Hi Ben, have you seen that Jimmy Wales is giving a talk in Bristol next week? If you want to come, I think there are still some tickets left for wikimedians, I think you just need to email the address in the link, or if that doesn't work, drop Steve Virgin an email. I think there may be a meet up too, check out here for more details. Happy New Year SmartSE (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ben. I have one question regarding your picture about the synthesis fo 1,4-dioxin. From structure 2 to 3 one additional oxygene is appearing (epoxide). Would it be helpful to indicate this process by adding somethink like [O]? Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have two printed copies of the OED, and the computer version. I consult it often, and depend on it to help me find the right word, particularly when writing historical fiction. The "problem" with the OED is that it's a descriptive dictionary. Unlike, say, the official French dictionary, it is neither prescriptive nor proscriptive. It simply records English as it is written.
This means it includes bad usage. "Presently" has traditionally meant "soon", not "now". I'm a nut about sticking with traditional usage, because the blurring of meanings makes English less expressive. I don't object to adding words, as long as there isn't an existing word that conveys the same sense. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bad is a subjective term. Many words have had different meanings in the past. Why should your prescriptive view of language be considered superior to a more descriptive view? Especially with such a well-established usage of "presently". You may feel that the evolution of the meanings of various words in English renders the language less expressive, but many others do not.
To avoid antagonising other editors, I recommend replacing edit summaries such as
"Presently" and "currently" DO NOT mean the same thing.
with something less dogmatic like
"Presently" can mean "soon" as well as "now". I'm replacing it with "currently", which is unambiguous.
I think the hydrogen atom you speak of is there, just obscured. I can re-draw it.
I just checked the database, and the hydrogen atoms were located. The carboxylic acid OH groups adopt that unusual conformation due to hydrogen bonding with the -CO2− group of a neighbouring molecule. The hydrogen atom sits almost halfway between the two groups:
Maybe could just tilt the -balls structure backward a bit so that H is not hidden behind its O? I have no thoughts on use of the "other" proton-attachments, just trying to make the structures more visibly agree, and preserve the nice C2 symmetry. DMacks (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do YOU do when you see very poor quality images of molecules?
I'd like to remake some 3-d structures that I have seen before, but I do not know if it is unethical? Hell, I don't really think it would be wrong, if the images really are poor quality.
This image isn't incorrect in structure, just low in quality.
After all, the integrity of Wikipedia must be preserved over the integrity of any one user, no?
I changed the image of hydrocodone. Turns out he had the structure wrong as well. Pubchem documented two of the rings being structurally different than that of which he had.
File:Hydrocodone 3d balls.png isn't low quality. Plus I think you have the wrong enantiomer. Ball-and-stick models show the difference much more clearly.
PubChem isn't the best place to get structural information, and you have to correctly interpret what you do find.
If you make a ball-and-stick or stick image of your model, I can check it for you.
Damn, I felt really good about PubChem. I thought I was finally getting some access to a really good site. How can I confirm these isomers myself? And why on earth is PubChem posting these biologically inactive forms?
Hey, I fixed hydrocodone2.png & hydrocodone3.png, and I also fixed oxycodone2.png & and oxycodone3.png.
I do not wish to replace your image of hydrocodone, but I was hoping that you would check mine anyways, just for the sake of validity. I was hoping to use my model of oxycodone on the main page oxycodone though, so please let me know if I have screwed something up again.
P.s. I found out that my searching of "hydrocodone" on pubmed was the reason for my ill results. I should have instead, searched for "dihydroxycodeinone." This returns some more alternate isomers.
Hi SubDural, File:oxycodone3.png is correct, I compared it with the crystal structures of some oxycodone derivatives. I searched PubChem for "hydrocodone" and all the hits had the correct stereochemistry - do you know how to interpret wedged and hashed bonds in skeletal formulae?
One thing I've noticed in your images, for example hexazine, is your aromatic rings have some bonds shorter than others. They should all be the same length: see benzene for an explanation.
@ Ben: I haven't noticed the odd uneven bond lengths in my aromatic rings. They seem to be correct and even in BKchem, and then they translate into DSV oddly. I will have to experiment to see what the problem is.
I found out what the problem is: I was creating alternating double bonds in BKchem, transferring into DSV, and THEN changing the bonds into aromatic bonds. However, DSV doesn't automatically update bond lengths. I found out that the best way is to draw the molecule with aromatic bonds prior to transferring into DSV. Then the bond lengths are all equal.
Wow, HOW DID YOU NOTICE THAT?!?!?! I am amazed, they all seemed equal length to me. Nice job, man! THANKS!!
What is the best way to contact you? I would hate to flood your talk page with my incessant rambling. However, until then, I have a question for you involving my structure of quisqualic acid. I have found a local university library to go to in my spare time, and they have a lot of access to research journals. I now have access to Acta Crystallographica, The Journal of Organic Chemistry, and many more great journals. It was a bit confusing to interpret this data, though, and I hope that I interpreted it correctly. I have posted the updated image of quisqualic acid on the wikipedia page. It is a zwitterion, like you previously mentioned.
I was curious if you had ever found N-methyl-D-aspartic acid before? I found N-methyl-D-aspartic acid monohydrate, but the hydrogen bonds alter the structure between the two molecules.
The image you created File:Copper(II)-acetate-3D-balls.png needs to be modified slightly. The image is used in a new article magnetochemistry which makes it clear why there is no Cu-Cu bond. If you are able to make the necessary changes, please go ahead. Many thanks. Petergans (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ben, some years ago you have drawn a structural formulae for the box. However, the absolute configuration is missing in two positions. Best regards, --Jü (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the wiki markup and it seems fine but for some reason your image is not displaying properly... Perhaps you can take a look. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors must share your sense of exasperation over the persistent irresponsible/nutty behavior. You have to admit that most pages are much better than when you and I started. Fewer real embarrassments. Readers now must understand that most inorganic solids have polymeric structures. So for the annoying stupidity, including university-driven content, we just grind away at the worse parts when these editors cease at the end of their term. So dont lose hope. And be resigned to the fact that we're always going to have this kind of strangeness.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Smokefoot, your comments are encouraging. I was being deliberately melodramatic, to try and provoke some sort of response. Many good things that WP:CHEMS has done seem to get gradually worn away by various irritating groups and individuals, and many Wikichemists don't seem to fight back. I agree with you, we've made Wikipedia better at communicating chemistry well. I just can't stand to see a good thing die. --Ben (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At DOI the infobox looks odd under the Jmol images section. A quick look from me didn't spot anything. Might be a quick fix can you take a look? Thanks. Shootbamboo (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm new here but I have seen your works around on practically every molecule page. Can you make me space-filling models of the following molecules? I'm not good with Discovery Visualizer, it kept messing up my molecules.
Hello Aslalio. What do you want the space-filling models for – to illustrate articles, or for some other purpose? Did you know that there is a huge repository of images at Wikimedia Commons?
I want to illustrate articles. Some of the articles don't have space-filling, and I believe most articles have to have space filling model, structure, and ball and stick model. The polystyrene is good quality, but the carbons in the styrene and ethylbenzene are too light. Can I ask a few more favors again? Sorry if it is too much.
Hello Benjah-bmm27, Aslalio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
It's no problem for me to provide such images, but I'm away from my usual computer so I can't make any new ones for about a week. I advise you to state your intentions at WT:CHEMICALS before embarking on any major or systematic article illustration campaigns. As far as I remember, many regular contributors to chemistry articles on Wikipedia are opposed to indiscriminate use of space-filling models because ball-and-stick models show the connectivity and stereochemistry of a molecule much more clearly. We tend to use space-filling images only where they tell the reader something important that a ball-and-stick model cannot. --Ben (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then... well I'm kinda new, but thanks anyway. I had a different idea to illustrate Ethylene in various chemical reactions.
Sorry for the long wait for a reply, Aslalio. I'm revising for exams at the moment so I'm a bit busy. Remind me again why you want space-filling images of these molecules? There are plenty of good non-space filling images out there it seems. --Ben (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you study for exams... I started transitions from ethylene to various end products and I used space-filling models to start and finish. I can;t restart now. This is a project with all contrasts and inverse colours by hand with shadows and light and all other sorts of stuff.Aslalio (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I saw from the page "Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Requests" that you are a very accomplished editor and you are able to add images of chemicals. I was wondering if you possibly could add an image or a ball-and-stick model of the compound 'sulfur trifluoride' to the article. I have attempted several times although I can't get the hang of it. Thank you for your time. --Geo7777 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Geo, thanks for your request. I have some serious concerns about the article, as I've stated at Talk:Sulfur trifluoride. I'm holding back on drawing a structure until I can confirm the molecular geometry. --Ben (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes come across Wikipedia pages for molecules that you have already drawn. However, your image has not yet been posted up! So I was wondering...next time I come across a Wikipedia article without a picture (and I find an image you have made for it at Wikipedia Commons) may I post your image to the article? I don't think you will mind, but I respect your work, and I don't want to post it if there is reason for this.
SubDural12 (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to do so. I'll be interested to see which articles you find. How are you finding Wikipedia these days? --Ben (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ben, good job for the chemistry articles! Would you mind taking a look at the very first article I just have created on Cerimetry? It is still a temporary subpage (not published yet); I've just created the page today. Your contribution would be appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance, Burgundy111—Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry I missed this - bit busy with revision at the moment. I don't know much about cerimetry, so I wouldn't've been much help. Nice article! --Ben (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, I am about to shut down for the AM, but wanted to first thank you for the ref to the hair coloring review you found a couple of days ago. Surprised me to see such an article. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I was searching Chem. Rev. for something unrelated and saw it had just been published. I knew your students had been working on such things. Nice work - shows how class projects can be done well. Cheers. --Ben (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that you did the Google test (604 hits for "diazo(trimethylsilyl)methane" versus 22,900 hits for "trimethylsilyldiazomethane") for getting to know the correct name for TMSCHN2. Sometimes this procedure could lead you to the right answer, but unfortunately this is not the case. Organic Chemistry nomenclature is an agreement of strict rules set throught dozens of years by experts in the field. This means that it is beyond the "crowd's democracy". As it is well known, the knowledge level of Organic Chemistry nomenclature is not as high as it should be and when someone makes a new compound names it loosely most of the times. "Diazomethane" is not a parent hydride. It is a methane (parent hydride) substituted by the group =N2, named as a prefix (IUPAC: Compounds containing a group =N2 attached to a single carbon atom are named by adding the prefix ‘diazo-’ to the name of the parent hydride or functional parent hydride). For TMSCHN2, there are two groups (=N2 and Me3Si) attached to a methane that SHOULD BE NAMED ALPHABETICALLY, that is "diazo(trimethylsilyl)methane". You can see the example on IUPAC 2004 Complete Draft (which will be published soon as a book) that depicts "1-diazo-1-(trimethylsilyl)propan-2-one" (although there is a mistake in the drawing). If you had asked to the right people (IUPAC meeting, for example) you would have been answered 100% for "diazo(trimethylsilyl)methane" and 0% for "trimethylsilyldiazomethane". With all this, I procede to change the article.
Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniblanco (talk • contribs) 12:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. We do not follow IUPAC on Wikipedia. We use the most common name. I checked the literature on Web of Knowledge, and trimethylsilyldiazomethane returns 308 hits, whereas diazo(trimethylsilyl)methane returns only 8. So it's not just crowd democracy, but a reflection of actual usage by experts.
In my opinion, having actually been a member of an IUPAC nomenclature committee, "strict" chemical nomenclature is too often overcomplicated and is not adopted by working scientists for this reason. You will incur the wrath of WP:CHEMS if you demand adherence to IUPAC nomenclature rules here on Wikipedia. We find it annoying and a terrible distraction from the far more important task of expanding and improving the content of chemical articles on Wikipedia.
Diazo(trimethylsilyl)methane is a clumsy and tedious name, with unnecessary parentheses. So do not change the name of the article. --Ben (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with no changing the name of the article, since most of the people knows this compound by "trimethylsilyldiazomethane", but I would suggest doing it in the text. In this case, the name has the same number of syllables and it is as easily pronounceable as (or as clumsy and tedious as) the other name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniblanco (talk• contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Again, no. For the same reasons I outlined above. Diazo(trimethylsilyl)methane is a legitimate name, so I have included it in the info box. But trimethylsilyldiazomethane should be used in the article text, because it's a better name. Diazomethane may not be a parent hydride according to IUPAC rules, but in practice, chemists will name a molecule by substitution of a hydrogen on the closest well-known molecule with a simple name. In this case, diazomethane is the well-known, well-named molecule, and trimethylsilyldiazomethane is diazomethane with a hydrogen replaced by a TMS group. This way of thinking is not the way IUPAC likes to think about molecules, but we don't care. We want to reflect reality. --Ben (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice pictures of alpha fluorine on commons. I want to add a sentence or two on the solid state to our F article. Also perhaps one of your pics. I have a 1969 reference on the structure and also a little bit about the phase transformation. Do you know of something more recent? Also the most accurate number for the phase transition temp? TCO (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greenwood and Earnshaw say this: "F2 has two modifications (a low temperature, α-form and a higher-temperature, β-form) neither of which resembles the orthorhombic layer lattice of the isostructural Cl2, Br2 and I2".
2. Thinking we could pad it out to a DYK. Can do a cool hook having to do with the sample windows blowing out (Wikians will love this little piece of chemical violence).
3. (Por favor). Could you draw the beta structure? [I think something similar to the drawing in the Linus paper. Want to be able to see the spherical corners and planar inside molecules. If we do too much space-filling, will occlude seeing that, so a more ball and sticky conceptual diagram is fine.]
The article looks good. Why did the sample windows blow out – reaction of F2 with the Cu vessel? It might be tricky to replicate Pauling's diagram in a ball-and-stick model because the actual data they give in their crystal structures represents each disordered F2 molecule as an F atom occupying the position where the centroid of the F2 molecule would be. I'll see if I can make something up – will probably look like doughnuts for the planar disorder and large spheres for the spherical disorder. --Ben (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is the volumetric change. The structure changes volume by more than 5% in the phase transition. The energy involved is actually more than the melting/freezing transition. Also, it is not the sort of change that can happen smoothly by distortion say (tetragonal squashing to cubic say), but instead is pretty radical change. So it wants to change and the builds up all these strains and the CRACK! But you know Wikians like dramah!
Article is a little of a mess since I started writing it from scratch, then put a new para into the F article, then saved it back (so duplicative).
What I liked about the Pauling drawing is that it supports the in article discussion of how these little difluorides spin around. But see what you can do.
I also want to get a graphic of the phase transition, V versus T, very dramatic looking in the 68 paper.
Just leaving a thank you for the instructions you have in making 3D structures of molecules. I was going to ask you to make this: , but saw your instructions and decided to do it myself. Thanks! --MindZiper (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Benjah-bmm27/2011! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.
Your continued use of structures drawn from atomic coordinates has had an enormous influence on Wiki-Chem. Your recent comments on R2SnO and attention to polymorphs is impressive and in good taste. Thanks.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Smokefoot. I haven't had much time to work on Wikipedia recently, I've had my hands full with real-life chemistry! But there are some structures that catch your eye as painfully misleading - I just couldn't resist saying something. Likewise, thanks for your many and varied contributions to Wiki-Chem, especially your neat, concise ChemDraw structures and your pruning of waffle. Happy New Year. --Ben (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previous
Current
-acetate-3D-balls2.png){kind=link}
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
, but saw your instructions and decided to do it myself. Thanks! --MindZiper (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Template:Aldehydes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)