User talk:V8rik/Archive 08

About nucleophilic abstraction

Thank you for your complement on my first page, I was required to create the page for a class project. Deprotonation is by far the most common reaction pathway for nucleophilic abstraction, I don't think I came across any other examples that did not involve it. For the images are the .png images fine and just the last image I uploaded as a .jpg that needs changed? That would be a quick fix. If the .png files are not good then it may take me a few days before I have enough time to convert them all over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwdent (talk • contribs) 13:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• I made the comment about the image quality because it is not possible to see all the details. The actual extension (gif, jpg) is less relevant. Using another software program would solve the problem. V8rik (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Dewar-Chatt-Duncanson model.png

Hi, in the article it says : "The pi-acid alkene donates electron density into a metal d-orbital from π-symmetry bonding orbital between the carbon atoms (I)" but i can't really figure out what kind of d-orbital you drew in the picture. It looks more like a sp3-orbital to me? So maybe I just don't get it but perhaps it would be good to specify that in the text or the picture so the two are consistent. Thanks for the picture anyway!

lg Phil

• Hi there, you are right, only one of the d-orbital lobes is of relevance but on the whole it is confusing. I took out the image V8rik (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

About Vitamin B12

I want to translate your article into Chinese, but I can't understand the words below.

α-corrnorsterone, ~

I know sterone is a kind of organic compound, but...corrnor? Is it a person's name? Or it is related to corrin?

And can you use other words to explain what is genolide?

Thanks very much.--Makecat_Talk 12:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Makecat, thanks for taking an interest in the B12 article. I have no idea if these terms have a specific meaning, I think they are just trivial names. Nor- is a well know prefix, corr like you say refers to corrin. V8rik (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. Maybe I will keep them in English if I can't find translations. An online dictionary says "corrigen" means oleandrin. So I am not sure whether "corr" is corrin (Because the compound isn't similar to corrin).

And what is thiodextolin (I know thio- is a prefix)? --Makecat_Talk 04:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest you take up Jayrons constructive suggestion V8rik (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for wikifying my article on the Leuckart reaction! Quid Pro Quo? 19:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! A barnstar! V8rik (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Olefin Metathesis

The page on Olefin Metathesis is in desperate need of revision. It for a long time was clearly a place for people to cite their own publications. Nobody has yet taken the role of editing the page as a whole.

The page is rife with many typos (metallAcycle not metallOcycle) and illogical organization (the section on "mechanism" includes a description of the different types of reactions, the "catalyst" section used to be under "Historical development" and still reads that way) If all the information should stay, perhaps a solution would be to arrange much of it under "Historical Development". The other sections need to be more clear if this page is to be at all useful.

Perhaps in the future a separate article for the "Historical Development of Olefin Metathesis" would be appropriate, because right now there is more in that section than in all the rest combined. It seems that somebody at one point copied a Chemical & Engineering News article into it or maybe an academic review. The section is very complete and accurate, but really does not fit in Wikipedia.

I am happy you are concerned for the integrity of the page on olefin metathesis, but in the future please focus on the content of the page and assume that other users are well-intentioned. The many hours other users spend trying to improve the page with carefully researched and thought-out edits deserve more than a mass-revert. I look forward to constructive edits from other users, please allow me to reorganize the sections and fix typos and I welcome all constructive, careful edits you may have.

Vdubbs (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well I have spent at least as much time creating the historical overview section some time ago (I cannot remember copying C&EN) as you have with your edits. Checking edits for deleted content takes up a lot of time and why exactly do you find deletions justified? V8rik (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to indicate clearly in my edit description that at one point I "started trimming the 'Historical Overview' section". It wasn't necessary to troll through all my edits, you could have simply reverted the last one which was clearly labeled.

I do understand, however, the effort you put in and how frustrating it is to have people change it, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. I must say that I appreciate your work on this section, and find it very accurate and well-cited. When I first started working on this page "Historical Overview" was the only section worth anything. That was actually part of the problem, however, as it seemed that such a lengthy discussion of the history of the reaction was out of place in an article that barely described the reaction itself. I've actually borrowed some of your material because the historical overview section had a description of the two main catalyst types, but the rest of the article did not. I'll move your content back and just build a new section on the catalysts.

I really think the historical overview section can stand alone as its own page, it's in depth and interesting to a wide audience. However, if it stays in the same page, I do think there is some unnecessary and potentially misleading detail. I won't remove anything out of respect for your work, but allow me to explain. I feel that in depth explanations of mechanisms that are later proved to be wrong can be misleading. That's why I removed the second figure on the polymerization by Du Pont. I removed the Grubbs work on the total synthesis using tantalum because the point had been made by the previous Grubbs work on tantalum and this was something that hadn't been further pursued. The point about Tebbe's reagent doing living polymerization did not establish anything about the metathesis mechanism, therefore I viewed it as somewhat tangental.

That all being said, the section is accurate and detailed, and I will try to improve the rest of the article so your section makes more sense in context. I will make my edits incremental and will describe them well, but in return please carefully read through my descriptions to find which parts you disagree with.Vdubbs (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I continue to be amazed: the section was good but had to taken out because the rest of the article was too bad.....On the other hand the article requires improvement from an expert and therefore I will cease my opposition V8rik (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Shapiro reaction mechanism

Regarding your File:ShapiroreactionMechanism.svg, there's an arrow missing in the second mechanistic diagram: there isn't an arrow illustrating the actual loss of the tosyl (breaking of the N–Ts bond). More minorly, I think it is more standard to illustrate in the first mechanistic diagram the C–Li actually attacking the H, not just filling into the space between the C and the H. Unfortunately I can't easily edit .svg chem diagrams:( DMacks (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi DMacks, I will look into it, expect results soon. V8rik (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have replaced the image with another one from commons V8rik (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Need help from the smarter

Hello there! I'm (rarely lately, but am planning to return for active editing sometime soon) working on fluorine. Got three questions and you were recommended for me as a man who "know[s] a lot or hard-core chemistry." So it'd be neat if you could help me.

1. HF/SbF₅. While I already know there is probably no "H[SbF₆] with naked protons," I wanna make it sure. Made a short look over the Net; says no protons can exist in solids, but probably in gases. What would you say? Could there be a high vacuum geasous "H[SbF₆] with naked protons"? (also, for me actually, could it be even more acidic if we use AuF₅ instead? just give an opinion) (I have an impression on the topic, but more words could be useful)

-Be careful here, HF/SbF₅ mixtures often form H[F₅Sb-F-SbF₅] as the super acid. (added by 128.32.57.198)

1. Low melting point. Does it have anything to do with the partial second bonds found in Cl₂, Br₂, and I₂, but not F₂?

-Fluorine is the hardest of those elements, so F2 has the weakest dispersion forces, hence the least favorable intermolecular interactions. I would not include this in an article as it could be difficult to cite. (added by 128.32.57.198)

1. I can't understand why BiF₅ is polymeric rather than molecular. (I understand the rationale for BeF₂...is it something similar (opposite)?) It could be neat to explain that in a few words.

It could also very neat if you colud provide any sources, but if not, any help would still be very appreciated. (Have also personal interest on each of the three, so...please explain whatever you can) :) Thanks a lot, in advance--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am sorry R8R Gtrs, I cannot help you out with these questions...V8rik (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it's OK. We all can't know it (I didn't, at least) In case you want to learn more, here are answers by Dirac66, which I find reasonable.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can see Dirac66 has been doing a great job answering your questions. No need to look further for a fluorine specialist V8rik (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Ketonization

You might know if there is a named reaction or an existing article for what is sometimes called "ketonization". This reaction is the conversion RCO2H → R2CO + H2O + CO2. Apparently it is popular in biofuels area. So leave a note here if you think we have any articles on this. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Smokefoot, no article yet exists, this one Stereochemistry of ketonization of enols and enolates describes a different reaction. I will look into it. V8rik (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Done: ketonization V8rik (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Polystyrene sulfonate

Hi! The article is not about a compound class but about the active moiety, which is strictly speaking the polystyrene sulfonate anion. There hasn't been a discussion because the move is in line with WP:PHARMMOS#Articles to use INN. Compare Diclofenac sodium and Diclofenac potassium which both redirect to Diclofenac. But thinking again, maybe Polystyrene sulfonic acid would be the better title... any thoughts? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• No , WP guidelines are not very useful when it comes to actually creating new content, a discussion would have been nice. In the case of polystyrene sulfonate the suggestion must be avoided that polystyrene sulfonate is an actual chemical compound which it clearly is not. Also do not assume Polystyrene sulfonic acid is a regular chemical substance without consulting some literature V8rik (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I wasn't creating any new content, just merging the two articles. If you have information about polystyrene sulfonic acid, by all means add it. What do you mean by saying it isn't a regular chemical substance? Doesn't the acid exist in free form? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. When you recently edited Josiphos ligands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate (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) 11:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Alkyne schrock.png

Hi V8rik, please superscript the numbers of the substituents in this reaction scheme. Thanks Mabschaaf (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• the replacement image is on its way! V8rik (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  This way must be a long one... ;-) --Mabschaaf (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I guess I am lazy.......Image replacement done. V8rik (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Phi bonds in Template:Chemical bonds

It's less ridiculous than a gamma...there's a ref for it at the target rather than just idle speculation based on some non-chemist saying "we have sigma pi delta, let's keep going!". DMacks (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi DMacks, if you mean ref. 14 in Molecular orbital the nature article summary does not mention phi bonds. Perhaps interesting to have it mentioned in the MO article but too obscure for a chemical bond template, in my view. V8rik (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it might be too obscure to mention in the template (but then so too for the completely speculative and uncited gamma case). The article summary does not mention phi specifically, but the full article has substantial detail about it. Page 849 includes orbital coefficients for the wavefunctions, phase diagrams, and non-zero electron occupancy of them (2 of the 4 "four one-electron bonds" mentioned in the abstract are identified as 5fφ_u and 5fφ_g, respectively). DMacks (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

File:SelectiveTannineBinding.png

Hi V8rik. I added a dispute note. You might want to upload a corrected version. --Leyo 08:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• sorry, but way too trivial, have it destroyed if you like V8rik (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The file is in use in Molecular sensor. --Leyo 21:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC) PS. See this addition by DMacks.

Speedy note

Oh yes, articles can be speedied. But not all. CSD is very limited. A7 for example: you can speedy The Church of the Dancing Hamster (founded 2011, membership 7) - it's people; you can't speedy St Eggfroth's Church, Much Twittering-in-the-Bushes, built 1970 - because it's a building. You can speedy Fredegond the Ninja Budgerigar, but not Camellus arborensis, the Tree Camel (because it's a species, not a named individual. A7 covers people and groups of people including companies, named animals, and for some odd reason, web content (but not software). On the last, if you use it online, it can be A7ed. If you have to download it and run it at home, A7 is out. Other speedy categories might apply - spam for one. (Not really to the Tree Camel - who'd buy one of them? Not unless it was the Australian gadget that holds five gallons of water and is claimed to drip for two weeks. I had a car like that once...) Don't Google these examples, except the dripping Aussie one - that's real. Most of the CSD categories are tricky - even the author request to delete. If the page has been edited quite widely by an IP, is that the author not signing in, or someone else? (I always decline cases like that.) Hope that makes things a bit clearer. There are no such restrictions on prod or AfD - you just have to argue non-compliance with policies there. CSD is intended as a time saver for certain obvious cases that can be got rid of quickly. Does get a bit frustrating at times, though. Peridon (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Peridon, thanks for the enlightening and entertaining comment. I will keep it in mind V8rik (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asymmetric hydrogenation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate (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) 11:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blue bottle (chemical reaction), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First-order reaction (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) 11:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyclophane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nanotubes (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) 11:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naphthalene tetracarboxylic dianhydride, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DMF and Intercalate (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) 11:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Bis(oxazoline) page

Hello, I've finished the second draft of the bis(oxazoline) page (currently here). The history section has been expanded and contains some earlier examples of oxazoline ligands by Brunner, with images now just focusing on the changing structure of the ligands. I hope this meets with your approval. Project Osprey (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, see my comment here. V8rik (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)