User talk:Quantockgoblin/Archive 2007

Deutrated/Deuterated

I moved deutrated chloroform to deuterated chloroform. The latter is the way more general spelling .. or is this an UK/US-EN question? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - just a plain typo! - thanks!

Well, in that case, the common typo has a redirect :-) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Thanks for all your high quality contributions to the improvement of Wikipedia's chemistry articles! --Ed (Edgar181) 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for the barnstar—you didn't have to do that! Thank you for posting those requests and keeping the page going, and caring about stuff such as ring numbering for heterocycle pages and such. I just wish I could be helping more! Thanks again, Fvasconcellos 12:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop tagging

Please stop tagging chemistry related articles with {{Chemical drawing needed}} without checking the articles. I have checked a few and the tag did not make sense. Cacycle 00:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Also, you should check the changed articles and consider removing the tags if they do not fit. Cacycle 00:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - see the reply on your page. -- Quantockgoblin 01:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful in tagging

Chemical structures are often very complex and request such as yours motivate well-intentioned folks who are often under qualified. The energy consumed by tagging could equally well used in contributing content related to the structures you seek.--Smokefoot 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Smokefoot, but I disagree. Your statement above applies to all content on wikipedia. The very wiki-format encourages well-meaning (and often under informed) people to submit content. The role of other editors is to see if they believe that content is valid an delete/edit as they see fit. The same is true for Chemical structures. To be fair I would not tag these pages in a total vacuum. Both Ed and Fvasconcellos, who have drawn the majority of images on the [|Wikiproject Chemistry Image Request]], have said that they appreciate the tags and check the "Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures" regularly[[1]]. True, I have spent some time adding the tags, but I believe that the likes of Ed and Fvasconcellos will spend a great deal more time drawing and uploading images which they seem to enjoy. The burden of tagging is relatively low, and should result in useful content being generated that I alone could not do in the same amount of time. -- all the best -- Quantockgoblin 08:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit miffed that you went and re-tagged quite a few articles with {{Chemical drawing needed}} after I added images to them. I'll agree that nitrene needs editing. But your methodology for (apparently) rejecting my images was rather inflammatory. You could have put a notice on my talk page about it, but instead, you tagged the articles without discussing things with me first. Additionally, I was alarmed by the reasons you gave in the template, that the structures weren't how you saw them. I caution you to avoid WP:OWN, just because a structure appears differently than you envision it doesn't make it incorrect. I chose the linear fashion over the "real" conformation in some cases for didactic and aesthetic purposes. I'd appreciate it if we discussed this matter further. shoy 23:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shoy, I'm sorry if you took offence, none was intended. In fact I'm grateful that you drew the pictures as they certainly illustrate the correct connectivity of the atoms.

But … and I think I am being fair, you have drawn molecules in which the bonds of the saturated carbon atoms form a square plane. This is not actually factually correct. A saturated carbon atom is in fact sp3 hybridised. This means that the bonds from the carbon atom form a tetrahedral structure (104 degree I believe). When I re-tagged the page and used the term "I see the structure less linear and more "real" in conformation" that was a polite way of saying that the molecules are not strictly factually correct, and not that I thought they would look nicer if drawn in a different aspect.

Yes I did retag these images soon after you drew them. This was not intended to be a snub. I simply retagged the images so that I would not forget which images I though could be updated at a later date.

I was going to drop you a line on your page tomorrow explaining my reasoning ... but it seems you found me first!

For the record, I haven't contributed anything of any substance to the article that I have tagged (in fact, as far as I remember not a word), so I really don't feel any ownership over them at all. I have contributed to quite a few chemistry articles, but for now I'm doing a bit of community service tagging pages that could do with images.

Best regards . -- Quantockgoblin 01:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that drawing the bonds at right angles to each other isn't technically correct. But then again, neither is drawing them 120 degrees apart. (The number you're looking for is 109.5, by the way.) I just thought that the structures might be easier to understand if they were drawn that way, especially for newcomers to chemistry. Anyways, I'll look through them and see which ones you think need to be changed. Thanks for being WP:CIVIL and helpful. shoy 04:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shoy, Ok great! And, yes, I agree that in some regards molecules drawn at 90 degree angles are easy to understand, but so are molecule drawn with 120 degree bonds. At least when drawn with 120 degree bond angles, there are normally a few angles (i.e. looking down the axis of a bond) where this representation is "true" i.e. the bonds appear to be at 120 degrees. For a square planner arrangement it can never be strictly correct, no matter what angle the molecule is looked at. Again thanks for drawing the molecules -- Quantockgoblin 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical images

No problem! Best, Fvasconcellos 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. By the way, I've updated the image on natamycin, see what you think of this one. Best, Fvasconcellos 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deuterated THF

Thanks for catching my glaring mistake! I must have been asleep, or something. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, that makes up for a few howlers I've made in the past! -- Quantockgoblin 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re d-8-THF etc, a) what's the justification in separate articles for each? b) surely these don't have ¹H NMR spectra, so any search would be futile? 86.130.135.38 14:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image for chemistry star

I tweaked the image, straightening out the angels, for the chemistry star and uploaded it to commons. I hope you don't mind (just revert, if you do). --Ed (Edgar181) 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

beta-test

Hi Antony, could you send me the beta-test version of ACD-ChemSketch. I sent you my email address via your form. Greetings, --Hoffmeier 12:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article atrane

Hi, Quantockgoblin, I have come across the atrane article, which you tagged as needing a drawing ({{chemical drawing needed}} tag). You can check the article and see that I have substituted the old image by a hopefully better SVG. Do you think it is OK? If not, feel free to re-tag and/or modify the article as you see fit. If you want the image modified (you proposed numbered structures, whereas I have put no number at all), answer here or in my talk page and I'll do it (or just change it yourself if you feel like it). Keep on the good job. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air-free technique

Hi Quantock

I know this is one of your pet topics. I'm writing this article in my sandbox. Would you like to comment? --Rifleman 82 17:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]