User talk:Zghajos

Welcome to Wikipedia
Dforest (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and let me copy and paste here my comment to Eugene Kwan in the Aldol article in Wikipedia:"Hello Dr.Kwan: Thank you for making the changes in the text below the reaction equation leading to the bicyclic ketol or aldol, if you wish. The fact remains that, one cannot synthesize this compound under the "harsher" Schering reaction conditions which bypass this compound and lead to the optically active bicyclic dione. The reaction scheme as it is shown in the article has only been reported by us (ZGH and DRP); the Schering group has not reported it. Thanks again and greetings, Zoltan" (March2,2008)84.2.146.123 (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Zghajos (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hajos-Parrish-ketols.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Hajos-Parrish-ketols.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have a copyright problem. These structures appeared in our paper in J.Org.Chem., 1974, 39, 1615- 1621 under the authorship of Zoltan G.Hajos and my coworker,David R. Parrish. The immediate source,however, comes from my own computer files. This note was made on March 29,2008 by Zoltan G. Hajos Zghajos (talk)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hajos-catechol-scheme-2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hajos-catechol-scheme-2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hajos-catechol-scheme-2.jpg
Image:Hajos-catechol-scheme-2.jpg is my drawing and is not copyright protected, it belongs to the public domain. Signed: Zoltan G. Hajos Zghajos (talk) September 27, 2008

Your comments at Talk:Aldol reaction
Hi there

Your comments seem rather vague. What exactly is the problem? Maybe I can help.

Looking around your contributions, I saw that an article you created, Chemistry of Heterocyclic Catechol Sulfates, was deleted. Are you referring to this?

Do let me know; you can reply here, and I'll get back to you. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at responding to your concerns as I understand them: Hope this information has been a helpful start. Feel free to discuss further here or we can find more public places to get lots more input about the wider issues. DMacks (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding using one's expertise, we love having experts write about what they know! Even Jimbo, founder of Wikipedia, has said so. There have been several discussions about "expert editors", but none have gained widespread acceptance that I can see. More importantly, none of them would exempt such editors from existing policies and content standards. Wikipedia is explicitly not a free-for-all, where anyone (even well-known or well-regarded people) can post anything, or where a page about any topic can exist. Wikipedia is only for verifiable content, not for original work. It's at best a collection of review articles, and definitely not a research journal. Most editors here aren't experts but are able to write well-cited content. Even experts should be able to cite specific support for ideas from refereed journals and other independent publications. By setting a uniform standard, a reader doesn't have to figure out all the editors who contributed to a page and do background checks (even if real names were known). Instead, it's enough to require cited sources, so that "anyone" can know exactly how to verify a statement (or even just to know what specific publication to look at for trustworthiness). An added bonus of requiring external references is that it allows the curious reader to know where to go to learn more.
 * Current username policy permits (and even supplies some reasons for) use of non-real names. You would have to go there and start a discussion about requiring real-life identity. But in general, why does it matter how famous or non-famous in real life he or she is? If users act well here and follow Wikipedia policies and content guidelines, they are regarded well here, which includes the above verifiability standard. This solves the problem of requiring real-life identification, doing actual background checks, or requiring anyone to know just how much to trust each one of an editor's statements of fact or opinions about anything.
 * The Administrators are just editors who have been confirmed by discussion among other editors to be allowed the power to delete pages (among other abilities). They're supposed to act only to carry our established Wikipedia policies and procedures for deletion (among others), merely doing the work, not wielding special powers to "win" with their opinion. If an article is deleted, either it was against policy, or there was a consensus after discussion among editors that the material was not appropriate (again, a discussion based on policies and guidelines). There is usually an explanation mentioning the policies or discussion that led to the deletion, so you can figure out what the deleting admin was thinking. You can even contest a deletion if you think the admin acted inappropriately. Admins are more considered janitors, beating back a tide of pages that violate policies and carrying out the consensus desires of the editor community. I'd say most are proud to help keep Wikipedia from becoming overrun with all sorts of inappropriate content, though often annoyed at how thankless the task is and how much of this type of work has to be done.
 * If it's going to take longer than the WP:PROD or other timeframe to get an article into a form that would be viable, it's fine to write it somewhere else and upload it when you're ready. You can even use various parts of Wikipedia that aren't "main article space" for works-in-progress. As well, there are lots of experienced editors (and especially ones familiar with certain subjects) who can help you get some content ready for a real article (or help explain why it would not be viable). There's actually a whole Chemistry group on Wikipedia where you can get specific guidelines and help about chemistry articles.

Duplicate Image:Hajos-catechol-scheme 1.JPG
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Hajos-catechol-scheme 1.JPG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Hajos-catechol-scheme 1.JPG is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Hajos-catechol-scheme 1.JPG, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:C.T.Wong-Tet.Let.-2009-811.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:C.T.Wong-Tet.Let.-2009-811.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Dear ImageTaggingBot, please see my lines to V8rik below. Thanks for your offer and any assistance you can furnish. Greetings from the real Zoltan G. Hajos, aka Zghajos, 17 January 2009

Images
Hi Zghajos, your images on the Hajos-Parrish-Eder-Sauer-Wiechert reaction page look pretty horrible. photocopies! I will be glad to redo the images in a graphic editor. I am using BKchem. I will also sort out the licencing,  Good idea? V8rik (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi V8rik, thank you for your support. I agree with your assessment. Please redo the images in a graphic editor. Also, please rectify the licencing. The scheme comes from Tetrahedron Letters, it is in the public domain. It's a great idea! Thanks. Would you please take a look why the Hajos-Parrish-ketols.jpg picture also seem to suffer a licencing problem? These appeared in my publication in J.Org.Chem. 1974, 39, 1615-1621, therefore they are own work in the public domain. Thanks again Zoltan G. Hajos aka Zghajos, 17 January 2009


 * Done!V8rik (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks, Zoltan. User:Zghajos. 22:25, 19 January 2009.

License tagging for File:C.T.Wong-Tet.Let.-(50)2009-811.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:C.T.Wong-Tet.Let.-(50)2009-811.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear ImageTaggingBot, the image you refer to has been exchanged to a .svg file by User:V8rik, and its the license tagging has also been executed by V8rik. User:Zghajos. 22:25, 19 January 2009.

Proposed Image Deletion
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see
The following Talk entry,, thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoltan hajos article
Based on the comments please delete the Zoltan hajos article totally. Thanks. Zoltan Zghajos (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Zghajos, I have nominated your article for deletion. If you can, please participate in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Zoltan Hajos. Thank you. Liz  Read! Talk! 16:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Zoltan Hajos at the University of Veszprem 1953.pdf listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zoltan Hajos at the University of Veszprem 1953.pdf, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Leyo 21:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)