User talk:M stone

If you got anything you want to tell me. This is the place.

Comment

M stone 01:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, M stone, I noticed you fixed the redirect on Rick Smalley's article from spectroscopy to spectrometry. Thanks for that. However, I used to do that when I first came here, and I found out soon that it's less of a burden on the servers to redirect a page than it is to edit the page. Obviously it doesn't matter for one small edit, but if it keeps happening... well, you know.

You're doing good work, though, and judging by your contributions, your research sounds very interesting :) I'm only in my first year of university, planning on studying Chemistry, but I'm still not sure which area to focus on. Still got time, though... Cheers, riana_dzast a 07:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I agree that there is no need to change links that simply go through a redirect page. However, in this case I was correcting an error in the page since as you probably know mass spectroscopy is not a correct terminology. If were indeed it were equivalent to mass spectrometry the same way JFK is equivalent to John F. Kennedy then I would have left it in place. M stone 08:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit bizarre that there's only one article for the two! If/when I get some spare time, I'll try to fix that. riana_dzast a 10:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

I like your images, keep up the good work. --Sadi Carnot 11:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Beautiful chemistry. --HappyCamper 13:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Hello! I load Your Image:586px-Hemicarcerand ChemComm 1997 1303.jpg on commons, cause I used it on Polish Wikipedia in article about Donald Cram. Can You check license and description? Thanks Margoz 05:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks fine to me. M stone 04:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular self-assembly and nanotechnology

I do believe that including molecular self-assembly as one of the nanotechnology fields is justified. Nanotechnology follows two routes to control of matter on the nanoscale: one is a materials-based viewpoint which centers around nanoparticles, the other is a chemistry-based viewpoint which relies upon molecular recognition to control the arrangement of individual molecules. DNA nanotechnology [1] is probably the most relevant example of this. See also Nanotechnology#Simple to complex: a molecular perspective and Top-down_and_bottom-up_design#Nanotechnology.

Additionally, this article itself says, "Many biological systems use self-assembly to assemble various molecules and structures. Imitating these strategies and creating novel molecules with the ability to self-assemble into supramolecular assemblies is an important technique in nanotechnology."

I want to hear your views first, but I do think that the nanotech navbox should be restored.

Antony-22 02:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that molecular self-assembly is an important concept in nanotechnology. However, I don't think that molecular self-assembly is itself molecular nanotechnology despite the fact that structures formed by the process may be. However if you would like to include it I will not change it back.

On a separate note I don't like the format for the navbox "Part of the article series on Nanotechnology" that you used. I find that such boxes are very useful, but prefer the kind located at the bottom of the article, such as "Major Fields of Nanotechnology" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Technology for example. Placing navboxes at the bottom keeps it from disrupting the images in the article. The format also allows the boxes to be readily viewed independently, discussed, and edited. Perhaps such a navbox could be created for nanotechnology. Happy to continue the conversation at my talk page. M stone 10:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that molecular self-assembly and molecular nanotechnology are not the same thing, but there is also a difference between "molecular nanotechnology" and "nanotechnology," the latter being much (much) broader. I guess the best indicator of whether molecular self-assembly fits under the broad nanotechnology umbrella is whether the people actually doing the former consider themselves to be part of the latter. The fact that you don't brings at least some doubt to that proposition. I personally work in DNA nanotechnology, which is definately considered to be nanotechnology, and is also a form of molecular self-assembly. It's possible that other forms of molecular self-assembly are not considered nanotechnology or that it depends on whom you ask. I tried to cast a wide net for inclusion in Nanotechnology#Current research and the navbox since self-assembly is one of the tools generally associated with nanotechnology, but it is a hazy area.

As for navbox style, I personally prefer the sidebar form since it places more emphasis on how a group of articles is structured by placing it in a more prominent position. I don't think there are formal guidelines on which should be used in what situations, except that sideboxes are generally used for article series whereas footers are used for broader collections of articles. The nanotech navbox is kind of a hybrid, the "Topics" block contains direct sub-articles of the nanotechnology article in that all of them were forked from that article at some point, whereas most of the "Selected subfields" articles were not (the exceptions being Nanomaterials recently and Molecular nanotechnology a very long time ago). Perhaps both forms should be made available for use depending on how it relates to the main article. Antony-22 10:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that the molecular self-assembly page is updated. I think that there should be subheadings including "supramolecular chemistry", "biological systems", and "molecular nanotechnology." The navbox could be placed under the subheading "molecular nanotechnology". I prefer this since it says that not all molecular self-assembly would fall under the category "molecular nanotechnology". Let me know what you think.

As for the sidebar style I already find it hard trying to format pictures with text. I think that an image that illustrates the page should be given the most prominent position at the top. I think the bottom of the page is a great place to put connection to other articles. I don't think of these nanotechnology articles as a limited series, which would make sense for a sidebar style. Instead I see them as an expanding area with lots of potential articles yet to be written. I think that a bottom navbox is much more efficient and shows subtopics and all the articles within them. It shows the relationship of the page with all the other important nanotech articles. Just my two cents. M stone 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Template:Nanotech2 as a footer alternative to Template:Nanotech. This way the "actual" article series can use the sidebox while related fields can choose between them as appropriate. It would be great to see Molecular self-assembly expanded; I'm actually kind of curious myself how it breaks down since it's tangientally related to but not vital for what I do. I'll contribute to the nanotech section when I get the chance, and if you want a self-assembly navbox give me a holler... Antony-22 10:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nanofactory merge

I was not sure if you were aware that the wikipedia policy on mergers (see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages) requires that a merger is first "proposed" before it is performed. Typically you would allow a couple of weeks for others to comment on the merger before actually performing it. I noticed that you had not followed this procedure before the merge of Nanofactory into molecular assembler. I have certain objections to this merger which I would have liked to discuss with you before it was performed. M stone 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be more careful in the future. Technically, the policy does not require a proposal but recommends it "if you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness." I guess I should have realized that since in this case neither article was a stub, there might be questions about a merger. I'd still like to hear your objections though. My impression from reading both articles was that a nanofactory is essentially a collection of molecular assemblers; I didn't get a sense of how they were distinct concepts deserving separate articles. If this impression is inaccurate, I'm happy to redress the issue. Antony-22 10:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of clean up tags

Hi, I see you've removed the clean-up tags. I've re-added them for the second time, because despite your assertions otherwise, the article itself doesn't actually contain the information. As I see you're interested in chemistry, I think you may be distorted by your own perspective. You're not writing for an organic chemist, or even any kind of chemist at all, but for the general audience. Without even saying what the reaction is used for, have you really said anything that approaches usefulness? In any case, it's simply not helpful to remove clean-up tags. Work on improving the articles. When you just remove them, well, it doesn't convince me you've actually looked at the situation fairly. FrozenPurpleCube 03:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I did address the point on the talk page. I am sorry that my response did not convince you. I think that there are certain conventions followed in scientific articles that differ from those of other wikipedia pages. You might consult the Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines as a good place to start if you would like to contribute to the area. Hoewever, there is not anything there that addresses our current difference of opinion.

I think that you could make these arguements for the vast majority of science related pages. Do you intend on tagging them all? M stone 07:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be a bit more work than I can personally accomplish, but yes, I do hope that the vast majority of pages will one day be improved by increasing their accessibility. If you see any that aren't, tag them yourself, or if you have the knowledge to explain it, do so. I can't see why anyone wouldn't want pages to be comprehensible to more people. Oh, and I'm not concerned about the style of the citation or their quality. Instead, I'm concerned about the content of the article. So why even bring that up if it doesn't address the current situation? I'd suggest looking at WP:PERFECT for that which does discuss the importance of having an article reachable to more people rather than few. FrozenPurpleCube 07:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to understand what your motivations are. I think that adding tags can be disruptive. I think that if you are not familiar with a topic that it would be more constructive to talk about your concerns on the talk page first and give people a chance to repsond. Just my two cents. M stone 08:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation is simple. My motivation to add a cleanup tag is that I see a page that I think could be better. Not that I think you should be concerned about my motivations, but rather your focus should be on the page itself. As for adding tags, I think it brings attention to a problem and allows folks to respond it on the talk page, or on the article itself. Yes, there are times when a tag can be inappropriate, but dismissing them out of hand? Also inappropriate. Especially when a response turns hostile which indicates other problems. (Sadly, people do react poorly to criticism at times, including myself). Still, that's an issue that could happen whether you put it on the talk page or use a cleanup tag. Me, I prefer the tags. They're bold, and on the page itself, which means it gets the attention of folks who don't read talk pages. Which in some cases don't even exist prior to my adding the tag. So I'll continue to use the tags where appropriate. It's what they're made for, isn't it? If you want to try to get more of the cleanup templates made talk page exclusive, ok, you can, but that's not a matter for us to settle. FrozenPurpleCube 08:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that tags can be helpful, but only if they are accurate. I removed the tag because I think that it does not apply to this page. In the interest of putting this matter behind us I will go back and try to improve the page. M stone 08:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously I disagreed from the simple fact that I put it up there. Now maybe I'm wrong, but removing without fixing it up? Won't actually convince me you're right that there isn't a problem. FrozenPurpleCube 12:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I do hope you do successfully improve the pages, that would be quite a good thing. FrozenPurpleCube 13:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cucurbituril

im busy with the translation of your article about curcubiturils. Therefor i uploaded this picture at commons. Plz check the references. I would like to use the other pictures too. --KOchstudiO 11:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine with me. M stone 13:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

No, it's a great replacement. If you can, mark the old one for deletion since it is now orphaned and replaced. If not, I'll get around to it sooner or later. Jeremiah 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there anyway you could label your descriptions on your uploads with the program you used to create them? Is that Illustrator? It's very nice, in any regard. Jeremiah 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used photoshop for the rotaxane assembly cartoon. No problem the labeling of new pictures. If there are any old ones that I have already made that you are curious about just let me know. M stone 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common knowledge

I thought it was common knowledge that an unqualified statement of what life must have is a no-go. Is this wrong?:

"If you go to the astrobiology web page on silicon life, you’ll find it to be a fountain of misinformation. They tell you, for example, that there are no chiral silicon compounds. Of course there are chiral silicon compounds. There are chains of silicon up to 30 or 35 –- they are very interesting; they are studied by chemists. These compounds carry nitrogen, they carry sulfur. In fact, carbon-based life is not really carbon-based life either, it’s carbon-scaffolded life, with the oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus playing absolutely critical roles."[2]

From this fellow. Every source, including those you provided, follow the same pattern: "silicon is possible, carbon seems better, not everyone agrees."

But this misses the larger point: carbon chauvinism is a page about a neologism. Why is it even necessary to elaborate on the point? Can we just cut all of the additions and leave only those sources that actually mention the term? We already have alternative biochemistry. Marskell 08:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that we agree that "an unqualified statement of what life must have is a no-go." However what I added to the page was highly "qualified statement" and I thought quite a reasonable one.

I think the page as it currently stands is good and the fruit of collaboration. I believe that it is important to understand the basis for "carbon chauvinism." In other words that there has "never" been a detailed alternative to carbon based life proposed. Currently the discussion of other elements (including silicon) is limited to completely ruling them out.

I do not think it is appropriate to exclude relevant references simply because they do not mention the term. M stone 17:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't find it highly qualified :). I read "Our current understanding" much as the verb "to be." (Rather like that silly phrase "the sum total of human knowledge.")

Do you see where I'm at? By having any analysis of the term outside of sources actually mentioning the term, we're privileging the term. And we're allowing for an unnecessary "yes, but" page. Do you think "In other words to date no detailed alternative to carbon-based life has been proposed..." cannot be challenged? I can go upstairs and get Evolving the Alien and challenge it right now.

So here's a thought. Let's move what you've added to alternative biochemistry. Let's move it into the lead and we can discuss it until we die, because people aren't going to stop talking about silicon. But let's leave Carbon chauvinism as a page that is only about the neologism. Marskell 23:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I do see your point and have deleted the content. I would advise against moving it to the alternative biochemistry since it is basically a science fiction trivia page. M stone 23:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is bad. Part of what I meant is that maybe we could make alternative biochemistry a better page. You know, a proper page that actually looks at the probabilities and not just Star Trek. And I also didn't want to outright delete your efforts in tracking down sources. So maybe as a semi-long term project, think of alternative biochemistry, with the edits you've made to Carbon chauvinism as a starting point. After Area 51, alt. biochem. is the sort of place nutjobs will congregate and it needs looking after. (I do have a long opinion on all of this, which I'll save 'til morning.) Marskell 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion requested

Hi there, could I ask you to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry, see what you think? Tim Vickers 20:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trefoil_Knot_Angew_1616_2000.jpg

Hi, I am planning to write an article about Fritz Vögtle in the German Wikipedia. And I have seen your beautiful molecule. Can you upload this in commons, so that it's possible to use it also in the German wiki? --Ephraim33 (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already uploaded the Image:Trefoil_Knot_Angew_1616_2000.jpg image at the wikipedia commons under the title Molecular Knot Angew 1616 2000 commons.jpg. Links to all the supramolecular images I created are at the commons in the supramolecular chemistry gallery. M stone (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint. By the way, what program do you use to generate these images? (I'd like to draw the Wheel of Mainz molecule, which was published in: Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English. Volume 26, Issue 12 , Pages 1249 - 1252 online No. 9 in scheme 2). --Ephraim33 (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I basically use a free program called Chimera, which can be downloaded here [3]. It is not a modeling program but generates the image based on a single crystal X-ray structure. I usually get the crystal structure data from the "The Cambridge Structural Database" [4]. Nearly every published X-ray structure is deposited here. You can request structures dating back to 1994. I enjoy making the images and would happy to help if you let me know what X-ray crystal structure you want. Unfortunately I did not see a X-ray crystal structure for the "Wheel of Mainz" publication you mentioned. M stone (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Models

I had a look at the picture peer review at Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Molecular gyroscope. I've never seen a 3D molecular modeling program that made SVG files, and none of the normal coordinate files can be read by Inkscape, which is what I use to draw vector graphics. The best solution I can come up with is to simply redraw them (by hand). As an example, I made Image:Aspirin.svg to demonstrate how it can be done. But as the amount of 3D depth increases, it gets really tedious to draw by hand, with all the correct shading and perspective. If you can send me a .mol file or the .pdb coordinates for the molecular gyroscope, I might be able to give it a try (no promises). For most small molecules I wouldn't even bother using ball and stick models (let alone redrawing in vector form) to represent the structure, but I think the 3D structure for the molecular gyroscope is sufficiently interesting to make me want to give it a try. I would also encourage you to download inkscape (which is free), and then open up a variety of vector images in it and explore them to see how they're put together. The program is pretty easy to use, and I am now drawing things I never would have dreamed of attempting before. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: XPhos image

Thanks for letting me know I made a mistake in that structure. I really shouldn't have been trying to do something like that which involved thinking as late as it was - I think in the future, if I can't sleep and want to be on the computer I'll simply search for vandalism to revert. I removed the incorrect images from the page (it was based off of a structure I found on another website, and I copied rather than trying to think, which turned out to be a bad idea, as both structures are now wrong.) I'll redo the images and verify that they're correct before putting them back in the article. Thanks for the heads up, CrazyChemGuy (talk · contribs) 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded new versions of the images after I corrected the structure. CrazyChemGuy (talk · contribs) 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. They look good now! M stone (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacker

Hi there

I'm sorry about your recent problem with mol. modeling. I've changed your userrights to be +rollbacker, hopefully this will make your life a tiny bit easier. Do let me know when future incidents occur and I'll see how I can help. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that does make fixing this thing a lot less work. M stone (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borromeate Coords

Hi, sorry to bother, I'm looking for borromeate coordinates for personal use. Wasn't able to find any after lots of googling and digging. Any idea where I might find a PDB or such? —63.249.110.34 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can be requested from the Cambridge Structural Database at [5]. They then email you a file. You may have to convert to pdb file. M stone (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! Thanks so much! —63.249.110.34 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Encapsulating Assembly of Nitrogen by Rebek.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Encapsulating Assembly of Nitrogen by Rebek.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some confusion. I made the image and it has never been published before. Please remove the deletion request. Thank you. M stone (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My boss is interested in using your photo - Picture of Queens Lane in Oxford - on the cover of a book he has written. How would I contact you concerning the feasibility and details of this? Thank you A charlson (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queens Lane photo use

My boss is interested in using your photo as cover art for a book he has written. How would I contact you concerning details regarding this? A charlson (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to contact since I have released the photo as creative commons for anyone to use. You can post a contact email here if you prefer and I will reply if you require further info. M stone (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Image Deletion

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paclitaxel Tetrahedron 1996 2291.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paclitaxel Tetrahedron 1996 2291.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Leyo 22:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encapsulation of nitrogen structure.

M stone:

I was reading Chemistry-A European Journal, 1996, 2, 989-991 and I find no evidence of a x-ray structure encapsulating nitrogen (teh word nitrogen does not appear in the article according to a search). The paper is concerned with methane and ethane discrimination and the x-ray structure discussion suggests that the encapsulated molecule is most likely methanol:

"In addition, both dimers contain a low-occupancy disordered guest species at the centers of the cavities. It was not possible to determine the identity of this species. We believe that the species in the cavities are methanol molecules that hydrogen-bond to the IC faces of the carbonyl oxygens of the glycoluril units from the inside"

Please check this, perhaps the reference is wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyhampan (talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Mechanical bond

An article that you have been involved in editing—Mechanical bond —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. EvilxFish (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you for your editing work on the supramolecular chemistry pages. I would like to suggest a merger. As I don't think it needs it's own page as the concept is quite similar to Mechanically interlocked molecular architectures. I would love to hear your opinion also any help editing the Mechanically interlocked molecular architectures page would be much appreciated. EvilxFish (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thank you for the images on the commons! EvilxFish (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of MobuzzTV

The article MobuzzTV has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not pass WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]