User talk:Edgar181/Archive2009

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Category:Androgens and Category:Anabolic steroids should be merged[edit]

Hi Ed. Can you please reply for me on my talk page? My knowledge on steroids is not very good. Thanks. --Leyo 17:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to reply to that comment either. I don't know much about steroids either. Edgar181 (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. --Leyo 19:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi Ed, a methyl group missing there, see here. Greetings, --Hoffmeier (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I used this PubChem entry, but it doesn't make sense chemically, so I have switched to the other one. Thanks for catching the mistake. Edgar181 (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi Ed, I've redrawn the structure. Now it is the reverse of File:Elvucitabine.png. Thx for your info! Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick correction. With the two drugs being enantiomers of each other, it's an easy mistake to make. I did the same thing here: File:Dexelvucitabine structure.png. Edgar181 (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Organozinc compounds[edit]

Hi Ed. Have a look at this discussion. Two of the structures involved were uploaded by you. --Leyo 17:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have commented there. Edgar181 (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Ed. On related issue, organomercury compounds almost always have linear R-Hg-R coordination, according to the refs noted here. Two of your images (File:Phenylmercuric borate.png and File:Meralluride.png) show bent Hg coordination. It seems likely that the true structures have linear Hg, but I haven't been able to find any direct evidence of their structure (other than connectivity). An ideal solution doesn't immediately spring to mind! I thought about something like this but it doesn't look right. Rather than slapping dispute tags on your nice pics, I thought it better just to let you know about the uncertainty. Cheers. Ben (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is an ideal solution, but I think your suggestion of making the geometry around the Hg atom ambiguous is reasonable. Please feel free to upload your PhHgOB(OH)2.png version of Phenylmercuric borate.png over mine. I updated File:Meralluride.png similarly. Thanks for letting me know. Edgar181 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


File:300px-Anaphase-fluorescent.jpg should probably be deleted. It seems to be a derivative work of en:File:Anaphase-flourescent.jpg (Claimed license from copyright holder not verified). --Common Good (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it probably should be deleted, but these types of copyright issues are not my strength, so I can't be sure. Feel free to nominate it for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests. Edgar181 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, nominated: Commons:Deletion requests/File:300px-Anaphase-fluorescent.jpg --Common Good (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi Edgar. I have found a better, completer version of the chemical structure of linagliptin in the WHO Drug Information Volume 22, Numer 2, 2008 Page 67. I am a newbie at WikiMedia and I'm not sure what I have to do, to correct your image. Can you help me? Thanks a lot. --Webweazle (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

File:linagliptin.png appears to be a correct and complete structure to me. Can you please tell me what you think is wrong with it? If you would like to create a chemical structure image for the same compound which looks different in some way, please feel free to do so, and upload it with a different file name. If you need help with uploading, you can see Commons:First steps/Upload form. Edgar181 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think he means the explicit methyl groups and hydrogens :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Edgar, Fvasconcellos was right. I've uploaded a new image of Linagliptin with the different filename File:Linagliptin2.png. Thanks for your help --Webweazle (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Great. Nice image. Edgar181 (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Ed! I've found an error in the structure. A methylgroup (left side) is too much, compare the svg-version. Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I have replaced all uses of violaxanthin.png with your .svg version and deleted the .png. Thanks for catching the error and letting me know. Edgar181 (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Hey Ed, me again. I've spotted an error in the structure. There is a CH2-group to much, compare also this or my SVG. Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks again. Edgar181 (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi Nuklear. I just wanted to let you know that I have reverted your change to File:Epibatidine structure.png. I like your image fine, but the file I uploaded is intended to conform to w:en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Structure drawing. Please feel free to upload your version as a separate file. Thanks. Edgar181 (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not of the persuasion that my image has violated any of the guidelines.

On the talk page for the link you gave it is stated that color is acceptable.

Moreover your original image was not in font size 10, and the azabicycle did not use bolding.

The above 2 considerations mainly provoked me to post a new upload.

Relatively trivial I know, but there is a desire to make the look images as crisp and succint as possible.--Nuklear (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The most important sentence is “Please feel free to upload your version as a separate file.” Uploading over an existing file is only acceptable to fix an error or if an images really is of low quality. However, upload an image under a new file name, if you just prefer to have a structure with a different orientation, with bolding, etc. --Leyo 21:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have any problem with your image - I like it. But it really should be a different file. Chemists on different language Wikipedias have different preferences for the way chemical structures are depicted, so having a choice of two different representations is better than replacing one with another. Edgar181 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Image:Lanosterol.svg is disputed[edit]

Hi, I correct this file. Thank you. Karol007 19:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick fix. Edgar181 (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi Edgar181. The title of File:错误的二茂铁结构.png actually means "wrong structure of ferrocene", and this picture is uploaded for use in the "history of ferrocene" section on zh-wp. This structure was proposed by Pauson and Kealy at Duquesne University, who first prepared ferrocene in 1951. Regards, Puppy8800 (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have removed the dispute template. Edgar181 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi Ed. You tagged two structures in Category:Alpha-amanitin because they are missing stereochemistry. Especially in the case of the cyclic representation, another version should be uploaded rather than deleting it. I gave a try, but I am not really happy with it (and I am also unsure, if it's correct). If you can do better (what is probably the case), please do. --Leyo 22:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

At the time, I created File:Alpha-amanitin structure.png to replace File:Alpha-amanitin.png. I'm not sure it's worth replacing the cyclic representation because it doesn't work well with the two rings, but I think your new image is fine. Edgar181 (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Structures for DE-Wiki[edit]

IBMX structure with missing hydrogens

Hi Edgar, You added a new structure for German de:3-Isobutyl-1-methylxanthin (IBMX) article. The new structure is far better than the old, but but it does not meet our standars for chemical structures, see de:WP:WEIS. Issue is that Your file does not show "edge" hydrogens at methyl groups. Rgds --Cvf-ps (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the image because the one in the article was incorrect. I don't mind that my image has now been replaced by another corrected version. Edgar181 (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Atom labels do not scale properly.[edit]

I noticed that you tagged images using template:low quality chem which are affected by librsvg bugs, which prohibit font from rendering properly on Wikimedia servers. You can fix it yourself by using Inkscape. Simply open the file, click at the text and choose object → path, save the file as plain SVG, reupload, done. Matt (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't sound too difficult. I'll give it a try. Edgar181 (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of the chemical structure Image:Auraptene.png is disputed[edit]

Dispute notification The chemical structure Image:Auraptene.png you uploaded has been tagged as disputed and is now listed in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams. Images in this category are deleted after one month if there is no upload of a corrected version and if there is no objection from the uploader or other users. Please discuss on the image talk page if you feel that the dispute is inappropriate. If you agree with the dispute, you can either upload a corrected version or simply allow the image to be deleted.

In all cases, please do not take the dispute personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you! --Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. Thanks for letting me know. Edgar181 (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Edgar. Please can you have a look to the new chemical structure you uploaded. I can't see any difference. Jacopo Werther (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The new image is different - with the missing double bond added. If the old image is still showing for you, you probably just need to bypass your browser's cache. Edgar181 (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
That's OK! You are right about browser cache. My apologies. I'm really sorry for my insistence. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem.  :) Edgar181 (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Ambuphylline.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--Ron 00:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the chemical structure was incorrect. I have now deleted it. Thanks for catching the mistake and creating a corrected version. Edgar181 (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't take all the credit, I did not spot it, some one commented out the structure on en-wikipedia (because it was wrong), so the Infobox automatically flagged a structure needed to be done - so I made a fresh one, it was only when I went to edit the Article that I saw the hidden comment. Ron 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi Ed. Can you explain your dispute more precisely? I don't see a difference between File:Molybdopterin.png and File:Molybdopterin.svg. --Leyo 14:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The molybdenum should be MoO22+. See File:molybdenum cofactor.png, for example. Here's an example in the literature showing the oxidized Mo: Edgar181 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. In this case, also the SVG version should be tagged. --Leyo 16:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned it to Fvasconcellos here, but you're right, the image should be tagged. I'll do it now. Edgar181 (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)