User talk:Benjah-bmm27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] (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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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:CHEM 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Image:EDTA Molecule.jpg

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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


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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] Substitution

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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

[edit] 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)

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

I've replied at talk:cannabidiol.

Cheers

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

[edit] Drawing images

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

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Awesome! Thanks for showing me. :)
Ben (talk)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
I use 1.5
Ben (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Parathion-methyl

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

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

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:Chem, 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

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)

[edit] 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)

Thanks Ed! Tis a good molecule.
Ben (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Hi Elbreapoly. I don't really mind that much about propene/propylene personally. I brought the discussion to WP:CHEM 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

My pleasure. Was glad to see the back of the old images too!
Ben (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Nice one, thanks mate!

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