User talk:V8rik/Archive 05

File:MetathesisROMPSchrock1993.svg

Hi. The Mo metathesis catalyst looks like it has two carbene ligands in this reaction scheme. I think that there is a nitrogen atom label missing to make the upper ligand an arylimido group. Mert0014 (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamoxifen

Hello, your image of the tamoxifen synthesis on the Grignard page is slightly wrong: It's missing an oxygen, it's a phenolic ethyl amine not a phenyl ethyl amine.

3PN

Hi, your scheme of the reaction in the hydrocyanation of butadiene to adipodinitrile has a small mistake. The molecule denominated as "3PN" is actually 4PN (4-pentenenitrile). 3PN isomerizes in the reactor to 4PN before beeing hydrocyanated. Hermann Luyken 2008.07.12 19:56 —Preceding comment was added at 17:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DOPA catalyst

Hi, can you confirm that this is right? It looks right to me, but I'm on vacation and can't check the literature. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Endoexoisomerism.gif

Heya V8rik

Thanks for your image. A few years on, standards have changed. I've recently drawn a replacement. Do you want to keep your original? Would you have any objections/comments about me speedying it? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Copolymers.png

Hi V8rik. I uploaded the image Image:Copolymers.png to Commons for use at swedish wikipedia, the article sv:Sampolymerer. I hope you don't mind. You can see the image page at commons:Image:Copolymers.png. If there are any problems, please give me a note at my swedish talk page, I'm afraid I don't check my account here often enough. Best regards // Mankash (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:QuinineRabeKindlerII.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:QuinineRabeKindlerII.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGatalk 04:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:QuinineStorkSynthMiddle.png

A tag has been placed on Image:QuinineStorkSynthMiddle.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is a redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:QuinineStorkSynthMiddle.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JaGatalk 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retinal - reference question

Hi V8rik, you have added a reference for the all-trans 13-cis isomerization pathway in type I or bacterial rhodopsin. It would be nice to have additionally authors and title of J Photochem Photobiol B. 2002 Apr;66(3):188-94 listed, too. Could you please try to help? Kind regards, --Drahkrub (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V8rik is out of wiki office since 5th of May, when is wikibreak ends is unclear!!--Stone (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular orbital image

The image MO_diagram_pi_orbitals.png, I believe, has a small mistake. The phase of the sigma* orbital should be reversed on the right side of the center node. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yertsivad (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

It's good to have you back.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good editors are rare. And for me you are one of them! --Stone (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. You were missed. Few editors have added as much chemical content to Wikipedia as you have! --Itub (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great that you're back - we missed you! Walkerma (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you're back. I've been reading a bunch of your articles, and they're very helpful and informative. Crystal whacker (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aziridine.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Aziridine.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alkane metathesis

FYI: I converted the references at alkane metathesis to inline citations. Thank you for writing part of the article. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:485.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:485.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Morphology (materials science)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Morphology (materials science), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unacceptable, you cannot state: improve or expand this article or else I will delete it. Wikipedia is not a forced-labor camp. Take it or leave it. Google count 526,000 for "materials science" && morphology . Materials science and nanotech are all about morphology. V8rik (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:RadicalPolymerization.png

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:RadicalPolymerization.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sasikiran (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


N is for nitrogen

Hi. Again for the image of free radical polymerization of ethylene, could you change N to n both on the left of the image and in the title. The problem is that N looks like a free-floating nitrogen, whereas the degree of polymerization is usually n. Dirac66 (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piloty-Robinson reaction.png

Hi, V8rik. As noted by User:FK1954 at Talk:pyrrole, there is an error in Image:Piloty-Robinson reaction.png. The product should be a dimethyl pyrrole rather than a diethyl pyrrole. Do you think you can fix it? I have marked the image with {{disputed chem}}, but please just remove the template if/when the image is fixed. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methylcyclopropane

I was going to edit this thing but realized that I was in over my head. Some allusions to use in protecting groups and rxns that you might feel comfortable with. Glad to see that you still keeping an eye on us and helping out.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

per Help: Minor edit: "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: type corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

I would argue that the removal of several sentences in the Chemical reaction article is not a minor edit. Content was removed. Now, I have no dispute with the change, just in labeling it minor.

By the way, should the paragraph that you altered be bulleted? Ronstew (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the reminder, I should pay more attention with regard to minor edits / major edits. I do not see your point on bulletizing. It facilitates reading a text. An alternative would be converting the section to a table. V8rik (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the rest of the section (except the introductory paragraph) was bulleted, but not the last paragraph. I thought you might have forgotten. Or should it stand alone? Ronstew (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it should stand alone, not part of the list. V8rik (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Ronstew (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on CH2O

I felt bad and worried about removing that material, so thank you for rescuing it. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

liscensing

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavefortheempire (talk • contribs) 00:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wackerprocess.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wackerprocess.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolffenstein-Böters reaction

Should the Hg(NO2)2 in the WolfensteinBotersreaction.png be a Hg(NO3)2?--Stone (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Associative substitution

I saw that you requested this article or something like it. If you have any suggestions, let me know below (or edit away). I will then try an article dissociative pathway. Maybe the interchange mechanisms (Id and Ia) could be discussed within these two articles. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The factual accuracy of the chemical structure Image:Mannich-1.png is disputed

Dispute notification The chemical structure Image:Mannich-1.png you uploaded has been tagged as disputed and is now listed in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams/expired. Images in this category are deleted after one month if there is no upload of a corrected version and if there is no objection from the uploader or other users. Please discuss on the image talk page if you feel that the dispute is inappropriate. If you agree with the dispute, you can either upload a corrected version or simply allow the image to be deleted.

In all cases, please do not take the dispute personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! --Leyo 09:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • this image is not mine. Perhaps the image I have originally used in Mannich base has been replaced by one from commons and then the original was deleted. The dispute by the way really concerns a detail , an arrow pointing the wrong way. This commons policy of having an image removed when the dispute is not handled within one month is disturbing. You cannot bully people into collaborating with wikipedia: correct the work now or suffer the consequences. Our focus should be on expanding wikipedia and not deletions V8rik (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to inform you. I am not talking about this, but about this dispute. --Leyo 14:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I request you to make the change to the image. ;-) --Leyo 10:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now this makes sense. I have replaced the two disputed images on Mannich base with a single new one and I have also updated the article in general. This should solve the issue V8rik (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Could you please upload the image on Commons as the disputed one is also used in mk:Манихова база? At the same time, you may want to correct the spelling of “formation” in the file name. --Leyo 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not happy with the reaction mechanism at the new File:MannichBase forrmation base catalysed.svg because OH− is not a good leaving group and a C− seems to attack without a reason. en:Mannich reaction#Reaction mechanism shows it the way I learned it recently. Matthias M. (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several comments:
    • this issue should be handled on the Talk page of the article in question, no need to address it on my Talk page.
    • remember that images of reaction mechanisms are cartoons and the level of detail will always vary
    • the image depicted is the less common base catalyzed Mannich , most people would be familiar with the acid catalyzed version only.
    • The image very closely resembles Jerry March, see reference one in the article.

V8rik (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not read that it was base-catalysed and you are right: I will ask questions on the article discussion page next time. Matthias M. (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strecker degradation

Somebody added the Strecker degradation, and the chemical reaction drawing looks a little stange. You are the expert on name reactions and so I would ask you if you can have a look? Thanks --Stone (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OrganoP

You probably saw that I am re-organizing organophosphorus, which you championed. I hope that my work is okay to your eyes. I spun off phosphaalkene onto its own, and incorporated a bit of the remains into phosphine subsection, which is a stretch. In any case, if you still have the file, please tweak the left carbon substituent on Poly(p-phenylenephosphaalkene).png. If you could lay out the reaction linearly, it would fit better on a page, vs the two-line format. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double bond table

Your double bond table is intriguing, so forgive my uninvited comments: It is striking just how small carbon is, such that CH2O rapidly oligomerizes. Only with the "bulky" CH3 ligand that the C=O becomes stable. Similar, C2H4 is only kinetically stabilized wrt to the polymer. Oxidation state is important in the categories, e.g. P=C for P(V) as in Wittig and P(III) as in phosphalkene, S=O/NR in S(IV) and S(VI) states. I think that RP=O and RPO2 have been studied, or at least trapped. Many chemists (e.g., me) only like to think about chem near room temp and ignore species such as SiO and possibly SO that our high T friends think are important. In principle, your table could take a third dimension: with single, double, triple bond orders being the third dimension. Good luck with your project.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I really like your Double bond rule article. It highlights the many existing articles on doubly-bonded compounds, which often have obscure names.
I've been making a few images in response to the new molecules your table has introduced me to, e.g. Commons:Category:Boraphosphabenzenes and Commons:Category:Phosphaalkynes.
Thanks for this great addition.
Ben (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steglich esterfication

Thanks for the article! I know Steglich and he is a nice guy and deserves a article for this. Most of his life he was hunting chemicals in mushroms. The DMAP is under investigation again and some really promissing faster catalysts have been discovered, but they will be expensive. Also a chiral DMAP has been developed by Gregory C. Fu in the late 1990s. --Stone (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice to know you like the article , but let me haste to add I did a translation (!) from the German Wiki. We have to thank one of our German colleagues for creating the article. V8rik (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobic

Greetings!
Thanks for your contributions to Di-tert-butyl peroxide. One of your recent edits included a link to Aerobic, a disambiguation page. The use of these links is discouraged on Wikipedia as they are unhelpful to readers. In the future, please check your links to make sure they point to articles. Thanks!

twirligigT tothe C 17:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asymmetric reductive amination

Talk:Reductive amination question related to your File:AsymmetricReductiveAmination.png. DMacks (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gombergalg.png

Hi, your image File:Gombergalg.png was moved to commons, and as licensing has changed since 2006, it now has a license warning message on it. Can you correct it to what it has to be perhaps? Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organoscandium chemistry

In Organoscandium chemistry, ScCl3, not SbCl3, etc.? --Vuo (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wp:DYK

since you are working on filling {{ChemicalBondsToCarbon}} template you may want to nominate some of your creations to DyK. Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also, you may find the {{chem}} template useful for all the reactions you are inputting. Nergaal (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fenstrane

See remark on discussionpage of commons:Fenestranes.png. T.vanschaik (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove disclaimers

Hallo V8rik,

it is really amazing how many great images you contributed. I don't know if you are aware of how many of these images have already been tranferred to commons and are used on other wikipedias. I would therefore like to ask you if you are willing to remove the disclaimers from these images like this File:CubaneSynthesis.png. If so I would do this for you, you just have to write here that you agree to remove the disclaimers from your images. Also I found some images here that carry disclaimers and there it would be nice if you could remove the disclaimer:

Thanks a lot.

Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Thanks!. everybody can do what they like with the images so by all means remove the disclaimers. The point is, I would like to do it myself but I do not know what exactly to remove(!). Each image appears to have two licences but only one tag. V8rik (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's great. I was told, it would be better if you removed the disclaimer. All you have to do is edit the page of the file and remove the "-with-disclaimers" ({{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}} to {{GFDL-self}}). Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reductive_amination_acetophenone_ammonia.svg

Hi V8rik

I think you've dropped a trailing zero with regard to the pressure of the reaction. From Org. Synth., it should probably read 3500-5000 psi. Could you take a look? Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Done! V8rik (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Hofmann-MartiusRearrangement.png

File:Hofmann-MartiusRearrangement.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Hofmann-MartiusRearrangement.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Hofmann-MartiusRearrangement.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hofmann-MartiusApplication.png is now available as Commons:File:Hofmann-MartiusApplication.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Arynessvg.svg is now available as Commons:File:Arynessvg.svg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:PentacycloanammoxicAcid.png is now available as Commons:File:PentacycloanammoxicAcid.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millon's reagent

Thank you for deeming that the article's problems are no more, and for removing the warning notice! --Kay Dekker (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autoreviewer

Hi, after reading one of your articles at newpage patrol I was surprised to see that an editor whose been here since 2005 hadn't been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 22:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single point energy

Single point energy has nothing to do with Walsh diagram#Generating Walsh Diagrams. It is the jargon used in computational chemistry to indicate just calculating the energy at a fixed geometry rather than optimising the geometry. I am not sure, however, what it should be redirected to. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably best for now, but I have problems with your edit to Potential energy surface. First, it is a direct copy of the link you provide so maybe there are copyright issues. Second it is misleading. The single point energy is the total energy (potential electronic energy, kinetic electronic energy and nuclear repulsion energy) of a molecule. The single points provide the potential energy surface which is the potential energy for nuclear motion. I will see if I can find a better reference. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]