User talk:B.esselman

Hello B.esselman and Welcome to Wikipedia! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction. If you have not already created a account here, note that you do not have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page. Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia... Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial • How to edit a page • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Manual of Style • Be bold in editing • How to write a great article Getting your info out there Cite your sources • Neutral Point of View • Point of View • Verifiability • Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page • Where to ask a question • Help Desk • Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette • Civility • Sign your posts • Wikipedians • Conflict resolution • Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes(~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. Bduke (Discussion) 22:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, I have noticed a number of your contributions to articles. You are raising some very interesting points, but I am afraid you are not following wikipedia guidelines. Much of what you say is original research and it is not supported by sources. It is also dogmatic, where there are grounds for reasonable disagreement. Let me take two examples. First, your very recent edits to Orbital hybridisation under the heading "Correct Explanation", where you argue that there are not two equivalent lone pairs in water. This is entirely a matter of how you define things. MO or DFT will give orbitals that reflect the symmetry of the molecule, so, yes, you get one lone pair in the plane and a p orbital perpendicular to the plane. However, if you transform the MOs to localised orbitals (a unitary transformation that leaves the wave function unaltered), you get two equivalent bond orbitals and two equivalent lone pairs (each being the MO lone pair ± the p orbital). It is far too strong, to say that the lone pairs are not equivalent. Second, VSEPR has no connection to hybrids or Lewis structures. Read what Gillespie says. This is a common misconception. It is also incorrect to think that VSEPR ideas can entirely account for the correct bond angle. In ab initio calculations on water, it is clear that you get a very poor bond angle (far too small) unless you add d orbitals to the basis set. You need polarization to open up the angle to the correct value. Second, in your edits to VSEPR theory, you are wrong to say "VSEPR fails to predict the correct hybridization of the oxygen in water molecules". VSEPR does not predict hybridization. It predicts shape. It has no link to hybridization. I am afraid that your edits require a serious clean up. Finally I suggest that participate in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and discuss some of your ideas there. Again, welcome to WP. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)