User talk:Benjah-bmm27: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Edgar181 (talk | contribs)
Line 63: Line 63:


::::::All complete. 1 day's work! Have fun with them. [[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] 21:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC).
::::::All complete. 1 day's work! Have fun with them. [[User:Benjah-bmm27|Ben]] 21:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC).

:::::::I just wanted to let you know that I think they look great. Thanks for all the hard work. --[[User:Edgar181|Ed]] ([[User talk:Edgar181|Edgar181]]) 21:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:58, 21 March 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Benjah-bmm27, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 11:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 2% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. (Based on the last 130 major and 1 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 16:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the new image; keep up the good work! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jmol and Chemistry

Thanks for indicating your interest in this project. I also see that you have added your name to the participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. Welcome. As far as the Jmol project is concerned, it may take a bit of time to get moving. I would like to have some of the discussion on this done by e-mail as we will be testing it on a different Wiki. Could you go to my user page and use the appropriate userbox to e-mail me and let me know your e-mail address? I will then reply with mine. --Bduke 22:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium Trioxide

Thank-you for your timely and welcome edits on this page. I was getting tired being the only one holding back the contention by one other editor that clouds of UO3 gas were being produced from uranium combustion. --DV8 2XL 18:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dont grill me, toast me, boil me or fry me in hot oil ..... Monty Pytons Uranium Trioxide is a hot topic, but if you have a good suggestion DO IT! I also try and get reverted from time to time! Thanks to get everything right! Phd only means that you know more about one tiny little and forgot most of the stuff learned for your master.--Stone 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arsine and co.

Hi, it looks like you help insert ChemDraw. If so, could you please look at arsine. The drawing does not match the structure (the H-As-H angle is misrepresented vs the text, which is correct).And if you have any free time, here are some molecules awaiting their portraits:

asparagusic acid, Benzo(C)cinnoline, bismuthine, Cupferron - a tricky one as it is the NH4+ salt, nitrosonium (i.e. just the diatomic), and Phenylhydroxylamine, where you can simply edit your PhNO pic. I dont know how to upload ChemDraw, so if you could point me to simple instructions, I can start to do this too. --Smokefoot 00:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smokefoot. I'll definitely get some images done for those articles. As for uploading images from ChemDraw, I copy the structure I've drawn in ChemDraw to the clipboard. Then I open Photoshop and paste it into a blank document. Then I save the image as a hi-resolution PNG. I think there are other programs available free if you don't have access to a version of Photoshop. Hope this is helpful. I can give you more detailed instructions if you'd like. Cheers. Ben.
I've done them all! Let me know if you like them. Ben.
Ben - nice stuff. BTW, for cacodylic acid, it's tetrahedral (like most 4-coordinate main group things lacking lone pairs), so you could still more accurately represent it by modifying say AsH3, replacing l.p. with =O, 2xH with Me's and one H with OH. I dont know the structural details, but to the extent that anyone looks up cacodylic acid, we dont want them thinking it's planar. I understand if you dont have time for this.--Smokefoot 21:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new amino acid images

Hi Ben. I see you have uploaded new "high resolution" images for the amino acids and have replaced the old structural ones with them. First - i didn't like the old images too much either, but you can't wipe out someone's contribution just b/c you don't like their style, an edit is suposed to improve the article - yours don't - in fact they worsen it b/c the images you have removed and the color ones next to them were sets - they both had similar spatial position of the atoms, well not anymore. Another thing is the size of your images - ~ 20K, for the ~3K the old ones have. That's too much for a simple structure such as an amino acid. Now if you want to draw images there is plenty for you to do, just check Category:Chemistry_stubs, Category:Pharmacology_stubs and List of organic compounds. I suggest that you take a sub class of similar structures that noone has worked on it yet, this way all the images in that sub-class will have the same style - see the bile pigments Biliverdin, Bilirubin, Urobilin and Urobilinogen. -- Boris 04:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Boris - sorry you didn't like my updates. You're right - my skeletal structures for amino acids do not coincide with Michael Ströck's 3D ones. However, I think having a skeletal structure is a lot neater and clearer than lots of C-H's. Having ambiguous planar representations of molecules whose 3D structure is very important is not good. The bond angles are realistic and the stereochemistry is apparent in my versions. In fact, the older images I wrote over were the D-enantiomers, the ones not found in nature, and therefore of much less interest.
As for the 20K issue, Wiki automatically resizes images when the page is rendered, meaning that 20K of image is not downloaded - it's probably about the same as before. The pages will not load more slowly. The WikiProject on Chemistry recommends wholeheartedly in uploading hi-res PNG structures, so that's why I've done it. There is no disadvantage in this format.
I'll happily add some structures for currently unillustrated groups of compounds, as you suggest, but I do feel I was right to update the amino acids. I was being bold! Hopefully we can get the amino acid articles to a state that we're both happy with.
Cheers
Ben 15:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to work with Michael to find a solution, i like the idea of having two images next to each other, but you have to chose another way to draw these structures becasue with some of the bulky amino acids like Arginine, Tryptophane the currunt sceletal images will make it hard for the color ones to fit.
The images you have replaced were not the D-enantiomers, the ones before them were (for more see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/archive0, section "76. Amino acids"). -- Boris 19:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been able to make my own 3D structures in the style Michael used. I've added a modified skeletal structure and my own 3D image of arginine. They looked too small side-by-side so I put them one on top of the other. What do you think? Ben 11:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Excellent. Now since you've started it, you have to finish it - don't stop in the middle. -- 14:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on these all day and I'll keep going till it's done. Hopefully in a few hours time. Ben 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
All complete. 1 day's work! Have fun with them. Ben 21:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that I think they look great. Thanks for all the hard work. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]