User talk:V8rik/Archive 01

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

• Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
• To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
• You can experiment in the test area.
• You can get help at the Help Desk
• Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit.

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- Utcursch | Talk to me

Torsional Strain

V8rik, can you write a page on torsional strain for wiki? There is one for angular strain, but when you go to torsional strain, wikipedia redirects you to eclipsed.

For now Torsional_strain redirects to Alkane stereochemistry V8rik 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,

Thanks for starting a page on convergent synthesis, it's much needed, as well as the many other contributions you've made on other topics in organic chemistry. We need as many chemists as we can get on Wikipedia, we have been pretty short of people in this area. Although I see you're fairly new, you seem to have found your way around pretty well- though I'm still finding things after six months on Wikipedia. In case you haven't found them yet, some of the useful pages on chemistry topics are:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals
• List_of_chemistry_topics
• List_of_reactions
• List of compounds (very soon this will split into List of organic compounds, List of inorganic compounds and List of biomolecules, which are also heavily pruned down to remove obscure compounds. If you write a new page on a compound (such as Cyanuric acid be sure to add it to the list).
• Category:Chemistry (work your way down through the hierarchy to find other categories).

Thanks again, Walkerma 14:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. I was taking a look at your new page on DABCO, and I notice that you're using an out-of-date table. Have you seen the options at Wikipedia:Chemical_infobox? I would recommend using Cacycle's table Template:Chembox_simple_organic, which is currently in use on over 150 organic compound pages. Meanwhile I have been adding your new compound pages into the lists. Thanks again, Walkerma 16:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ester

I noticed that you moved the content from ester to ester compound. I have made some comments about this on talk:ester. Overall i am not very happy with this. You should have called the page ester (chemistry) if he move was absolutely necesary.

Borb 08:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Borb on this- I have never heard esters called "ester compounds" before, and also the alternatives are so obscure compared to the importance of esters in chemistry. It is quite common to have several meanings- but if one dominates then it should take that name. See iron, copper and morphine. Walkerma 15:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:TMP.gif

Image deletion warning

The image Image:TMP.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 01:02, May 13, 2005 (UTC) {{subst:idw-puiImage:TEMPO.gif|}} Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 01:02, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Image:TMP synthesis.gif

Image deletion warning

The image Image:TMP synthesis.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 01:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

I agree, the current upload form sucks. However, that is what we have. Basically, we need two things. 1. A source (you in this case), you mention that you created it. 2. A licence. The GFDL is what the text is licenced under, but you can see more at Wikipedia:Copyrights. Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 22:52, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Hey, for all your images, you can remove the PUI and no source stuff, and add {{PD-self}} Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 05:56, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi! I'd just like to commend you for your contributions to the Wikipedia, especially in the area of chemistry. Good work! — flamingspinach | (talk) 22:42, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Great job on the new maleic acid page! Thanks a lot, Walkerma 19:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Bravo Zulu; Yet more thanks

You really improved the DMSP entry that I recently posted.

I never would have thought to make links to terms like abiotic and a couple of the others. I could blame it on working in this particular area for a while, but the whole idea of an entry is to convey useful information. Field-specific jargon gets in the way of that. Thanks again.

prokaryote 23:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(note I've changed screen names since the DMSP entry. Same person, though.

Toluidine

I have edited the fairly new p-toluidine article which you wrote. As mentioned on the Talk:p-toluidine page, I am considering moving the p-toluidine article to Toluidine, if possible (so as to keep a record to your contributions), and expanding the article to include all three toluidine isomers. I plan to do this when I have had a chance to prepare an expanded table for all three toluidines. See Talk:p-toluidine. If you have any remarks, let me know. H Padleckas 06:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Acid-Base Naming

I just pulled the name for the [[Acid-base catalysis article off of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles, but the Acid catalysis article is certainly more comprehensive. On the name though, which do you think would work better? The other name, and Base catalysis can just be turned into re-dericts, unless mention wants to be made of acid or base specific reactions. Any idea? --Icelight 23:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Fraction (disambiguation)

Fractionation links to Fraction, but unfortunately there's no chemical (etc) fraction listed there. Could you add a link, even a redlink, for an article into Fraction (disambiguation)? Josh Parris ✉ 05:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've taken advantage of your creativity. Josh Parris ✉ 06:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the macrocycles article

Thanks for the help with the links on the macrocycle article. I hope that you don't mind, but I updated the knotane article and moved it under a new title, molecular knots. On a quick review of the literature, it seems that the latter term is far more common, while knotane is quite limited in use. Cheers Jeffrey 19:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Adding articles to Chemistry

This is in response to your comment on my talk page.

I have no problem with people recategorizing articles I've marked under "[[Category:Chemistry]]"; I felt that some of them needed categorization which they were lacking. If they can find subclasses which more appropriately fit, that's fine. The main thing is articles should have categorization on anything relevant and on any category they are related to. This makes it easier for someone to find a relevant article on a subject. If the article lacks an important class, it should be added; the class can be refined later, e.g. organic chemistry or polymer chemistry or pharmaceuticals or whatever, as a change from or in addition to classification under chemistry alone. But getting an initial classification or expanded additional classification(s) in the first place is what's important.

Paul Robinson 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC) (User Rfc1394)

Image:Acetalisation2.gif

Image deletion warning

Image:Acetalisation2.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Image:Acetalisation2.gif

Please attach Image:Acetalisation2.gif to an article. By policy (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), Wikipedia is not an image repository and images need to be put in "an encyclopedic context." Thanks. Nv8200p 17:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Chemistry

Hi I saw your article Cyclodecapentaene you created. Quite an article, did you really write that from scratch? I'm assuming you did, but it's so full of information and intersting stuff that I'm worried it's copied from somewhere! Don't take that as an offense, it's just that we need to be careful to avoid copyright violations. This was meant more of as a congratulations than it has come out, I swear! Also you may be interested in Wikipedia:Missing science topics, particularly the chemistry one. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 19:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Chemistry categories

Hi. Thanks for your note. I've only been deleting the main category if the article appeared to be in a chemstry subcategory. But I don't know much about the subject. I've just been trying to get the many articles in the main cats moved to appropriate subcats. This kind of work seems to languish. But it appears that the chemistry category has been getting smaller, and I'll be happy to get out of the way if someone with more knowledge is taking care of things. Maurreen (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Pauling's rules -> Orbital hybridisation

Hi, I deleted that redirect because it didn't seem to correspond very closely with what the scienceworld article covered. If the redirect you created is more correct than what SW has, please recreate the redirect. I may have pulled the trigger too quick on that one, sorry, just want to be accurate and comprehensive. - Taxman ^Talk 18:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

On chemistry mechanisms

I think the thing to remember is that chemistry mechanisms (as opposed to named reactions) are grouped for good reasons. An alkyne trimerization is not a cycloaddition (note difference between cycloaddition and cyclization) because it's not concerted, it doesn't follow the woodward-hoffman orbital rules -- these distinctions are particularly important and serve a purpose. In the case of the ene reaction, a link is provided up to the pericyclic reaction page, where you can find ene reactions under group transfer reactions.

Polymer stub question

Hi, Is their a guideline on the use of stubs and categories? I had added {{Polymer-stub}} to a couple of Category:Polymer chemistry or Category:Organic polymers articles. I see that you have removed the {{Polymer-stub}} part. Can articles be both a stub and category? It should make it easier to flag those people might want to work on. Thanks. ChemGardener 00:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Schiff Bases

What's up with the claim that a Schiff base must have an aryl group connected to the nitrogen? It's my understanding that any imine derived from a primary amine, aromatic or not, is a Schiff base. For example, in rhodopsin, retinal forms a Schiff base with a lysine sidechain. Josh Cherry 13:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for getting the olefin metathesis article put together earlier this year, I'm really glad we had it in place when the Nobel news came out. Cheers, Walkerma 14:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• I will second that! The Nobel Prize was the top story on French TV news, front page in all the papers... I dropped by to ask you to put tabs on the images you uploaded (those used in olefin metathesis) so that I can safely use them in the French article: I assume that they are {{GFDL-self}}, but I cannot put that tab on myself (it has to be the uploader). Keep up the good work! Physchim62 10:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Dicyclopentadiene comment question

Hi V8rik, I saw you removed the merge notice on dicyclopentadiene. Will it automatically be removed from cyclopentadiene as well? I didn't understand the linkfarm comment. Does that refer to the links between cyclopentadiene and dicyclopentadiene? Thanks. ChemGardener 19:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response. I didn't take the edit comment as particularly aimed at my edit, just trying to understand it. The citing of references and sources and problems thereof are something I'm just learning about. Regards, ChemGardener 21:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Nicolaou Taxol total synthesis

Hello V8rik, I just (almost randomly) came across your taxol total synthesis page. It looks like quite a labor of love and a nice peice of work. Congrats. If you would like some help with future total synthesis articles, I'd be willing to lend a hand. Have you thought of adding a retrosynthetic analysis before the first section (Synthesis C ring)? I find that retrosynthetic analysis helps people see the larger picture, synthetic strategy, and the real art in synthesis. ~K 17:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks ~K for your suggestions. The retrosynthetic strategy should be included but for now not on my to-do list. What I have in mind with taxol total synthesis is compiling all current efforts (Danishefsky is next) according to one and the same format I hope that the total synthesis collection will give readers a better idea why all these organic reactions exist in the first place. Your help and input is greatly appreciated, you are already doing a great job with the named reactions. V8rik 18:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow! What a fantastic piece of work! I'd been thinking for a while that we needed to have some total syntheses up, to highlight some of the classic syntheses (I'd been thinking of Woodward's strychnine, or would you suggest a different RBW synthesis?). You've done a great job of starting off this class of article, with a landmark synthesis. (However, I hope you're also going to do the synthesis by Holton, which after all was the first Taxol synthesis!). I'd always thought that one of the long term benefits of having a good range of chemical compound articles is that one could write decent synthesis articles, it's wonderful to see that finally come true! Thanks a lot for many, many hours of work, Walkerma 05:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks again! What I have in mind is comparing taxol synthesis by Holton, Danishefsky & paquette. I am working on these at the moment. There is room for a general page on taxol total synthesis that would include retrosynthesis of various strategies (volunteers?). Can somebody help me out with a dynamic 3D taxol image? You are absolutely right, with all the named reactions, reagents and principles in place describing long synthetic schemes is much easier, wiki must take advantage of that. My suggestions for new total synthesis pages would be anything relevant coming out this year. I did see aflatoxin and a new morphine synthesis but what is the most important total synthesis published in 2005? V8rik 00:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to ask my colleague, Tony Molinero, he did his PhD on Taxol. I could probably do a page on approaches to morphine synthesis, by updating pages from my PhD dissertation (which is on methodology work, but morphine was a possible application I looked into). Can you let me know the reference to the new synthesis? In grad school I kept up on the latest total syntheses, but now I teach in an undergrad school it's harder to keep my finger on the pulse, and my main area of research interest is in methodology. If I wanted to identify the top synthesis of recent months, I think I would review "News of the Week" in C&E news. I will be going to the Atlanta meeting of the ACS in March, I will keep my ears open. Or will you be there too? Perhaps we could have a coffee or a beer if you are? Cheers, Walkerma 02:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The most important natural product synthesis of 2005? Good question. I'll give my two bits. Amos B. Smith, III of the University of Pennsylvannia has a long running Discodermolide program. (Discodermolide is another microtubulin stabilizer, like taxol.) They are making Discodermolide analogs on gram scale now for clinical testing. Very exciting stuff with lots of papers out this year. (Org. Lett. 2005, 7(23), 5229-5232, Org. Lett. 2005, 7(21), 4613-4616 and four other this year alone!) There would definitely be plenty to write about. ~K 03:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Johnson-Corey-Chaykovsky reaction

Hey V8rik, I made some major changes to the Johnson-Corey-Chaykovsky reaction page you wrote a few days ago. I hope you like them. Could you check the page to make sure it's still correct? ~K 20:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Looks great, thanks, I realise now I had the Johnson pic dead wrong........ I am still looking for a way to improve the quality of my images, tried to import ISIS/draw into Illustrator but nothing worked. V8rik 20:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend saving the images as TIFF files, then converting them to PNG files using The GIMP. (Walkerma uses IrfanView.) For some reason, the TIFF images are VERY large (pixelwise), so when they are converted and resized smaller to something useful, they end up looking fantastic. Click on the images, and you'll see they are huge. ~K 20:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Silyl Ethers

Thanks for the correction. I don't know if I did that, but it was clearly a big goof... Eugene Kwan 04:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• No thanks, actually the TBS mistake in silyl ether was mine in the first place! V8rik 16:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Trigonal bipyramid

Is there really a difference between the chemistry and the geometry term? Anyway, in your edit summary you had already answered my question; one of the incoming links is modular origami and I was attempting to disambiguate between a mixup in terminology I had. --HappyCamper 16:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• thanks for pointing this out and I made the necessary changes there is now the general geometry term Trigonal bipyramid and new article Trigonal bipyramid molecular geometry. I still have an issue woith the cleanup tag, I find the origami article also up to Wiki quality standards but I leave that one up to you V8rik 17:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I put the cleanup tag there because I wanted to clean up the meaning between "trigonal bipyramidal" and "trigonal bipryamid" - the former is the apparently the adjective form of the latter according to WP:RD/L. However, I guess it's not so important. We'll leave the article as is, and when I come across more information, I'll add to it. --HappyCamper 17:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Chemist

Hey V8rik, I just chanced upon your beautiful Nicolaou Taxol total synthesis. Your chemistry work is state-of-the-art!

I'm looking for a good free chemical drawing program. I've hand-drawn with OpenOffice.org 10 until discovering ISIS/Draw 2.5, but the latter has a bug that prevents it from exporting under Windows 2000. Do you have any advice what I could use? I usually draw small molecules for medication-related pages. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• well, thanks! have you tried accessing your application under MS Word? Just open MS Word, and include an object, any chemical drawing program like ISIS/draw should automatically in the list. Then save the word file as a HTML page and collect the gif image from the folder that MS automatically creates. Also try ~K's suggestion, download IrfanView (free and reliable), save the drawing as a tiff file, open de image in irfanview (in my application it saves as a triple $ somehow) en save as a png image (compression level 6 on a sale of 9). Important: create the image twice the intended size and twice the indented bond thinkness and crop the image in Wiki. This way you reduce the pixelation and make to images look smooth. Drawback: difficult to work with very large images. The images I did for Pyramidal alkene were done that way. Still improvising so I will keep looking out for the perfect open source solution V8rik 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Cucurbiturils Revision

Regarding your recent update on cucurbiturils. It is commonly accepted when dealing with macromolecules that traditional naming schemes commonly applied to smaller molecules are abandoned as they become too long and cumbersome. Thus more convenient systems of nomenclature are invented. While inclusion of the systematic name for cucurbituril highlights point I do not think that it provides any useful information for someone interested in this subject. Systematic names are not included for the entries of cyclodextrin or calixarene for instance. This was my logic in replacing it with the nomenclature which is quite commonly used. I still beleive that it is probably is not needed. M_stone 16:20, 28 December 2005

• Hi, thanks for your comment. Your nomenclature addition is very welcome as are the other additions. thanks!. I was somewhat disappointed in the deletions you made, the systematic name is only meant as comic relief but at the same time it demonstrates the power of nomenclature. The systematic name is included for many organic compounds in Wiki and I think it should stay. Also keep in mind one the Wiki directives that state that Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia and has a much wider scope Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. You also deleted material but did not delete the associated reference and this confuses the reference system. I do not understand some of your other deletions like the origin of the word (Cucurbitaceae) and the general comment on internal volume. This does not benefit Wiki. Mentioning a commercial supplier in my view does not benefit a reader but providing a link to a supplier datasheet would. V8rik 22:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your objection to mentioning a commercial supplier. I reverted the naming of cucurbiturils to the origanal statement. I eliminated the CB10 because it seemed odd to mention without mentioning the cavity volumes of the other sizes. I have updated it to include the other sizes as well. I think that the topic is complicated by older references to cucurbituril as only CB[6], while more recently it refers to all sizes. M_stone 18:00, 28 December 2005

Modesty

Hi V8rik. Just thought I'd drop you a note to let you know that you're being too modest with your edits. Most editors agree that major article remodelling proposals (merges and so forth) should count as major edits. Generally, any edit that another editor might want to review or comment upon should not be marked as minor. Keep up the good work, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Hi TenOfAllTrades, thanks for your comment and you are absolutely right, the merge notice should not have been listed as a minor edit V8rik 18:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)