- 1 Category:Androgens and Category:Anabolic steroids should be merged
- 2 File:Cafedrine.png
- 3 File:dexelvucitabine.svg
- 4 Organozinc compounds
- 5 File:300px-Anaphase-fluorescent.jpg
- 6 File:linagliptin.png
- 7 File:Violaxanthin.png
- 8 File:Metaflumizone.png
- 9 Epibatidine
- 10 Image:Lanosterol.svg is disputed
- 11 Reply
- 12 Alpha-amanitin
- 13 Structures for DE-Wiki
- 14 Atom labels do not scale properly.
- 15 The factual accuracy of the chemical structure Image:Auraptene.png is disputed
- 16 File:Ambuphylline.png
- 17 Molybdopterin
Category:Androgens and Category:Anabolic steroids should be merged
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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.
- 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
Hi, I correct this file. Thank you. Karol007 19:31, 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
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.
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)
The factual accuracy of the chemical structure Image:Auraptene.png is disputed
|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.
- 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)
|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.
--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)
- The molybdenum should be MoO22+. See File:molybdenum cofactor.png, for example. Here's an example in the literature showing the oxidized Mo: http://www.jbc.org/content/283/25/17370 Edgar181 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)