisputably an important part of the popular culture of its time. (It is still referenced in university classes today as a seminal work of subjective, hyperbolic, semi-fictional -- AKA "gonzo" -- political journalism, as evidenced by the links in my reference.) Whether the substantive content of works cited in popular culture sections is true or not is immaterial: inpopular culture sections, what is important iswhat they said, not whether what they said istrue. I believe you have inadvertently applied the wrong standards for inclusion in popular culture sections and urge you to reconsider your decision. Thanks, and all the best.PCMartinSeattle (talk)03:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that Thompson's writings about Muskie's supposed drug use are purely speculative and even hyperbolic and Wikipedia shouldn't be reporting what is essentially rumor. In any case, I'm not sure that I see the relevance to an article about ibogaine. It could be relevant to an article such asFear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, and perhaps toHunter S. Thompson, but I fail to see how it adds any value to the article onibogaine. --Ed (Edgar181)14:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. The issue is moot: I now see that someone else had already added Thompson's Muskie-ibogaine story to the History section, where it is clearly identified as a satirical canard. All the best.PCMartinSeattle (talk)00:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that. It seems to work well in the history section the way that it is written. Regards, --Ed (Edgar181)12:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to point out that you didn't notifySandAndArt (talk ·contribs) of your block. I know that you always take care of such notifications, so this must've just been an oversight.MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM20:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that one somehow. Thanks for letting me know. --Ed (Edgar181)20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Edgar 181,

Just found out that my account has been blocked by you because apparently we are unable to provide people with the information about our not-for-profit organisation in Wales. As a community organisation wishing to give people good and independent information about sustainable / green building I am surprised to find this activity blocked and also a bit annoyed that I am not told about any blocking activity.

I don't know your role in wikipedia, but one assumes that you have a position within its structure to be able to take such action, but given that there is a range of other links in this section to other not-for-profit organisations I fail to see why we should be singled out as not being appropriate to link to. By this action all links to BREEAM or LEED as organisations for example should be banned. Why are they not so?

Surely wikipedia is about information sharing not arbitrary decisions by individual members.

Please advise

86.143.126.149 (talk)17:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Peter

This is not about "arbitrary decisions by individual members", but rather the objective application of policies developed by community consensus. Wikipedia user pages may not contain promotion of an organization unrelated to Wikipedia (seeWP:USER). That's why I deletedUser:Rounded Developments. Also, Wikipedia usernames are not permitted to match the name of an organization (seeWP:ORGNAME), so that's why the account named "Rounded Developments" was blocked. You are free to sign up for an account with a different username. If you wish to create an encyclopedia article (which should be titledRounded Developments rather thanUser:Rounded Developments), please readWikipedia's guidelines for notability first, to see if it qualifies, or the article may end up being deleted again anyway. Finally, you might want to read Wikipedia'sconflict of interest guidelines as well, which may apply. I hope this helps. --Ed (Edgar181)18:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Just to inform you that seems like bot removed your contribution inhere:P Ilyushka88 Talk to me12:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the bot did that, but I have restored my edits. Thanks for letting me know. --Ed (Edgar181)12:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You did not autoblock this person and as a result they vandalized while logged out[2].Triplestopx321:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I worked on Angelina Ballerina: The Next on my special page. I notice that I was missing a source and decided to include it. I even add the category and made improve the into and summary. Do need some help working on it.(mich (talk)03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

It looks fine to me. I did a few copyedits. Feel free to move it to the appropriate title now. --Ed (Edgar181)12:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you block 91.194.220.7 from creating an account.It is meanAnthony 5432 (talk)14:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of the years of persistent vandalism coming from that school IP address. --Ed (Edgar181)15:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

dear edgar181, you recently deleted my article of "merawatan.pk". i wanted to take a prmission from you that can i recreate this article? thanks—Precedingunsigned comment added byAhz29 (talk •contribs)13:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the article said that merawatan.pk is "not much popular and not much recognized", it would seem that it clearly does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion (seeWikipedia:Notability (web)). If you create the article again, it will most likely be just deleted again. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia in other ways, you can seeWikipedia:Your first article. --Ed (Edgar181)14:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism toGiacomo Puccini article this week alone.Viva-Verdi (talk)15:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism from this IP address has been persistent, so I have blocked again. --Ed (Edgar181)22:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making me not have to file a report onthis no-brainer. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk)20:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Ed (Edgar181)21:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You sent me a message about how my 'addition' was considered vandalism, see what i was doing was seeing how you actually add things to a text so i tried that, but then afterwords i couldn't find where i had put it in. sorry i didnt mean for it to stay there i won't do it again because i know how it works now. thank you.

katrina020—Precedingunsigned comment added by98.206.90.183 (talk)02:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem - no harm done. Welcome to Wikipedia and please feel free to contribute constructively. --Ed (Edgar181)02:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This article has been recreated several times after it gets speedied. Any chance it could besalted? Thanks! --SquidSK<sup>(1MC•log)</sup>19:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It was created a second time, generally not enough for salting, but I'll take care of it if it becomes problem. Thanks for letting me know. --Ed (Edgar181)00:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ouch[3]: nice marketingspeak quote. They're keeping it up[4].Acroterion<sub>(talk)</sub>19:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Marketing folks are not generally known for subtlety. Thanks for reverting that last addition. --Ed (Edgar181)19:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

... but one of your admin actions tonight is deeply appreciated. Cheers! --81.170.90.3 (talk)21:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to have helped ... whatever I did.  :) --Ed (Edgar181)23:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the block ofUser:Mushroomsanta about? --jpgordon<sup>::==( o )</sup>01:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I came to ask the exact same question. They have filed an unblock, and I have placed it on hold pending clarification from you. As their only edit so far had been to post the unblock request, it's difficult to understand how you came to the conclusion this was a sock, but maybe you know something I don't about this?Beeblebrox (talk)08:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This user is a sock of the vandal mentioned atWikipedia:ANI#Letter_vandalism. I have sent details by email to the two of you. --Ed (Edgar181)12:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the details, I've declined the unblock.Beeblebrox (talk)20:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be worth protecting this page to stop all the constant IP editors removing toxicity info and inserting links to vendors? Not sure what the policy is here as these edits are more good faith but misguided rather than vandalism per se, but they are common enough that they are getting reverted several times a day, and it is a fairly heavily viewed page. Your thoughts?Meodipt (talk)21:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, the page protection policy wouldn't cover a situation like this where the edits are not really vandalism. However, I have seen semi-protection used when an article is in bad shape and an editor (or group of editors) is trying to make significant improvements and needs a bit of a break from "interference" from persistent non-productive IP edits. If this is the situation, I'll semi-protect the article for awhile to give you a chance to improve it. Otherwise, we'll just have to deal with it by being vigilant and reverting bad edits - such is the nature of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Ed (Edgar181)00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Edgar. Yeah thats what I figured, good faith edits don't fall under the vandalism policy even where dubious in their accuracy! Not much more that can be done to improve it at this stage seeing as the first scientific literature references were only published last month, will have to wait for more research to be done. So I guess we just have to be vigilant about reverting inappropriate edits for now.Meodipt (talk)01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This computer is one of many on a university network. The likelihood that your message will be received by the original vandalizer is highly unlikely. However, thanks for the warning.129.7.222.204 (talk)18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. If you wish to avoid getting messages left for other users of your network, you can simply sign up for an account. --Ed (Edgar181)20:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what was the reason forDecember 15, 2009 Edgar181 deleted "File talk:Phineas Gage Death Mask.jpg"? Maybe the content of the deleted page would tell me the answer, but of course I can't see that content anymore. While we're on the subject, it would be very nice if this image could be renamed "Phineas Gage Life Mask.jpg" (instead of "death mask", which is incorrect -- see[5]); I don't know how to do this.EEng (talk)16:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That deletion was basically just housekeeping. The only content was a few meaningless words added by an anonymous editor who was probably just testing to see if they could make an edit. As for renaming the image, you can add the template{{Rename media}} to the file to request that it be moved to a new title. --Ed (Edgar181)16:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I figured that would be the answer, but as Gage is my special subject I'm very thorough when it comes to him. I'll make use of the template as you sugest. Thanks!EEng (talk)17:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Edgar--can you have a look atUser talk:216.73.65.98 and see if maybe they should be prevented from editing their talk page? In the last version before my revert, someone pasted a wiki article up there. Thanks!207.157.121.94 (talk)17:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is some history of that IP address misusing the talk page while blocked, so I have removed the ability to edit it. Thanks for letting me know. --Ed (Edgar181)20:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked86.96.229.86 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) which is an address used by Emirates Telecommunications Corporation in the UAE. As they funnel all traffic through a few IPs a great deal of collateral damage results if they are blocked. Please try not to block addresses from the UAE unless it is absolutely necessary.FredTalk18:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never blocked that IP address (log). I have not knowingly blocked for long-term anysensitive IP address. --Ed (Edgar181)18:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I got mixed up.FredTalk14:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked198.31.196.189 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) which is a typical schoolblock. The IT administrator has emailed me and is willing to work with us to identify and discipline vandals. Unblocking allows the vandal to do his thing and produce evidence, and also allows a class project to edit Wikipedia to go forward. If you are interested in following up on this please email me and I will forward your email to him.FredTalk14:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to the unblock. Please feel free to do whatever you feel is appropriate in this case - I don't think that I have much to add at this point. Thanks for letting me know. --Ed (Edgar181)15:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

OnDecember 21, 2009,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articlePentachlorobenzene, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check ) and add it toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk)19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Edgar---

You had deleted my write-up regarding OIL MIST LUBRICATION earlier this year. You were correct in identifying it as the duplicate of an article I had contributed to the periodical Machinery Lubrication. As the author of that particular article and as the co-author of the OIL MIST HANDBOOK (ISBN 0-88173-256-7), I had retained the right to make this material available to Wikipedia or any other entity.

Accordingly, kindly consider restoring my earlier contribution to the Wikipedia. Alternatively, please use the following text:

"Oil mist is an aerosol made up of 200,000 volumes of dry air per volume of lubricating oil. The oil mist is typically conveyed through steel piping and/or tubing to rolling element bearings in equipment such as centrifugal pumps and electric motors. Depending on system size and plant layout, as few as a single machine and as many as 200 machines are often connected to an oil mist generating unit. Plant-wide systems have been in use since the mid 1960's and, as of 2009, an estimated 85,000 machines are served by this reliable lube application method.

The primary advantages of this lubricant application method are its simplicity and minimized maintenance requirements. Oil mist is also applied to non-running standby equipment and machines that are either "mothballed" or require storage preservation in the open or in warehouses. Modern oil mist systems are closed-loop and do not discharge or vent to the atmosphere. Compared to conventional lubrication with liquid oil, the amount of oil consumed in mist systems is generally reduced by 80 to 90 percent."

Heinz P. Bloch, P.E.Life Fellow, ASME—Precedingunsigned comment added by173.28.20.221 (talk)02:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. Since it is possible for anyone to claim online that published material is their own, whether it is true or not, Wikipedia has a verification process. You can read about it at this link:Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. You can follow the directions there to make your published text available to Wikipedia. --Ed (Edgar181)12:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I noticed you unblocked previously indefinitely-blockedUser:Jadhaddad1982. I've just speedied his latest article (Jad ghassan haddad) which seems to be a resume or something. I mentioned this probably isn't what you had in mind when you told him to contribute 'constructively' and thought I'd mention it to you also. Merry Christmas :) —Deon<sup>talk</sup>11:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this individual is sincere, but misguided. I have deleted the article and have given a "last warning". Thank you for letting me know, and merry Christmas to you too. --Ed (Edgar181)15:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c)15:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Happy holidays to you too! --Ed (Edgar181)13:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Edgar,could you please explain me why you always delete my ad; I just can't understand what anti-scientific matter you find in my theory which is supposed to be a direct way to fight senescence affordable for any one, is safe by the definition and doesn't contradict any classical theory of aging recognized by the world biological community. If you don't mind, I would like to talk to you via e-mail.Thanks in advance for your possible co-operation .Greg.—Precedingunsigned comment added by95.79.14.248 (talk)09:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really the place for your ad, or for promotion of your theory. The link you have repeatedly added toageing has been removed each time by one of many different editors. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and I think it is clear that others agree that your link isn't appropriate. You can readWP:EL for more details about Wikipedia's external links policies. --Ed (Edgar181)14:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Edgar,

The Animal Care College is a recognised educational institution in the UK along with many others which appear in Wikipedia. No copyright has been infringed. I would appreciate it if the page could remain posted

David CavillDavidcavill (talk)13:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The article you wrote was a word-for-word copy of the website www.animalcarecollege.co.uk, which is marked as "© K9 Kreativity / The Animal Care College All rights reserved". Copying copyrighted text such as this is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Please seeWP:COPYVIO for details. If you think the college meets Wikipedia'snotability guidelines for inclusion, please feel free to write an article about it in your own words. --Ed (Edgar181)13:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I thought someone experienced might take a look at this user'scontributions. I think some of the BLP's look promotional, and I'm not convinced all would pass the professor test. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk)06:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Though it is quite possible this editor has a personal connection to the individuals involved, I'm not troubled by the edits. They certainly seem to be in good faith. My first impression is that the biographies show sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, but I tend to be inclusionist. If you disagree, you are certainly free to nominate them for deletion to get wider input (my guess is that they would "survive" a deletion discussion). --Ed (Edgar181)15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. -Shootbamboo (talk)21:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Edgar181.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 thecurrent talk page.