User talk:V8rik/Archive 09

compounds of fluorine
We have a general article on compounds of fluorine. Structural of metal has gone away. And the discussion within fluorine is shortened. Think it is in the direction which you wanted.

Variable Hybridization
Need you there at the talk page for a little help. Thanks!--Officer781 (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am on my way! V8rik (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

MO diagram pi orbitals
Thanks for your contribution to the 'Pi bond' page. Regarding the following diagram: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MO_diagram_pi_orbitals.png I wonder if you could check the signs of the wavefunctions in the sigma* anti-bonding orbitals. I think the signs of the wavefunction of bonded right hand atom should be switched around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.228.130 (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up to my attention. I have retired the image V8rik (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

commons:File:Azasugar.gif
I tagged a couple of stereochemical problems in this image of yours. DMacks (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification, I have retired the image. A record 8 years wait for peer-review! If there was a smaller time window between image creation and quality control it would be worthwhile to do this type of work V8rik (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Tetrapropylammonium perruthenate
Hello homie, your Wikipedia work is great. I appreciate your effort. Could you perhaps make a high-resolution PNG or an SVG for this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TPAP.gif? Thanks in advance! Cheers.

Georginho (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * replacement is on its way V8rik (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * done V8rik (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, buddie! Georginho (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxidative coupling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iron chloride (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) 11:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * done V8rik (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

SommeletReaction.svg
Hi, for the Dutch article on the Sommelet Reaction I used the file SommeletReaction.svg of which you seem to be the author. I notice that the intermediate product contains a "Br" while the reagens contains a generic "Hal" atom... Shouldn't the "Br" be replace by a "Hal"? Klever (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a point, for a quick fix I have opted to replace the image with one from the German Wiki V8rik (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lithium Vanadium Phosphate Battery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battery (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) 09:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks! ChaseAm (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

One-electron reduction
Hi there. In general, I am increasingly understanding of the arguments against merging. The long articles are just very difficult. This change of heart is reflected in my removing any effort to merge electrides and solvated electron.

Now about the particular issue of one-electron reduction. It just seemed to me that "one-electron reduction" is an awkward topic since inorganickers do one electron redox often and the topic is written from some sort of organic perspective. So I apologize for the perception of uncollegiality. I can revert it back and open the topic up for discussion. I thought that incorporating it into radical (chemistry) was a decent fit.

Best wishes for the New Year. BTW, what do you think about this discussion on alkenes? --Smokefoot (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Smokefoot, my best wishes for 2014! Yes, perhaps the the article could be renamed organic one-electron reduction? With regards to the alkene discussion, in an ideal world every wikipedia editor would have full access to any relevant literature. Would help the quality of the discussion V8rik (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Total Synthesis Articles
Hi, V8rik. You probably saw my mention that your total synthesis articles should be deleted. I do believe that, but I just wanted to clarify my reasons and my respect. They seem very well-written, and your effort is commendable. It's just that they don't fit in Wikipedia's notability guidelines and are too technical for this encyclopedia's scope. You should definitely host them elsewhere, though, they seem like valuable writings. Thanks for your contributions, I hope you understand. Let me know if you have any questions. Exercisephys (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello V8rik. Please message me if you become aware of any deletion discussions about these topics. It is not clear to me that wp:technical is an argument for deletion or that these articles fail to meet WP:N.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no desire at all to engage in a deletion discussion on the total synthesis articles. the content is valid and sourced, see for example http://www.amazon.com/Classics-Total-Synthesis-Targets-Strategies/dp/3527292314. If these pages are too technical then most of the organic chemistry pages are too technical, would you recommend their destruction as well? Deletion of valid content is vandalism. V8rik (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with V8's perspective in creating the articles, and disagree with having these TS articles removed, and have communicated this, with reasoning, to Exercisephys at his talk. Further discussions about targets appearing and their organization can certainly take place, but not under the artificial and unnecessary pressure of a move to delete. V8, call on me if an additional voice is ever needed, and see below for a final word from me on this (and feel free to delete if not your thing). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

See this link
…for a proposed change under discussion, on an article in which you have had interest:. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Important ongoing discussion
…concerning the future direction of the Natural Products article, see. Perhaps you have a view to express. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments above on your TS articles largely independent of this matter; the proffer is a result of me opening page after TS page, looking to see most active editors that might have an interest in the NP matter, and seeing your signature prominent at beginnings, and throughout most. Note, negative statement in this NP message was called to my attention as unacceptable, and so is deleted. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Opinion sought on my edits to the paclitaxel article
I hope a consensus on TS articles remaining in place is becoming clear. My further question, where your response was solicited, is unrelated to that Exercisephys debate. It is on how to make the paclitaxel article neutral vis-a-vis its TS discussion. While I have held off on the making any edits related to the separate namechange question, on this neutrality question I have already been editing, and I seek your opinion. Look here,, and then here to the new section. (If you want to see my motivation, see also here .) My view is simply (i) that the total synthesis content of this article should be unbiased, and (ii) that the lede should also reflect this neutrality. (The series of paclitaxel articles that are each one dedicated to a single perspective, that is fine; the overarching article must not favor one group of another, and reflect consensus opinions about each route.) My respect for your broad contributions is clear, and so I still seek your particular opinion on this new section, and the drive to neutrality in the article. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Important (surpassing) request to for assistance
…perhaps for you to attend to, or refer to another who might. In trying to get the TS section in the Endiandric acid C article up to quality, I ran up against a snag. The principle image that appears in the TS section, here, is incorrect. As I state in a hidden note in the text, IT LACKS an "X" GROUP (HAVING PREMATURELY ADDED THE PHENYLPENTADIENE TO THE STRUCTURE ABOVE THE 23-28 LEGEND)". If you know of anyone who can redo such Figures, easily (or if you can), this is one that as it stands is incorrect, and so confusing. I simply haven't the technical background to get images into Wikimedia Commons, and even if I did, would not have the time to create ChemDraw figures for WP articles. (I tried finding folks to assist with the ChemDraw scheme work, and I have a few "in training", but none are ready for prime time.) RSVP, please here, if you can assist.  Thank you.  Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Issues regarding specific articles really should be addressed at the talk page of that article. I am not available for redoing the images. The original upload was in 2009 so it is unfair to expect the original uploader to be around and have literature and raw image files still available. Best course of action would be to add a note the image (just like a reference) explaining what error the image has. It seems to me though that the three main images are direct copies of the original articles. You should then perhaps bring your complaints to the attentions of JACS.V8rik (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: the Endiandric acid C article, I had to show up here to invite you to that article, or so I thought. (We can move this discussion, there, if you wish.) I will, as you propose, have a look at the JACS article, and I can pull the article image and make a photoshop correction (all I would have time for). Later, after the next natural products question (see next paragraph), have a look at the original description:


 * My description is not yet good, but this earlier content, esp. re: the cycloadditions, was substantially incorrect. (Not just image, description as well.)


 * On the more important subject, can you perhaps go to the Natural Products article, read the "Classes" section, and then skim the article and make a brief comment at Talk there, about how good of shape it is in? (Invited earlier, above.) I am not asking you to take a side, but in fact to avoid defining sides at all. And I have no suggestion about what you should say. Rather, can you stay above the fray, and state an opinion about the overall definitions and article direction as the article currently stands (i.e., with respect to the apparent priorities of the Class section, and whether current outline is representative of the title subject)? The discussion there is getting out of hand, because no/few chemists are commenting (except two that vehemently disagree, one saying good enough, one saying not).  The Nat Prod article is IMHO a important cornerstone article, for WP to get right. I went to it originally to link to it from articles like the endiandric acid C.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for visit to NP article and
...wanted to call your attention to my shading of your entry. This is being done, so new editors comments are not lost in the sea of counter-discourse between Boghog and I. Doing so makes the new comments and questions easier to find, and easier to refer to. Since we get along fine, I am going to assume it is alright, but just ping me / say here if it is not OK. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A last short needed look
Please see possible "closing arguments" here,, and consider a final persuasive comment. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)

My "destruction" of the total synthesis articles
Hi, V8rik. I don't think the "larger Wikipedia community" is too concerned about this. Nor am I, really. I don't think the articles are sufficiently notable, but I also don't think it's worth skirmishing with you to get them deleted. I may have time at some point, but it isn't a priority.

Anyway, more generally, please stop discussing this stuff with grandiose, bombastic terms like "destruction", and "loud and clear redaction". It's a good idea to talk to people here as you would a casual friend. We're all volunteering nerds on our personal computers, there's no need to talk and act like a lawyer. Exercisephys (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * E'phys, see comment at your talk page. Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Some statement at User page, or here at talk
...regarding your priorities/interests would stop you from getting unwanted requests to comment. I noted you as the most substantial contributor of quality to TS pages (see barnstar above), and have sought you out in issues related to these. This inference may have been mistaken, but given the dearth of stated priorities/interests, it is the best that could be done. Either stating what you do and do not want to be bothered with, or responding at least politely, in some fashion, when requests are made, would provide guidance, and save space and wasted time. A respectful thought. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the support. Some fellow editors cannot be reasoned with. I will of course respond to reasonable requests but preferably on the talk pages of the articles and not on my user page. This is a Wikipedia policy. V8rik (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ion-neutral complex, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Aggregate and Isotope effect. 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) 09:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Squalane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dimerization. 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) 09:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kroehnke Pyridine Synthesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Category. 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) 10:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Binary compounds of hydrogen
Are you happy with the changes made to Binary compounds of hydrogen between 24 June 2014 and 5 December 2014? Biscuittin (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dodecahedrane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unsaturation. 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) 09:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Langmuir equation
An article that you have been involved in editing, Langmuir equation, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. TatanyaGolding (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)