User talk:Quantockgoblin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! - CobaltBlueTony 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your edits to Persistent carbene

Hi Quantockgoblin! I see you have taken up the tast to tidy up persistent carbene. Never expected this article to grow this fast. Nice work. But may I ask you to provide an edit summary with every edit you make? It makes it for other editors easier to see what happened, without them having to check the diffs. Thank you, kind regards, Dirk Beetstra T C 06:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk Beetstra

I haven't figured out how to make an edit summary yet, but I will try to do it next time!

QG

OK, I'll try and give you some explanation:
  • The edit summary is easy, if you press the edit button on a page, you get a edit box where you can change the text (guess you've done that). Just below the edit box there are three things, a box Edit summary, and two checkboxes (minor edit and watch this page). Below that you see the three buttons 'save page', 'show preview', and 'show changes'.. guess you found the Save page-button already.
  • On talk pages, you can put some idea's, things you are unsure about, whatever, or just comment on things other people have edited. In the same way you can get someones attention by posting a remark on his/her talk page, the next time s/he refreshes a page while logged in, s/he will get a remark that there is a new message for him/her. By the way, it is common to sign things on the talk page, just type ~~~~, that will be replaced by your name and a date automatically.
  • There are some ways of creating references. The main method is using the <ref name=something>reference text</ref> format. When you use the same ref twice, the second time you only have to type <ref name=something/> (note the / ). All ref's are then automatically put in the references section (if available, that one should have a <nowiki><references/>-tag).
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask, I'll be watching this space, the persistent carbene page (and its talk page, but these are connected), but you can also ask me on my talk-page (if it is a new subject, hit the + next to the edit button in stead of the edit button above the page). I'll go and make some new persistent carbene precursors myself now, keep up the good work! Dirk Beetstra T C 07:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra, thanks for your help - I'm still pretty new around here so I'm sorry my thanks are late coming to you Quantockgoblin 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Perkin Triangle image

That is an excellent image that you added to the Distillation article. But, if you are not going to explain in the text what the T1, T2, S, D, and other labels are, then why not remove them from the image? As they now stand, they don't add any information of value. Regards, - mbeychok 21:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

mbeychok very true - I've updated the picture to explain what the labels mean. I've also uploaded the image to wiki commons and used numeric labels so that others can use the image if they desire. Quantockgoblin 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Manifold chemistry

A tag has been placed on Manifold chemistry, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why Manifold chemistry is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Manifold chemistry. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable.

  • This very short article should really just be merged into Manifold. This article describes a type of manifold, not a science of manifold chemistry. I think that this would be a process of study, instead of a subset of the field of chemistry. - CobaltBlueTony 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image talk:Simple distillation appratus.jpg

See Image talk:Simple distillation appratus.jpg.

Also, did you notice in the pic at the top of the article Fractional distillation, the set-up appears somewhat more primitive than in my pic. That pic was a better candidate to replace than mine. H Padleckas 03:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

H Padleckas I'm not sure what you are asking me - are you suggesting that I should use my simple distillation image to replace the image on Fractional distillation? Regards Quantockgoblin 14:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vacuum manifold

Almost a year ago, it seemed to me there was little to nothing on vacuum manolds (equipment) in Wikipedia. I've been meaning to write a paragraph or two somewhere in Wikipedia about vacuum manifolds for quite a while, which I finally did. Care to take a look at the last paragraph of Vacuum manifold. I won't have the energy to make a pic for this for quite a while, if ever.
H Padleckas 04:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

H Padleckas please see Schlenk line - is this what you are after? Regards Quantockgoblin 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Büchner funnel
Boost (automotive engineering)
Mass transfer
Thistle tube
Ricci-flat manifold
Plate reader
Laboratory flask
Gas syringe
Hyperbolic manifold
Manifold System
Vortex mixer
Microtiter plate
Mepco Schlenk Engineering College
Watch glass
Analytic manifold
Alembic
Spin(7)-manifold
Einstein manifold
Static mixer
Cleanup
Peroxide
Glowing plate
DeWitt notation
Merge
Phenylalanine
Deposition (meteorology)
Organometallic chemistry
Add Sources
Poisson algebra
Raoult's law
Polyethylene
Wikify
Space charge
Permanganate
Colorimeter
Expand
Haber process
Cyclopentadienyl complex
Bell jar

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allhin condenser

A tag has been placed on Allhin condenser, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to provide more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately, and also put a note on Talk:Allhin condenser. An administrator should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 1 under Articles. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such material. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Oomph"-ed chemistry infobox.

I think the periodic table of the elements would be an excellent idea for an image in the background of the infobox header. Are there any images, bar the original Mendeleyev model that look instantly recognisable? JCraw 12:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)
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)


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)
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)
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)

[edit] Chemical images

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

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../q/u/a/User_talk%7EQuantockgoblin_9e8c.html"