Jump to content

User talk:Cacycle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Horse (talk | contribs) at 21:45, 29 November 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Cacycle and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!


Hey Cacycle! I just wanted to complement you on some great work on Wikipedia. The pharmacology pages have been needing some attention for some time and you apparently know what you're talking about. Sayeth 22:08, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Indole

Hey Cacycle, thanks for your rewrite of indole. Great work! Keep up the good work -- Wikipedia really needs you. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 14:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chemical Structures

I noticed you added many nifty chemical structure diagrams. Do you use simply an image editing program (Photoshop, etc.) or do you have a specific chemical structure sketching program that you use? I've been looking for a decent one for awhile, and haven't found one... perhaps you could direct me to whatever you use? Thanks, ugen64 23:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been using ChemDraw and Photoshop, but that's overkill. The trick is to increase the size to 300% or so, to export as an image, and to sample the image size down again, at least as long as the molecule editor does not give acceptable results alone. See also molecule editors and Mykhal's page for his technique.

Strychnine structure

Hello, Mr. Cacycle. You have overwritten Image:Strychnine.png with your own version, which is unfortunately wrong. Could you tell me where did you find this structure? I have spent not little time on this. My version is in accordance with Beilstein Crossfire, Scifinder, Chem ACX, ... but most important "proof" of the structure is X-ray, as included in Cambridge Structure Database. I have used it to include stereo configuration on all chiral atoms. Please do not waste me work without asking. Thanks, Mykhal 01:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mykhal - I'm sory that I have accidentally changed your strychnine image with a remake of my old and wrong structure. I didn't realize that we have two different strychnine images. I also missed your comment about the wrong double bond. I have corrected the structure and I have changed the strychnine illustration. I'm still a bit confused by the way this system works (and often not works), I think I have even accidently reset the change I made to your upload?!
You should read something about images, or just try to track and see how it works. If you try to upload the image which is already present, the system will warn you about it. If you agree anyway, the old image still remains in history. But you have deleted my images from history! I wonder if you are admin.. Mykhal 20:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Anyway, I have just seen your molecule contributions and really like the way you do it :-) BTW, is there a reason that you use transparent backgrounds? Cacycle 15:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think structure formulas should be transparent the same way how font letters are.. To have the same background like the rest of the page. Mykhal 20:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

SMILES strings

Do you think that SMILES strings are of such importance that they should be included in infobox? Personally I would put them somewhere near the end of the article, rendered with <small> font.

You are right, they might be placed a bit too prominent, especially the longer ones. I put them there too keep chemical data in one place. The SMILES string is thematically related to the chemical name and the structure image, even if most readers are probably not that much interested in it, but that's probably also true for most of the other chemical data.
Mhm, the Image page could be an alternative place, but then nobody would find them. I know a discussion forum that has a SMILES markup and you can decide if you want the SMILES structure displayed by an applet or as plain text. A mechanism displaying the SMILES string after clicking a link would be an idea... Under what category would you place SMILES strings at the end?
I'll try to see how it looks in a smaller text size
Cacycle 21:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

SMILES will hopefully be implemented into Wikipedia at some stage. Until then I really think the CAS code will be sufficient. JFW | T@lk 23:51, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the longer SMILES strings to the bottom into the Chemistry sections. I think the SMILES string make alot of sense if you want to create or recreate molecule images in your molecule editor. Copy and pasting the SMILES string is way faster and less prone to error than trying to draw the whole structure over and over again. The CAS number does not do this. Cacycle 00:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not convinced this is actually pretty. Can't we simply link to ChemBank or something? JFW | T@lk 01:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Psychopharmacology

Hey Cacycle, you seem to be into psychopharmacology. Could you pinpoint some useful articles on Wikipedia where I could learn more? Specifically interested in depression, but then psychosis etc also has my interest. JFW | T@lk 23:51, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay. JFW | T@lk 01:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Drug Organization

First I want to thank you for your contributions (especially images) in this area of wikipedia which needs much work. I have only been working on the wikidrug pages for a short while, but I have added some new pages and updated some others that were in dire need of updating, like Diisopropyltryptamine. (I am very interested in this particular drug and hope to soon better word some of the ideas on the page). Not many other wikipedians seem to be actively updating these pages, but I hope that nonetheless, an organizational heirarchy can be found for classifying drugs, particularly of the hallucinogenic variety. Official WikiProject Drugs/Categorization Talk Page

I believe that an essential dilemma exists in the overlap of some categories. While non-hallucinogenic drugs fit somewhat smugly into their individual template categories, not all phenethylamines are hallucinogenic, and not all tryptomines are hallucingenic, and other drugs that may have hallucinogenic qualities do not neccesarily fit other's definition of hallucinogens. There is great ambiguity in this area and I hope that we can work together to create a sense of clear and valid organization. I have posted on the talk pages of wikidrug project and hallucinogenic drug some criticisms/ideas. I think that it will probably become neccesary to delineate hallucinogens from drugs which cause hallucinations. Although this may sound counterintuitive, the latter group is far more broad than the former, which has created a large degree of annoying ambiguity of definition. The implications of this have been seen in the categorization of the dissociative anaesthetics, for example. Where a widespread common belief contradicts an accepted medical categorization, I believe that the medical category should hold precedent over the commonly held belief. To categorize drugs as hallucinogens actually goes against the official standard that the WikiDrugProject is based on, the ATCCS. Obviously, there is much discussion that this topic mandates, and I hope to hear some ideas. Formalizing the presentation of wikipedia articles is of utmost importance to us all, of course, and I hope to have this issue cleared up. Thanks. Flying Hamster 22:46, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


  • This is in regards to drug category overlap. I've been working on a drug chart for the major common psychoactives, and where they fall within three intersecting areas of Stimulant, Depressant and Hallucinogen). Please take a look at it on my Talk page (User_talk:Thoric) --Thoric 17:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3C-I

3C-I: Phenethylamine or psychedelic amphetamine? Is it okay to call 3C-I a phenethylamine, or is it better termed a psychedelic amphetamine? Shulgin kind of lumped it all together as phenethylamines in his book, but sometimes I wonder if I feel completely correct calling MDMA a phenethylamine. Then again, I guess they could be considered phenethylamines with an alpha-methyl group. Do you know which is more proper or correct, anyway?

Also, any idea why Shulgin didn't add some of the other 3c compounds? Assumably there should be Br/I versions of the escaline as well, which would both be theoretically more potent than the ethoxy group...Shulgin could easily have added many more psychedelic amphetamines to Pihkal, and I always wonder why he didn't. Was it because 3,5-DIMETHOXY-4-BROMOAMPHETAMINE didn't show much promise? --Nuke

The use of phenethylamines vs. hallucinogenic phenethylamines has to do with the ongoing wikipedia drug classification project vs. classification by chemical classes (most phenethylamines are not psychedelic / hallucinogenic). It's perfectly ok to call 3C-E an amphetamine in the text, but for categorization purposes it doesn't make that much sense to add one more subcategory to the scheme, at least as long as the number of entries are manageable.
Shulgin has simply put everything he had synthesized and tested at that time into his book. Beside that it might a bit more difficult to synthesize that derivative.
I think Shulgin just ran out of space... he did cover a very large quantity of phenethylamines... Flying Hamster 15:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

images

i cant sen email to you, so i write it here... im from polish wikipedia, and i dont have good program to make images of chemical structures, so if you would be so kind, would you send your program, or even name of them on my email? thanks