User:Meodipt/2016 talk archive

Possibly misspeled reference

Trimeperidine article contains a reference leading to 'Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacology'. What an actual journal was meant? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.60.28.252 (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Most likely "Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology" I would say. Meodipt (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PR-104, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypoxic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WF-33.svg

Old phenyltropane image you uploaded, WF-33, has alpha oriented acyl group, are you sure this is correct? It has same binding values as compound 10c from this paper on C3-naphthyl-C2-acyl phenyltropane derivatives and it only indicates the 11 series has alpha orientation at the C2 of any of them. Nagelfar (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Good question. If you look at the cited patent reference, at the bottom of column 11 on page 7 it says that WF-33 has 2α,3β stereochemistry, and that was presumably what I relied upon when I drew that image all those years ago. On closer re-examination now though, if you look at some of the other examples on the same page such as WF-48 and WF-65, it says those ones have 2β,3β stereochemistry (which as you say is much more common in this class of molecules), and those are synthesised from WF-33, so barring some unlikely inversion process during the reaction, it seems more likely that it is a mistake in the patent draft where it says WF-33 is 2α,3β and it should actually say 2β,3β as with all the other example compounds. There are a few other typos in that document too if you look for them (dried spelled as dreid for example) though obviously getting the stereochemistry wrong in one of the examples is a worse mistake to make (and for no one to pick up on right through to publication!) Unfortunately this kind of simple mistake is not uncommon in the patent literature, and probably one of the main reasons it is considered less reliable a source than peer-reviewed scientific journals. But then of course there is so much that is only ever published in patents and never makes it into a journal article, so what can you do... Meodipt (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This is why I thank the good lord every day for WP, since when I see two discrepancies, I can notate as much in a footnote on its page, if I see more, I can change it to the favorable source if it doesn't appear to be a copy error. Thanks for getting back to me Meodipt. Nagelfar (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pycnandra acuminata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Organic salt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited GNF6702, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sleeping sickness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Deprodding of 10-Fluorocannabidiol diacetate

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from 10-Fluorocannabidiol diacetate, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that, since Thincat contested the PROD of 10-Fluorocannabidiol diacetate for lacking a proper rationale, you should not rePROD it. However, you can still try deleting it via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which may take more effort, but can be done anytime. I agree that the compound is not notable, but rules are rules and Articles for deletion is the only way to go now. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI, here you go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10-Fluorocannabidiol diacetate. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)