User talk:V8rik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives Archive 2005: Archive 2005 Archive 2006: Archive 2006

Contents 1 Carbenium Ions 2 Stubs 3 chemistry awards 4 PVV 5 Silly 6 Commercial suppliers 7 Supramolecular analytical chemistry 8 Chemistry 9 Missing topics in chemistry 10 Macromolecule 11 Opened merge discussion on Isotactic 12 PSEPT Wades Rules article 13 History of Benzene

[edit] Carbenium Ions

I don't mind that you removed the mergers suggestions, but now the carbocation entry has no reference to carbenium ions. If the merger isn't going to be done, the reference to that content should still be added. I'm temporarily putting that merger back up, so if anyone was going to add carbenium ions to carbocations, then they would at least see that someone has made an entry which they can just link to instead. Ashi Starshade 06:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"I don't get it: did not ever create any new content but already an authority on mergers? merge notice removed"

I have created new content, just not much lately, it's true that lately I've been suggesting mergers etc. more than new content. It seems to me that carbenium should be in the same entry as carbocation. If it's not going to be, that's fine --- but that entry still needs to be linked to it, removing the merger tag doesn't solve the real problem.Ashi Starshade 06:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well in that case, what article within the chemistry space do you feel proud of contributing to. If you insist the merge notices will of course stay and I will post a note on the carbocation talk page V8rik 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Proud is a strong word. I make mostly small edits because I spend my time other things, and most of them aren't even in chemistry. I am proud of being a contributor though, even though it's small. For those mergers, I agree I didn't really solve the problem either. It was just an issue of drawing attention to it so others could do it. I wouldn't want others redoing the work (e.g., writing the carbenium ion entry as a section within the carbocation entry since currently there's no connection between their entries to show the carbenium entry's existance). Ashi Starshade 03:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. I made a comment on carbocation talk page and suggest that further duscussion takes place there V8rik 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fix, I tried replying there but the server that talk page is stored on is temporarily locked. Just wanted to let you know, thanks for the fix. I appreciate it. I removed the merger tags, and you can remove this section from your discussion page now:) -Ashi Starshade 22:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks and happy editing! V8rik 21:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

Hi. Your comments about the use of stubs made sense to me. I'm a relatively new editor, so I'm prone to add things that aren't truly needed, like the chemistry stub I added today (I found that article via the 'Random article' nav link). Yes, it should be obvious to any reader that a particular article is short, or lacks detail. Perhaps when Wikipedia was new, the invitation to add content made sense, but as it matures, maybe Wikipedia should move away from (pleading?) with visitors and contributors to add to an article. Hurrmic 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chemistry awards

Hi - Why did you remove the category chemistry from the Category:Chemistry awards ? --lquilter 21:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi lquilter, I am trying to trim down the chemistry section. I feel that to qualify for a subcategory of chemistry as one of the main sciences itself that category should at least contain 50 articles. Chemistry itself should be limited to the most important 150 articles (the Davy Medal not one of them!). Feel free to revert though V8rik 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Hi Varik - I'm glad you're working on the cat. The problem, though, is that in other subjects things like Awards, books, and whatnot, are categorized by their specific subject. I'm going to revert for now, but should we be talking about this with other people too? Is the chemistry project on this, or is this a developing standard somewhere? --lquilter 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Is this part of the effort to clean up the Category:Chemistry? I'll help with that, but I think getting rid of the subcats is the wrong way to go -- we should work on the articles. --lquilter 22:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Please revert but I do not think the categories are really a hot topic in chemistry at the moment. I am happy with the current chemistry subcats and articles so no work intended by me for now. V8rik 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PVV

The Party for Freedom article is not improving imho, I would appreciate comments on the talk page, as I feel somewhat isolated in trying to counter what I think is pov pushing. regards --Isolani 08:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silly

Thank you for experimenting with the page Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Húsönd 01:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • this is silly, please do not portray me as a vandal, my track record speaks for itself. The article Max_Planck_Institute_for_Chemical_Ecology does not belong in the chemistry category which should be reserved for key chemistry concepts. very recently this category was cleaned up, see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#categorization.3F V8rik 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial suppliers

I know the links do not have a commercial intent, but also, what do they add to the article? The images are in the article, and there are non-commercial links as well. But OK, maybe worth a discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. When I include external links I do honestly believe they are worth reading. The Dean-stark link provided many technical drawings, the phosphazene links many commercially available phosphazenes and so on. I agree that in many cases commercial links should be removed especially when they simply link to the homepage and not to a relevant page but other links can be valid. V8rik 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I started the subject as well on the chemistry wikiproject. Indeed, the links can provide extra information, but the information is, in many cases, available from other sites as well, especially for chemicals where we now have more and more independent, searchabe databases available. In an earlier discussion the suggestion was that when there were more suppliers on the page, it would be OK, but I see mainly one or two supplier links, and indeed many links not pointing to datapages. And what does Strem tell us more about the Trost ligand, than a review on the subject (the article is unreferenced ...)? But I'll wait for some more input on this matter. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supramolecular analytical chemistry

I like the content concerning supramolecular analytical chemistry that you added to the supramolecular chemistry page. However, might I suggest that we start a new page for the content. Here is my reasoning. First I think that it is a large area of research that rightly deserves its own page. Second I think that the supramolecular chemistry page should remain relatively broad and direct people to more specific areas.

I would suggest that the new article was entitled molecular sensors as I believe this is the more common name for this area and such a article is obviously lacking. It appears that you put some time into the new content and I wanted to consult with you first before making revisions. M stone 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi M stone, I am not sure. I do not intent to expand the segment any further so it will remain small, also the supramolecular chemistry article did lack any to the point applications that is why I put the segment there. But if you think it should move then move it V8rik 19:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that I can expand the content that you have added about analytical supermolecular chemistry to make a good article. I think that the supramolecular chemistry should be enriched however I am not in favor of adding specific examples for such a broad area. Instead I would like to see it closer to the chemistry page where there are short descriptions of important topics within the area and that link to the appropriate pages. M stone 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• • the content has now vanished? Be adviced that the review article I based my articlet on never mentions molecular sensors, and I dont want the NOR police on our tail. By the way great work on your recent images, the supramolecular section really needed those. V8rik 13:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved the content to Molecular Sensor unfortunately I accidentally capitalized "Molecular" so it won't link unless the link is capitalized as well. Not sure how to fix but I will figure it out. Your point is well taken that they never actually use the term molecular sensor. It only describes sensors that are molecules. Probably best to add a few more references. Thanks about the pictures. M stone 16:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • solved that problem for you: i simply moved the article to Molecular sensor, thanks for the collaboration V8rik 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry

V8rik, can you provide the name of the molecule image you have on the chemistry page. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sadi Carnot, I did not put that image there but the only name I have for you is Taxol see: Taxol total synthesis you can find the very long systematic name on the Taxol page. V8rik 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing topics in chemistry

Thanks for help with the missing topics page - Skysmith 10:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macromolecule

I'm not sure I understand your comment. I removed the IUPAC recommendation stuff because it is largely irrelevant to the existing article, redundant with and/or contradictory with existing article text, and factually incorrect. The IUPAC page that you link to describes the use of the term macromolecule in the context of polymer science only to disambiguate between single polymer molecules (a macromolecule) and substances comprised of macromolecules (a polymer). I have removed your content and posted a discussion on the talk page. In any event, the wording chosen for the wikipedia entry is too close to the copyrighted material in the IUPAC recommendation and may be considered plagiarism (unless it is included in quotes). Please respond to this and allow us to achieve consensus before reinserting the content. Irene Ringworm 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not delete referenced material. It is harmful. See also my user page for a general comment on deletions. V8rik 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It is copied verbatim from the IUPAC website and may constitute copyright infringement. It is also referenced without full context and is factually incorrect as written. Please follow the discussion on the talk page and do not reinsert the copyrighted content until consensus has been achieved on the talk page.

In the meantime I have commented out your addition (not deleted it) so that it can be quickly reinserted if consensus warrants. In the meantime, copyright concerns trump a wish to not delete referenced material. Irene Ringworm 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not interested in a long revert war. Please rework your content so that it does not violate copyright or it will be removed. Irene Ringworm 19:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• your choice: an active and productive Wiki editor or nothingness. I am already prohibited from editing political articles due to the poor quality of editors in that section. V8rik 19:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to contribute but you can't just copy and paste stuff you find on the IUPAC website without violating their copyright. Please follow the talk page discussion to achieve consensus or submit non-copyrighted, factually accurate material. Irene Ringworm 19:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Note also that your last hasty revert undid my added content which attempted to work the IUPAC definition into the main definition. Please follow the talk page discussion. Irene Ringworm 19:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the IUPAC material in my own words to clear up both the factual errors and copyright issues posed by your revert. Please resort to normal dispute recognition mechanisms such as the talk page (to which you have not responded) rather than meaningless edit wars to reinsert content that clearly violates copyright. Please review the WP:3RR policy carefully before considering future reverts. In the meantime, I think that I would prefer nothingness. Irene Ringworm 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opened merge discussion on Isotactic

Though that there would be no controversy for merge on isotactic. Feel free to weigh in on the talk page. Irene Ringworm 19:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Read your user page on the whole merge philosophy. I still think that this one is a no-brainer, even by your criteria. Irene Ringworm 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking time to read my 2 cents on mergers in general. I will make a comment on your merge proposal on the releavant page. V8rik 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So I want to understand the depth of your convictions. I have also proposed a merge on terpolymer, a page which has absolutely no possibility for expansion whatsoever. What are your thoughts here? Irene Ringworm 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I guess there is no stopping you from merging the whole of polymer chemistry to one big ugly 100kb+ article. We will end up merging humans with the solar system because after all humans are unique to earth and earth is unique to etc. Just take a look at the polymer chemistry category: in my opinion it should contain lets say 50 key topics in polymer chemistry and topics people regularly want to look up (same for polymer physics). If you have your way the category will cease to exist but if I have to select an encyclopedia the first thing I do is look at the index and if am not impressed I will look for another. I think the focus should be on adding content to Wiki, sure terpolymer is a minute topic but graft copolymers for which you also propose a merge is huge. I do not oppose your mergers any further but do not expect me to contribute any further to polymer science either, good luck with it. V8rik 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on, now. I'm approaching you in good faith. For example, I agree with your concern about degree of polymerization being buried in some humongous article on polymerization. I've also been working in other areas to unmerge crazy redirects (see x-ray diffraction, which was for some reason merged with x-ray crystallography). I would also never consider merging tacticity into polymer or stereochemistry. I do think, however, that we can merge isotactic, atactic, and syndiotactic into tacticity with very few problems. In this case it's easy to solve your "buried in some gargantuan article" problem by (a) defining and bolding isotactic, atactic, and syndiotactic in the first few sentences of the tacticity heading and (b) Creating well-defined sub-sections accessible from the heading. Same goes for terpolymer, which could easily be bolded and defined in the introductory paragraph of copolymer. This doesn't work for degree of polymerization because it doesn't make sense to have this term in the first few paragraphs - it would certainly be buried in a longer article about synthetic polymer chemistry. As for graft copolymer, my merge proposal is less based on cleanup and more based on the fact that the article is an unencyclopedic, fact-free piece of garbage (see the talk page). Feel free to respond - that's why I've opened discussion on the talk page.

What I'm really trying to figure out is how strongly you feel about this. You seem opposed to merges on a matter of principle. Will any merge proposal be met with an immediate opposition or are you open to discussion? I'm not interested in spending the time to clean up the area and build consensus if you simply plan to revert any merger based on the notion that merge=bad.

As for adding content, if you have any responses to my improvement drive for the main polymer article your input is welcome. Irene Ringworm 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I am not against mergers perse, recently I proposed a merge for atomos to atom (this IS a dictionary item) and Theoretical yield to yield (chemistry). I also redirected countless links. I will revert deletions vehemently because I think Wiki should be preserved but I usually respect mergers after due discussion. I only choose not to invest more time in polymer chemistry because of the rate at which mergers are being proposed and supported and that is not the direction I would like to see it going. I want to enjoy this work and I noted i was getting upset. So lets say I take a break from polymers and happy editing V8rik 22:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just don't take a break for too long. I haven't published anything in polymer science for nearly a decade and I'm a little bit rusty. Having someone looking over my shoulder will keep me honest. Irene Ringworm 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PSEPT Wades Rules article

Hi there!
This article sprang from electron counting and the formulae have been unchanged from Day 1. I am contacting you in the hope that you will be able to confirm my suspicions and point me at the right authority (assuming there is one!)on boranes/clusters. There seems to be a typo in the rules-- for example I cannot make them work with simple nido and arachno boranes. e.g nido B₅H₉ and arachno B₄H₁₀. I think the nido formula should be 2n + 2(n+2) giving 24 the correct valence electron count for B5H9; and the formula for arachno should be 2n + 2(n+3) giving for e.g B4H10 22 electrons. These formulae seem to work with carboranes OK. I have my doubts about the transition metal formulae too. Axiosaurus 15:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Axiosaurus, you are right, thus far the article Polyhedral skeletal electron pair theory escaped a critical review and proper citation. I vaguely remember that some content did not match with Jolly but I left it at that. I will move the article to the top of my to-do list maybe I can sort some of it out. I am not the expert you are looking for! I find it one of the most challenging topics in chemistry to tackle and for my it is always a struggle to make sense of it V8rik 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have got too much time on my hands at the moment in forced reirement, so I shall bravely go where perhaps I shouldn't and edit this one, on the basis that an aunt sally will provoke (constructive?) criticism. When its done I will get in touch with my old theoretical chemistry lecturer, Brian Duke, who I see is an active editor. I know that he worked with boranes at one stage long long ago. Axiosaurus 12:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Welcome to the team then! I am looking forward to your edits V8rik 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

hi again, I've rewritten the article. see what you think. Axiosaurus 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks great!. I have made one edit with respect to introducing the concept (the title of the article must always return in bold in the first sentence, every article in wiki does that). I also linked to cluster chemistry. The only thing lost in the new edit compared to the previous edit is what the different types of clusters (nido, closo arachno) are really like. Do you have suggestions? V8rik 22:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

hi, Good. I left out the closo nido because I didn't like the words too much. However surprisingly the terms are not defined anywhere else! So you're right! I need to put something in. Looking at the borane categrory and boron compounds the level of documentation is sparse. My current view is that the article Borane should be expanded to become a family page with a proper overview of all BxHy compounds..with all the right words--e.g. deltahedra, closo etc. etc. I'll contact others on the Borane talk page to see what the concensus is. Axiosaurus 14:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Benzene

I tried to edit "benzene" and you reversed my edits, because they were mostly deletions. Perhaps I don't understand Wikepedia yet, and in fact this was my very first attempt at editing an article. I am a professional historian of chemistry whose expertise is exactly this, namely the history of organic chemistry, especially in 19th century Germany. I have widely published on this material, over thirty years. You say that my deletion was damaging. I say that the information that I deleted was misleading and/or irrelevant, in other words, damaging. How can I convince you of that? Ajrocke 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Ajrocke, thanks for your comment. With your background you can make a great contribution to chemistry so welcome! let me explain my quick reversal:
• for information on how to cite and formats: Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. One thing it asks of editors to specify what content in an article is controversial. Other editors can then try to find references
• be patient: collecting the references takes time and again my point try to focus on the controversial material first
• the material on Archibald Scott Couper is not referenced on the page itself but on its bio page, its 1911 but it still counts
• why throw out the snake stuff. if you find it controversial tag it with ^{[citation needed]} and other editors may find a reference for you. Even if it is untrue I am still interested why these untruths persist.
• if misleading: rewrite but not delete
• relevance is difficult to judge in Wiki. See NPOV guidelines. What is irrelevant to you perhaps is relevant to me. deletion is not an option

To me Wiki editing is about creating content and fact checking. Deleting material is the opposite. If you try to motivate your deletions I see no reason for any further reverts. I am looking forward to your edits.

V8rik 21:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, V8rik. I understand. I've made another effort, please check it out.

Ajrocke 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It looks great! Yesterday we discussed deletions but you did a great job expanding the article. I can imaging now that you considered the article misleading with respect to the thirsty Germans but you have set the record strait. Have you considered adding citations? The kekule dream is covered in my Morrison&boyd but briefly and my next trip to the library will be a while. JCE only yielded history of aromaticity and history on cyclohexane. No luck there V8rik 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, V8rik. Thanks. At your suggestion, I've now added a bunch of references. If you're interested in the dream story about benzene, take a look at how I've added substantially to the Kekule article. I used some language from my benzene edits for my expansion of the Kekule article -- I assume that's OK in Wiki-land. It's my language, and it's original to me (but it's not original research! -- it's all from published sources in well-refereed journals).

Ajrocke 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the references. I also noted todays edit. Please note that articles exist on benzoin and benzoin resin which are not really related. To what benzoin do you refer? V8rik 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I mean benzoin resin. I'll change it right now to disambiguate. The new edits by Stone are good additions. Ajrocke 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks, that sorted out then V8rik 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)