User talk:Benjah-bmm27/2008

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs)

Thanks very much!

Happy new year to you, too.

Enjoy 2008.

Ben (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Ben, thank you for the mellowing note on the azurite thing. We need to keep the tone fairly positive, as you did. I should not get peeved ... But I digress. Best wishes for the New Year.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isobutylene

Hey, thanks! Do you have your lighting settings jotted down anywhere? Your models always appear lighter than mine. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about replacing your image. I wouldn't have done it, except for the fact that I'd already made the image and was about to upload it when yours appeared!

My lighting settings are here, but if you're using version 1.6 or 1.7 (I use 1.5), there's a choice of metal, plastic etc. I'm not sure which one gives the shiniest look, but I prefer the lighting in 1.5, that's the only reason I haven't upgraded.

Thanks for all your great work on illustrations and SVG, it's awesome.

Ben (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Hey Ben! Just saw you around, thought I'd leave you a message. I don't know if you have been following the last things on WT:CHEMS lately with User:ChemSpiderMan. He has been checking a lot of chemical compounds for 'correctness', and is compiling a list of that data. There seems to be some discrepance in some chemical data somewhere, which in some cases also influences the images on the pages (mostly minor, such as e.g. differences in protonation). You might want to have a look at that as it may influence the drawing group.

By the way, do you have access to IRC (using mIRC or the chatzilla plugin on Firefox or similar)? It would be nice to have you around there, e.g. you could have given your POV on file-formats e.g. during our IRC meeting yesterday afternoon.

Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dirk, happy new year, hope you're well.

I had a look at ChemSpiderMan's work, but there was so much of it, I couldn't find much that affected me at first sight. Is there any easy way to browse his updates? Where's the list?

I don't have IRC at the moment, but I'll try and get it, as it would be great to be able to participate in meetings such as the one you mention.

Cheers!

Ben (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NI3

Now, your NI₃ picture... it looks kinda trigonal planar to me. And even if it's not, maybe you could rotate it so it looks less flat. Figure out who I am, and come and see me about it some time! Chris (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely flat - but you can barely tell from the image!

I've made a clearer ball-and-stick model, which now adorns nitrogen triiodide.

See you around in chem :)

Ben (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EDTA Molecule.jpg

Care to re-do this one? :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glucono-delta-lactone-2D-skeletal.png

Hi Ben. I wanted to point out you to this edit comment. Translated to English: The structure above has an incorrect geometry. Due to the planarity of the carbonyl group, the molecule is in the "Halbsesselform" (no. 2 in the image), not in the "Sesselform" (no. 1 in the image) (I don't know the translation). --Leyo 14:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

conformations
your version
correct version

Thanks for that, Leyo.

I checked the minimized structure in Spartan. Neither structure really shows the true conformation.

I'll make another version.

Ben (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halbsessel = half chair. Also, ideally, atom labels in the back should be in smaller font.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium amide

Ben: it would be nice if you could dig up the 3-d structure for sodium amide. The current pic is awful. I'll look into the structure in NH3 soln, but my guess is that it dissolves to give a highly solvated dimer, something like [(H₃N)₄Na]₂(μ-NH₂)₂. If you can't get to this, then dont worry about it.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that - maybe this afternoon.

I'll let you know. Really needs a new image!

Cheers

Ben (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that you put up sodium amide, its real nice although I am sure some readers will be disappointed to see that it is not a tetra-atomic molecule. I just need take some time to learn what you do, but I am on a Mac and that is probably an issue. I also promised you that I'd find out about the soln structure of the material, so I owe that. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:User Kingsman

A tag has been placed on Template:User Kingsman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIY page moves in future?

Would you be interested in a WP:RFA? Adminship's not a big deal. It's simply a matter of giving a trusted user a few more tools to help the project more. I sincerely believe you're amply worthy of this trust. If you're interested, I will be happy to nominate you. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great, but would it require me to spend lots of time hunting down vandals and blocking people?

Ben (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All contributors, editors and administrators set their own level and duration of involvement. Having the tools yourself simply means you can block a vandal yourself, instead of having to ask an administrator while ethanol gets vandalized and reverted another dozen times. Some admins like me are no more than normal editors with "special powers" - I only deal with vandalism, etc. when I come across them in my regular editing. There are some who do take a special interest in vandals; others deal in articles/images for deletion, etc.

To get you started, you can read Wikipedia:Administrators to familiarize yourself with what is expected of an administrator. WP:RFA will help you with the process. Here are the RFAs of people we know:

--Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for those links. I'm going through them (slowly!), getting a feel for what's expected.

Ben (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to tell you I've started work on your RfA page. Do let me know if I have characterized you inaccurately. I can't seem to find any conflicts with other editors in your edits. I guess if you are not heavily involved in POV-laden articles, you don't really get involved in disputes. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is one RfA I'll definitely support! If you need any pointers, feel free to drop by my talkpage. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You may want to archive yours soon :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just FYI i have left you a few questions at your RfA, take your time answering them, cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular model material settings

Hi Ben, I've been using your tutorial on molecular modelling. I've been trying the figure out what material settings you've been using to get the slight reflection on the carbon molecules without getting over reflection on any coloured molecules? I have the same lighting configuration as you, so it must be a difference in material settings. Thank you. Iomesus (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you reply Ben. I guess there's nothing I can do about the lighting then, it'll do as it is I suppose. I'm a little embarrassed about the hydrogens, for some reason I'd assumed that it was standard practise to leave them out unless they are part of a functional group. Also, should I have orientated the picric acid molecules to match the 2D image at Picric Acid (i.e. with the -OH at the top)? Iomesus (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be embarrassed! It is standard practice to omit non-functional-group hydrogens in skeletal formulae, but not usually in ball-and-stick models or space-filling models. Sometimes I do omit some or all hydrogens, as in tacrolimus and ciclosporin, but only if there are so many hydrogens that they obscure the important structural details.

As for orientation, it's a good idea (although not a requirement) to have formulae and models in the same orientation - just easier for readers to understand. Sometimes there are standard orientations, especially for steroids and opioids.

Thought of joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry?

Ben (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substitution

Hi Ben. Please don't forget to substitue vandal warnings. Cheers! Pedro : Chat 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extension of your RfA

It has come to my attention that at least one sole purpose account has been used to anonymously contact users encouraging them to oppose your RfA using the Special:Emailuser function. The full extent of this canvassing cannot be ascertained for sure, though investigations are ongoing. In order to dilute the effects of this, I have extended the time of your RfA so it will run for another 24 hours and have asked on several central locations for users to look at your RfA from a neutral perspectibe. I apologise for the fact this draws out the process, but I think this is the best way to make sure you get a fair assessment. WjBscribe 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA was unsuccessful

I'm sorry to say that I have closed your RfA as not demonstrating a consensus that you should become an administrator at this time. I hope you will not be too disheartened - an unsuccessful RfA is not a sign that your contributions to the project are not appreciated. I think the extension and posts to various noticeboards managed to solicit a good range of neutral input and that this offset the canvassing that occurred earlier. If you are still interested in becoming an administrator, please take on board the concerns raised by those who opposed and reapply when you feel you have addressed them. Best wishes, WjBscribe 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ben, that one teetered on the knife-edge. If you're not discouraged, I'd suggest reporting vandals for a bit and adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science to your watchlist and check Category:AfD debates (Science and technology) occasionally, so you can show more Wiki-space contributions in your next (and certainly successful) RfA. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph! And you looked like a such a useful fellow. :-) I could walk you through some key policy areas sometime, if you're interested. I too think that your next RFA will likely pass. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your RfA. For the record, I would've supported to counter some of the more idiotic opposes, not properly identified as such by the closing crat. Dorftrottel (bait) 03:20, March 13, 2008

Hi Ben, sorry that your RfA did not pass. As others have pointed out, it was a close one. I too believe that too much weight was given to having "project space" experience. There are many users who rack up edits for edits like delete per nom, and I don't see how they understand policy better. I also think that those votes for oppose - does not need the tools were silly too, by the reasonining of Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions. Since this is what they want to see, perhaps you can involve yourself in some policy discussions. The others here have given more advice than I can. I (or anyone else) can nominate you when you feel more ready. Do let me know how I can help! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pile-on sorry, mate :) Anyway, if you need a hand (or a co-nom for your next one, when you feel ready), please leave me a note. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for your tips and support.

I'm surprised that RfA's (supposed to be not a big deal!) take so much time and effort from so many people.

Cheers

Ben

Cannabidiol

Hi! You put a 3D image on the article about cannabidiol. <quote> Is this the real structure from the article where the crystal structure was published? If not we should remove it because it is misleading or in the best case just a nice picture without any use. -- Panoramix303 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)</quote> If would be great to leave a note in the comment section how the image was obtained, etc Thanks -- Panoramix303 (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or just... how was the image created? (What data is it based on?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at talk:cannabidiol.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing images

Hi. You have drawed many nice images of chemicals. Might you draw structures of these?

Tin(II) oxide
Zirconium tungstate (replace JPG)
Perovskite (replace JPG), see also Image:Perovskita-wiki.jpg

84.75.149.170 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go, although it might be easier to contact User:Cadmium about the perovskite image and simply ask them to recreate it as a PNG.

Ben (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VX ref

Dear Ben,

See my email about VX

HMG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sucralose

Hi Ben. Did you see that one of your images is used in ES&T Science News? --Leyo 13:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks for showing me. :)

Ben (talk)

About the Accelrys DS Visualizer

When I tried to DL the software it said that I need a lot of thins in my PC in order to have it to work. Such as 1 Gb of ram and a lots of space. Is that true?--GarciaGerry (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not! I use a PC that's five years old, with 256 MB DDR and it works fine.

Just try it, see if it works for you

Ben (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Ben. I would like to know the version of the software you have. Mine -I mean, the one I DL from Accelrys.com- is version 2.0. This version do not work. Some people tell me that there were a 1.5 and 1.7 version. --Averak (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use 1.5

Ben (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the root of the issue. Can you be so kind to tell me where I can get that version? Can you upload it to some hosting service (cause the Accelrys DS Visualizer is free) so I can Download it? I search and search up-and-down the INet and could not find that version. Any help would be hot. Thanx--GarciaGerry (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try emailing Accelrys and ask them if they will let you download version 1.5.

I think I would be breaking the licence agreement I accepted when I downloaded v 1.5 if I made it available from a hosting service. The fact that the software is free does not make redistribution legal. Sorry about that.

Ben (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Chembox/Image-large

A tag has been placed on Template:Chembox/Image-large requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parathion-methyl

Thanks for adding the structure. Jtnet (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll make 3D models of the two molecules soon.

Ben (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images that might be replaced in en-WP articles

Hi Ben. As you are one of the top contributors of structural formulae, I address this issue to you. Several images of a user are missing hydrogen at heteroatoms and should therefore be redrawn or replaced by other existing images. You can copy the list below in here (add "en" below) to check which of them are used in en-WP articles (currently 43 articles). BTW: There is just one image used in de-WP left. ;-) Can you do that (certainly no need to hurry)? --Leyo 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VitaminB12.png
Prostaglandin_I2.png
Norethandrolone.png
Vildagliptin.png
Sitagliptin.png
Tenatoprazole.png
Methazolamide.png
Latanoprost.png
Dorzolamide.png
Diclofenamide.png
Brinzolamide.png
Brimonidine.png
Bimatoprost.png
Amprenavir.png
Codeinone.png
Carfentanil_2.png
Anileridine.png
Alfentanil.png
Butorphanol.png
Cyclopamine.png
3-hydroxy-3-methyl-butanoic_acid.png
Avizafone.png
Azelastine.png
D-dopa.png
Aprepitant.png
Bentiromide.png
Acetohexamide.png
Acetylpromazine.png
Perfluoroethanamine.png
Pentafluoroethyliodide.png
Fucitol.png
Formylmethionine.png
Bromodifluoroacetylchloride.png
Trifluoromethylisocyanide.png
Iodotrifluoroethylene.png
Trichloroacetyl_chloride.png
Dichlorodifluoroethylene.png
5-Azacytidine.png
Taurine.png
Rhamnose.png
Propyl_gallate.png
Papaverine.png
Cysteamine.png
Mesobiliverdin.png
Urobilin.png
Mesobilirubin.png
Urobilinogen.png
Paclitaxel.png
Ornithine.png
Nicotine.png
N_acetylglutamic_acid.png
Hydroxytropacocaine.png
Morphinone.png
Inositol.png
Hygrine.png
Glutamic_acid.png
Cuscohygrine.png
Creatine.png
Biliverdin.png
Bilirubin.png
Aspartic_acid.png
Anisomycin.png
Aminocaproic_acid.png
5-Hydroxyindoleacetic_acid.png
5-methyluridine.png
19-norandrosterone.png
Mifepristone.png
Mebendazole.png
Agomelatine.png
Aceclidine.png
Alfuzosin.png

I'd be happy to have a go at some or all of these, but since I cannot contribute SVGs, I think User:Fvasconcellos might be a better person to take on the task. Fvasconcellos' skeletal formulae are perfect and SVG. If Fvasconcellos doesn't want to do any or all of them, I'll certainly do it.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I asked him. --Leyo 16:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, Ben :) I think quite a few of these have actually already been replaced, but I'll gladly whip up substitutes for those that haven't. If I come across any tough ones, I'll let you take over! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ben-Mills-17-June-2007.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ben-Mills-17-June-2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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 not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another molecule you might like to draw...

Dewar benzene would really benefit from having a good 3d picture, because the real structure of the molecule is very different from the idealized planar hexagon in the 2D representation. Cheers, Itub (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problem - I'll do it once I get back to university in two weeks, where my modelling PC is!

Cheers for the idea

Ben (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikithesia

Hi, I am impressed with your contributions to the anaesthetic drugs articles in wikipedia. I am developing a website called wikithesia. Could you contact me please? webmaster@wikithesia.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.5.82 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletal images vs more explicit images

Ben, I've been meaning to come over here for ages to thank you for all your great work, and instead I come over here to moan! I suppose that's the way people are!

Anyway, I saw this edit recently, and I'm concerned. When I made the original scheme in 2005 I deliberately showed the carbons and hydrogens explicitly. Of course I could have made a skeletal version as I did Image:AlCl3_ene_rxn.gif, but I believe that for the average reader of the propan-1-ol article a skeletal version is less clear.

Let me explain. As an organic chemist, I use skeletal representations every day by default. As a teacher, though, I'm aware that most non-chemists find them hard to understand, at least until they have taken a year of organic chemistry. In the first few weeks of my class, my students clearly struggle to get used to skeletal formulae, and a few complete the year still rather hazy on the concept. That is why all the textbooks I have seen (except Clayden et al,, which is written at a higher level than US college texts) make extensive use of traditional structural representation, particularly with (a) material earlier in the book and (b) simple compounds.

One goal of WP:CHEMS, IMHO, is to provide chemical information that is at an appropriate level for our readership. What is appropriate clearly depends on the article, and I would not be making a case like this for an article like persistent carbene. I have never shied away from adding more advanced content into articles, and indeed I have argued the case for it many times to non-chemists complaining about our "too-technical" content. But if the article is typically read by a beginning chemist, perhaps in high school, or by a lay person (What is that stuff in my toothpaste?), then we should be careful to pitch things at that level. Remember that a high school student will probably be baffled by the skeletal structure, but a PhD chemist will easily understand a non-skeletal one. Clearly morphine is too complex for a full representation, but I think a common compound with 2 or 3 carbons should have the atoms shown explicitly, and something like methane perhaps warrants a Lewis-type structure. Where the line is drawn in clearly a matter for debate, but I think we probably should debate this topic before we write Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing.

What do you think? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you say, Martin, sorry about replacing your image. I think it's a US/UK thing - I was reading the propanol article and thought that students wouldn't come across these sort of reactions of propanol until they'd learned skeletal formulae - in my A-level course, we did skeletal formulae in lower sixth and then did FGI's in upper sixth. It's just me - spending so much time working in a school, you get used to how things are there and forget that much of the rest of the world is different.

I think I saw your propanol scheme and thought the 90° bond angles at various carbonyls might mislead readers about the true geometry of the molecules. But then again, skeletal formulae aren't realistic, either.

The issue of skeletal formulae being inaccessible to many readers is one reason why I focus on ball-and-stick 3D models. I would have understood a ball-and-stick model as soon as learned the concept of a molecule, probably when I was about 11 years old! But skeletal formulae were completely indecipherable until I was 16, and even then took a year or two to get confortable with.

So, yeah, sorry for jumping the gun at propan-1-ol, but it's good it's revealed a few issues for debate.

p.s. I was really impressed at the outcome of the CAS numbers debacle, that was some nice work on your behalf!

Good to hear from you,

Ben (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have added the rollback feature to your user account, and to those other trusted Wikipedia chemists. I hope this helps with reverting any vandalism or other inappropriate edits you come across. (If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Hola,

You make pictures of molecules. That's awesome. I mostly make enemies :)

Natalizumab doesn't have a picture - is it doable? Is there criteria required for you to draw a molecule?

Yesterday I talked to a guy who spoke Latin, today a guy who can make molecule pictures. My tiny world grows by the Å. I've been looking for an excuse to use that character and now I have it. Huzzah!

WLU (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WLU, thanks for your message.

I normally avoid drugs like natalizumab because they are proteins and are therefore much better handled by a biochemist or other biology specialist who knows about that sort of thing. I have drawn a few such proteins in the past, by they take a long time because my poor old computer is too slow to cope with their thousands of atoms.

I had a look to see if I could find the structure of natalizumab online, but it wasn't there.

Sorry about that, perhaps asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology or Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology. User:Fvasconcellos may be able to help.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, thanks for the reply. It's still cool that you can gererate pictures of molecules of any size. I'll try Fvasconcellos, s/he's already familiar with the page. Thanks for the suggestion, much obliged! WLU (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've had a look at the Natalizumab page, and it's an antibody. Therefore, there is no real benefit in making an image. All antibodies look the same, most of them are immunoglobulin G. The key to their usefulness is their specificity for an antigen, but that won't show up in a formula or a structural model. AngelHerraez (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hexaferrocenylbenzene-3D-sticks.png

Would it be nerdy to say that some molecules are just plain cool? Great image! -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed! Tis a good molecule.

Ben (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propylene v. propene, +

Hi Ben, I don't wish to start an edit war/challenge, so I'll submit the following: propylene is a more common name, but the new IUPAC standard would name the functional group propene and not propylene. Perhaps a compromise of mentioning the alternate name would be a solution? Also, I see you have many requests for redrawing chemical structures. I would be willing to tackle some of those if you wish. So far I have redrawn bacitracin and ciclosporin. Feel free to double-check those--the only shortcoming I immediately see is that I can not export the formats to SVG (I'm only able to create high-resolution PNG files). If you know of a way to do so please let me know! I use Macintosh platform, which may or may not be limiting (the "gold-standard" application for SVG on Mac is Inkscape, but it is not compatible with 10.5 as of yet [though the company believes it to be]). Thanks for any help regarding the aforementioned! Elbreapoly (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elbreapoly. I don't really mind that much about propene/propylene personally. I brought the discussion to WP:CHEMS simply because others seemed to be disagreeing about it. I was just aiming to make the ethylene and propylene articles consistently named. I'm sure a plan will form when the chemists have all had their say.

Thanks for doing those two compounds! Ciclosporin (the one I checked) looked great, much better than before. I use a Mac with ChemDraw, and I haven't found an easy way to export SVGs. The problem is, ChemDraw wouldn't export a vector image to Inkscape when I tried. I just avoid the problem! User:Fvasconcellos might know how to do it, he's the SVG master.

See ya around :)

Ben (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thalidomide enantiomers

Hi Ben,

A few days ago I edited, in the Thalidomide#Teratogenic_mechanism page, the legend for the figure of enantiomers. I see now that both the legend and the image have an edit history where the R and S names have been changed several times. I have double-checked and I'm sure that the correct assignation is (S) for the left figure, (R) for the right one. Don't want to get into a battle of editions, so I hope if you don't agree with my assignation, we can discuss it here.

AngelHerraez (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your assignment is correct, Angel. I really don't know why I changed the legend - my mistake. Please accept my apologies.

Thanks very much for letting me know.

Best wishes

Ben (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phenylacetylene ball&stick

Could you either add the pi bonds on the alkyne or remove the aromatic bonds from the benzene ring? Not sure which way would be clearer, but right now it's inconsistent. Thanks as always for the images! DMacks (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pi bonds are there on the acetylene - triple bond - exactly as in the skeletal formula. Or am I missing something?

Thanks for the heads up

Ben (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see them. Still style differences, but "correct", so all's okay. DMacks (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making Molecules

Hi,

You molecule drawings are great, and I was trying to make something similar, but I can't get DS Studio to render the atoms smoothly - I always get jags like in this image (pardon the jpg artifacts). How do you get your atoms so smooth, and with a white backgound? Do you post-process in Photoshop or is there something in DS Studio I'm missing? Thanks, Inductiveload (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inductive.

I think you just need to set the rendering quality in DSV to ultra-high. Go to Edit > Preferences > 3D Window (don't just open the drop down menu, actually click on "3D Window" itself).

You can set the background colour to white with the same menu.

Hope this gives the results you're looking for. Good luck!

Ben (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Sorry for being so thick. Thanks for the quick reply! 87.194.203.205 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benzenediazonium chloride

Thanks for your images! The old ones were such an eyesore, and they were not reusable outside the en wp! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Was glad to see the back of the old images too!

Ben (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dilithium (Star Trek)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dilithium (Star Trek), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Dilithium (Star Trek)

I have nominated Dilithium (Star Trek), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilithium (Star Trek). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry Bond Star

	The Chemistry Bond Star
	Ben, I award you the Chemistry Bond Star for your unrelenting contribution to Chemistry and Chemicals on Wikipedia. Thanks for making so may high quality images for so many articles, they really add a bit of well needed life and colour to those chemical articles - well done! -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, thanks mate!

Ben (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dodecanioc Acid.JPG

I've noticed that you have created a bunch of nice chemical structure images. Could you please create one to replace this absolutely terrible image in lauric acid? Thanks. ChemNerd (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem.

Ben (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Cheers.

Ben (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much better. And so fast, too. Thank you. ChemNerd (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential" images

Was Accelrys used to make this image? [1] If so, how was it achieved? Thanks for your work. Steviedpeele (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was done in Spartan - see http://www.wavefun.com/ for details.

It is possible to make similar images in DS Visualizer (for example, Image:Hydrogen-chloride-elpot-transparent-3D-balls.png), but they're not as accurate because unlike Spartan, DS Visualizer does not do quantum chemical calculations.

If there's a particular image or series of images you'd like made, I'd be happy to do them.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious, as it would be useful to know for future reference. Thanks! Steviedpeele (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triphenylphosphine sulfide

Hey Ben!

If you have a little time, perhaps you can work your magic? (points at Acta Crystallographica paper) :) --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Just got back from a week in France, sorry for the delay.

I'll get on it asap.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I've already made images for this molecule - was waiting for the article to appear!

Ben (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's nice! Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD list

Hi there, I was wondering if you wanted to help out with deletion discussions. If you were interested you could watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd be good. Thanks Tim, I've added the page to my watchlist.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, weird "chemicals" turn up quite often, so it will be good to have an expert dropping in occasionally! Tim Vickers (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bis(pentamethylcyclopentadienyl) samarium

Thanks so much for your Ferrocene 3d image.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ferrocene-3D-balls-B.png

To wit may I request that you create an image/page for bis(pentamethylcyclopentadienyl)samarium? I am having difficulty finding resources that could model this molecule (my Qutemol program is fouling up the rendering of hydrogen for some reason). You have already achieved a similar 3D molecule with Ferrocene, so I figure this is old hat.

I believe these may help:

Canonical SMILES: C[C-]1[C-]([C-]([C-]([C-]1C)C)C)C.C[C-]1C(=C(C(=C1C)C)C)C.[Sm] InChI: InChI=1/2C10H15.Sm/c2*1-6-7(2)9(4)10(5)8(6)3;/h2*1-5H3;/q-5;-1;

Kind Regards, Microswitch (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it now, sorry for the delay.

Ben (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, images done!

See Commons:Category:Decamethylsamarocene for the finished product.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of interesting molecules that could benefit from one of your drawings

Red oxygen and tetraoxygen. Cheers, Itub (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Itub.

I'm on it!

Ben (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Thanks for the request!

Ben (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very nice. The octaoxygen figure in particular should be very helpful for readers because the shape is not a common one. --Itub (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copper monosulfide

Thanks Ben-I shall add the refs and words - --Axiosaurus (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, it needed doing!

Ben (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Propene

Just to let you know that I reverted your change made earlier today. The article was created as a stub by someone using US spelling. Since then this has been superceded by Commonwealth English in the course of expanding it. This week I completely rewrote the article (with the aim) to raise it to B class or better - so the former convention no longer holds. I would prefer not to use US spelling; nevertheless I wrote the article in a neutral way to avoid favour on either and (hopefully) stop passing editors making frivolous changes of the sort that was happening before. However, almost immediately it seems to be being steered into a US format. Therefore I wish it to follow the Commonwealth spelling format. Thanks--AssegaiAli (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a rule that the language used in the first version of the article must be preserved?

Ben (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought so but a stub does not determine the convention for the whole future of the article. The rule (if it is called a rule) is that the spelling must be consistent and should reflect the prevailing convention used. It also says that it shouldn't be changed without a reason. I expect this means deliberately adjusting other people's spelling use - unless of course it is to maintain the prevailing convention. If there is no prevailing convention then it has to be set somehow - by agreement probably. Propene had a mixture of spelling forms while it was still a stub. This is significant so I would say that it has no prevailing convention - hopefully by rewriting it I have set the convention. Sorry for the long answer - perhaps I am taking wikipedia too seriously; I thought I just did it for fun so I shall probably have to get out more...... --AssegaiAli (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for taking the time to explain. I'm not fussed really, I just saw an anon change the spelling seemingly arbitrarily, so I reverted. Now I can see it's part of a wider debate. I had a look at WP:ENGVAR, but there's no clear rule in this case. I'm happy for the article to stay British English, as long as it doesn't contradict any policies.

See you around

Ben (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About VDW radius

Nice to meet you.I want to know how you customize a VDW radius of DS Visualizer.In addition, I want to know it where you obtain the information from.Because I am a Japanese, sentence may be improper, but please forgive it.--220.19.90.120 (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question.　It is very pleasant that I make a molecular model.

[2]

When you make a crystal ion such as the lithium iodide, how length do you assume a VDW radius?

Do you make it a normal VDW radius? Or do you make it an ion radius?

For example, the VDW radius of the lithium is 182ppm, but the ion radius is 73ppm. Which do you use?--118.2.77.68 (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.2.77.68 (talk) [reply]

Hello again,

For crystals such as LiI, I use ionic radii, usually from Ionic radius or the relevant Webelements page, such as http://www.webelements.com/lithium/atom_sizes.html.

Ben (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!　Only 1 more let me ask you a question.

I must edit [Structure > Crystal Cell > Edit Parameters > Space Groups tab] so that I make a crystal ion.

From setting of enormous quantity, how do you find appropriate setting?

--220.19.90.120 (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to know the space group of the structure - it's given in the text of the article, or you can open up the CIF file as a text document and look for the space group manually.

Ben (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then which will the space group of the sodium chloride be?

I understood that it was the system of the cube of List of the 230 crystallographic 3D space groups.

However, there is not information more than it. Where can I download the CIF file?

--220.19.90.120 (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The space group of NaCl is $\mathrm {Fm} {\bar {3}}\mathrm {m} \,\!$ . You also need the motif or asymmetric unit of the structure — in this case, that's Na at (0,0,0) and Cl at (½,½,½).

You can find this and other structures at websites such as The American Mineralogist Crystal Structure Database and this US Navy materials science site.

If you have access (for example from a library or university), you can search IUCr journals for papers on the structure of a particular compound.

Ben (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another image request

Perhaps you could be interested in making a figure for graphite intercalation compound? I suppose the structure of KC8 may be available in one of the crystallographic databases you use. Cheers, Itub (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd be fun, I'll have a look for some data.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, images are done, sorry about the wait.

See Commons:Category:Potassium graphite.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I've added a couple of figures to the article. --Itub (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordination Geometry

Hi Ben, I've added quite a bit to coordination geometry and I would appreciate it if you could have a look please. Thanks.--Axiosaurus (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axio, sorry for the delay, I've just moved back to university.

I've had a look at coordination geometry and it's certainly miles better than before you got to work on it. Did you want me to provide more images for it?

Ben (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben, I was actually more interested in your chemistry knowledge (recently educated you will be more up to date than an oldie like me) - one question that concerns me is that coordination number according to IUPAC gold book seems to refer only to coordinate bonds that involve a sigma bond - and therefore, maybe, coordination geometry should be restricted to examples which comply with that definition- Is that a view you have heard of, or do folk go along with Greenwoods looser definition as I have? Also in lectures you may have heard of 11 coordinate examples with a correct name for the geometry, if so that could be added. Regards --Axiosaurus (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my lectures last year with Prof. Neil Connelly (of IUPAC nomeclature fame - maybe he could have a chat with Plasma Physics), coordination number was defined as the number of ligand atoms bonded to a metal.

I'm not sure about pi bonded species - (e.g. is Fe in ferrocene 10-coordinate or 0-coordinate?) - the definition would seem to imply that its doesn't matter what kinds of bonding, sigma or pi, is involved, the coordination number is simply how many atoms are bonded (in one way or another) to the metal (so ferrocene would have 10-coordinate Fe). However, there seem to be various conventions in organometallic chemistry: http://www.ilpi.com/organomet/coordnum.html.

I reckon we could discuss the simple cases separately from the pi-bonded ones. I imagine many readers will mostly be interested in the simple, straightforward definition - and once they've mastered that, they'll be prepared for the more ambiguous situations.

Ben (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that- interesting that Prof Connelly doesn't adhere to the Gold book--is this a sign of dissension in the ranks? Any way it means I shall leave it as it is for a while and maybe add something to Cdtn geomtery or cdtn number re Cp complexes et al. later- perhaps as a "problem area" with definitions. For my own part I go with the crystallograpers and limit the definition to the observable i.e. count the atoms that are close (and that opens up a can of worms in solid state in particular!)and ignore the "bonding" - which I suspect they see as a chemist obsession.--Axiosaurus (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclooctadiene

Hi, I just noticed that the 3D figure for 1,5-Cyclooctadiene shows the trans,trans-isomer, which does not match the structural diagram on the same article (or the COD I usually see in organometallic compounds). Cheers, Itub (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Ivan. I've made a new image which I'll update with one in my usual style once the necessary equipment arrives at the weekend!

Thanks again,

Ben (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, I like that the new figure even has a reference! :) That will come in handy if anyone is interested in expanding the article with information about conformation (one of my favorite topics). --Itub (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabun (nerve agent)

Hey there, I was just wondering if you could make a space-filling model of tabun. It'd be nice to have an extra picture for the article as well as the ball and stick model, and I don't really want to install the software for just one pic. RockManQ ^(talk) 18:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disilyne

Hi Ben, I've added a disilyne page which needs a picture and another pair of eyes to check it over. I have tried but - I can't get a picture to look enough like the pic in the articles. The articles and available full pdf versions are all referenced so hopefully if you accept this mission there is enough there.

Re- sodium silicate- if you can help with this that would be great, I see you've already identified the reference- Greenwood has a good picture of this. All the best --Axiosaurus (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

looks great! Thanks. --Axiosaurus (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Axio, sorry I've been slow, I've got plenty of work at the moment! I'll have a crack at a disilyne image now.

Ben (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

organofluorines

IMHO i think your statement "I agree that one page for all C-F compounds is a good idea and that the most inclusive term is probably best" here was an innacurate synthesis and characterization of my opinions. i think there should be a fluorocarbon page and an orgnaofluorine compounds page (because it is very easy for us to all agree on the distinctions between those two groups [all c-f vs. at least one c-f]) i think this is important because the distinctions between the chemical properties of a molecule that contains one c-f is so radically different from one that contains all c-f's. i was just trying to go along with the idea to merge organofluorine with organofluorine chemistry. i hope you don't view me as some sort of crazy editor who is out to destroy wikipedia chemistry articles, as the talk page implies. thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, you're not crazy.

Sorry, I didn't mean to inaccurately represent your views, and I was agreeing with others comments as well as some of yours when I said "I agree". There may well be a need for both organofluorine chemistry and fluorocarbon, but I think the broader article that covers all C-F compounds and chemistry is the more important one, and the one that more people should go to in the first instance.

There'll be plenty of opportunity to say that perfluorinated compounds are unique in either or both of these articles.

Ben (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the response, I appreciate it. -Shootbamboo (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry had to question the proposal you've been pushing for cause i found the organchloride page. -Shootbamboo (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's good you brought that up.

Ben (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your link to meta:Wikistress inspired me to relax and create a couple new articles (to divert attention) thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - Wikipedia can be pretty addictive, sometimes you have to take yourself away from it! Nice articles you've been making.

I was reading halocarbon. The article's name implies molecules with only carbon and halogens in, but the text is really talking about any halogenated organics. Would be nice to have a bit that discusses trends in organohalogen compounds, i.e. how the decreasing electronegativity from F to I affects bond length, strength, electrophilicity etc.

See you around

Ben (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-F bond

i heard you were the images man. if you get a chance i think a C^δ+-F^δ- picture would look great on the carbon-fluorine bond page. thanks for being an image person. -Shootbamboo (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this OK?

Cheers

Ben (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that. Can it be all black? Sorry to be picky. Thanks again. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New (all-black) version: Image:Carbon-fluorine-bond-polarity-2D-black.png. (What was wrong with colour?)

Enjoy!

Ben (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought the red was a little too bold. Is that possible for me to say? Looks great on the page thanks again! -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fluorocarbon

can we get the picture here [3] on wikipedia? thanks in advance for your assistance. -Shootbamboo (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you want to copy that image itself to Wikipedia? If so, it would have to qualify under fair use policy.

The better alternative is for someone to take and upload a similar photo, but in this case that seems unlikely. I, for one, do not have access to any mice in fluorocarbons - sorry about that!

Ben (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at that policy thank you. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox UK Fire and Rescue

Any chance you could look at the template please?

The Brigade Manager/Chief Fire Officer bit has been lost and no-one can get it back again!

Thanks

Samiddon (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samiddon,

I think it's all because the template asks for bm = while the articles have BM =. Changing one or the other will make it all work.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

phosphite

Thanks for the images they are both in the article. A question re PO₃^3- the IUPAC phosphite ion - its actually in the 2005 red book, which may suggest it is real. Have you ever come across this ion in a real compound?- its on the web in e.g. trisodium phosphite, Na₃PO₃- I am almost tempted to buy some and get it analysed. I would be surprised if it exists - P likes 4 coordination - but I have been surprised many times before!--Axiosaurus (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything conclusive online. Where did you see it?

There's a review of the crystal structures of loads of inorganic phosphites - if you can't access it, I can email it you. No mention of PO₃^3- there. But as you say, there are surprises all the time in chem.

Ben (talk)

Saw it on some suppliers web sites and in some textbooks in the naming compounds section - as you say all inconclusive. Can't access the review currently so an e-mail would be good. Funny but there are apparently orthoarsenates (e.g. Ag, Pb salts ) with the pyramidal AsO₃^3- ion. Thanks. --Axiosaurus (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image request

Hi Ben. There is a lot of discussion about featuring acid dissociation constant (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acid dissociation constant). It does not seem very likely to succeed at the moment, but a large part of it hinges in making at least the lead as accessible as possible to non-chemists. And for that, a better illustration could be helpful. Do you think you could make an alternative to the image shown at the right? I think it would look better with a lighter arrow, and that it could be made clearer if the proton being transferred were highlighted in some way. But any improvements you can come up with are welcome! --Itub (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?

I've also made some 2D versions:

Ben (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These look great, thanks! Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I missed your message on my watchlist (I may be watching too many pages...). --Itub (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

DS Visualizer

Hey Ben, thanks for the tutorial on how to draw molecules. I just had a couple questions, hope ya dont mind. How do I actually export the image? I can chose to save as, but my only options are various starnge moleculer files, and I wanted to get a .gif or .jpg. Also, how do I get the aromatic ring to have a dotted line? Such as in the tryptamine molecule here: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.246.239 (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 64.231.246.239!

I'll be glad to help. To export images from DS Visualizer, I think you need to scroll down a bit further to the bottom of the drop-down menu, to get Image Files (*.png, *.jpg, *.jpeg, *.bmp). It should be there - if not, ask me again and I'll try and upload a screenshot.

To get the dashed aromatic bonds, go Edit > Preferences > 3D Window then look under the various different subheadings like Display Styles, Import and Sketch and clean and look for perceive and update aromaticity (I can't remember which subheading it's under). This will automatically recognise aromaticity. Alternatively, you can just select the bond(s) you want to be aromatic, right click and change the bond type from single or double to aromatic.

Best wishes

Ben (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hello again. What free molecule editor do you recommend for skeletal images? Also, I would like to get the drinking water/carpet and mouse pictures off of this source[5] for the PFOA page but I think maybe only one or neither is uploadable to commons. I posted a question about this on Commons but no one answered. Any idea? Thanks again. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shoot,

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing - if you don't have access to ChemDraw, and if you qualify as a student or educator, then IsisDraw is your best bet for a free molecule editor.

The images you want are from the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, which is produced by the United States' National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. This institute is part of the National Institutes of Health and as such the images may be in the public domain (but I cannot say for sure). See Commons:Template:PD-USGov-NIH, Commons:Commons:Copyright tags#US Government agencies and Commons:Commons:Licensing for details.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not IsisDraw then do you have a preference? Thanks again. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No real preference, I haven't tried any of them except ChemDraw and IsisDraw. The important thing is to make sure the images generated conform to the guidelines (high-res, ACS settings etc).

Best wishes

Ben (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]