|
User talk:Astrochemist/Archive 1Frederick George DonnanAnswered on my talk to continue conversation. -- Dakota 04:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:EPR methoxymethyl.jpgThanks for uploading Image:EPR methoxymethyl.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images. For more information on using images, see the following pages: This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Huxley grave photoMany thanks for the photo (I'm the guy working on the text). Now, exactly which graveyard is it? Labelled Golders Green, but it can't be 1) the Jewish cemetery in Hope Lane, nor 2) the GG Crematorium in Hope Lane -- unless it is just a commemorative stone [he was definitely buried not cremated]. So just possibly East Finchley cemetery [Desmond relates his burial in Finchley]. Perhaps you have an actual address? I like to get things straight, and also I can easily visit once I know where it is. Ah! I have it!! He was buried in the same grave as his beloved son Noel who died young many years before; and I think his wife was buried there as well. Carved on the tombstone is his wife's poem on Browning's funeral. It is St. Marylebone Cemetery, Finchley, not Golders Green. It is known now by the name of the East Finchley Cemetery and may now by run by the City of Westminster. The text 'Golders Green' should be deleted and text should read 'St. Marylebone (now East Finchley) Cemetery.' It is important to list both names. Regards Macdonald-ross 12:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Huxley photosI've been thinking about THH photos for some time. Yes, I do think we need two or three more, and they should be in fine condition. For instance, the first two graphics on the Wiki page are not in good condition; I have better versions of both. In fact, I have two originals: 1) of the Ape cartoon and 2) an original Woodburytype print of THH in middle life. Otherwise, as you say, one has to use out-of-copyright plates in published books (UK copyright in photos lasts for 70 years after the death of the 'author' ie photographer). Now to get the best result one has to use a dedicated flatbed scanner (rather than one's mult-purpose printer) and be able to press the original flat on the machine. My plan is to buy some cheap copies of biogs (not Len Huxley, that's too valuable) and disbind the photos (cut out) That should give a basis. Then rework (eg crop) the image on something like Photoshop. (I have a friend who's a whiz at this). I've been loathe to divert myself from the text, so this is just a mind-experiment so far! You might like to check the hardback version of Desmond (2 vols) In vol 1 you'll see he has the same photo of 'Young Huxley' as plate 6. It's in better shape that your scan, but it's from exactly the same source. I mention this, not to score points, but to show that the whole process needs attention to get a good result. Note also 'Hawk-eyed Huxley', plate 18. Not that I'm planning to use Desmond as a source, rather a couple of older books with similar plates. There are also a number of drawings by THH, some rather good. Macdonald-ross 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Danzig (Gdańsk), PolandHello Astrochemist, On Talk: Edmund Halley I added a few maps of Prussia[1] with (Freie Stadt) Danzig, (a Free City, a city republic, city state). I am greatly saddened by the unacceptable ramblings made by Space Cadet. Despite his constantly ongoing reverts, which he himself stated 'he does it, when he has nothing better to do', I still had a glimmer of hope, that reasoning and facts might eventually get through to him. Something came up and for at least the next several months it is very important for my health to have pleasant surroundings. I will therefore have to stay away from negativity, from Wikipedia spitefulness, vicious attacks and deliberate suppressions of factual history, in other words, no Wikipedia. I just wanted to let you know. 75.7. Ainan 1 July 2007 Hi, Astro! Wikimedia CommonsHello, I just wanted to drop by and suggest that you could upload your free images to Wikimedia Commons, where they can be used in all Wikimedia projects. Cheers! Reinistalk 21:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Jules JanssenPlease, could anyone give me the right division (and row/number) of the grave of Jules Janssen at Père Lachaise. Last year I searched for one hour and could'nt find him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.83.4 (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Cavendish experimentHi, I'm Chetvorno, we've both been working on Cavendish experiment. I felt with our efforts the article was really coming together, so I nominated it for Good article status. I didn't think they'd get to it so quick, but yesterday the GA reviewer left a note that he'd begun the review (see talk page). Sorry I haven't answered the 2 notes you left on the talk page yet. I like some of your changes, but I need to consider them more. One of the criteria for GA status is a stable article, so what do you think about putting off changes to the article until the reviewer finishes? It should just be a few days. I know the article has my version of the first sentences, which you disagree with, but I'd just like to see what the reviewer thinks about them. Afterwards I wouldn't object to changing them. We could even present both versions to the reviewer and see what he thinks. After he posts the review, if it doesn't pass, we have a week to address his criticisms. BTW, just wanted to say I liked the rewrite you did of the experiment's description around Sept. 5. Regards, --Chetvorno 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
R W Fox FRSThanks for the clean-up. I hope to add more about the Dipping Needle, noting its practical application in Polar Exploration. Vernon White . . . Talk 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the portrait. I hope my changes to the article are improvements. Sorry about the gravestone. Vernon White . . . Talk 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC) DYK
--Maxim(talk) 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) DYK
--Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC) BiographiesIt is good that somebody is also interested in the biographies of scientists! I added several biographys and most of them need a look from somebody else! Zincke, Gerischer, Zintl, Auwers, Huisgen, Folin, Ruff, Reformatsky, Griess, Elderfield, Nef, Villiger, Liebermann, Henneberg, Rosenmund , Erlenmeyer, Arndt, Eistert, Beckmann, Favorskii, Paternò, Chugaev. Thanks --Stone (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Leaving Wikipedia?COMMENT FROM AN APPRECIATIVE READER: I understand your sentiments and in fact I have the same sentiments myself. It's also true, however, that I benefit from Wikipedia several times a week as a user. So do millions of others. So do you, probably. The "everyone is equally qualified to edit" attitude will kill Wikipedia only if too many of the people like you give up on it. With the aim of getting you to stay, or at least to come back intermittently, I ask that you quit being a policeman. Let others do that. It takes less knowledge and skill to do police work than to add new content. I suggest you remove from your watchlist the pages prone to crap edits and trust that most of the crap will be undone sooner or later by somebody else, while you work constructively, not defensively. But, yeah, I know why you're pissed off. Totally separate matter: I just made changes to the biography of the chemist Adair Crawford (1748 - 1795) and I'd be pleased if you would edit it. - Seanwal111111 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
SkipHi, We have a RfC regarding skip. As you have come across him before I was wondering if you would be able to add some comments? Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Skipsievert 130.239.156.94 Isenhand (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, spot on. We have had problems with him for years. There is a second request for comments, could I ask you to cut and past what you said above onto those two pages, and hopefully something will be done about skip. Thanks. Isenhand (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Robert Hooke articleThanks for the protection you added to the Robert Hooke article. In mid-February I spent some major, quality time rewriting essentially all parts of the article, only to see it beaten to death by vandals since then. That's not a situation that makes me want to devote time to this project, and certainly not to that particular article. So again, thanks for your help. - Astrochemist (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Astrochemist, do you fancy collaborating on the Hooke article? I have Margaret Espinasse's old copy of Gunther, left to me by my father, and some other sources. Gunther includes reproductions of many of Hooke's papers, including Micrographia and Animadversions upon Hevelius' Machina Caelestis. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar!
ThanksThanks for the message - it is appreciated. I'll try to reply more fully at some point, right now I'll just say that it is very hard for someone who appreciates both good science and good manners to operate on Wikipedia at the moment. Certain self-appointed guardians of science have managed to behave so badly for so long, either through abuse or sockpuppetry or whatever, that they have actually undermined Wikipedia's ability to deal with pseudoscience and all its associated nonsense effectively. Anyway, thank you again for the message, I do hope to contribute more at some point, and I am glad to see you contributing. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC) And thanks again . . .Thanks for your contributions to William Babington (physician) and, previously, to RW Fox. How civilised you are! Vernon White . . . Talk 14:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC) isaac newtonhello! i restored the edits i made to the footers that i'm assuming you inadvertently deleted. -- emerson7 00:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
We need people like you in wikipediaI have just read that you want to leave wikipedia. Don't give up. I understand perfectly what you mean. Maybe you are just trying to take on too much. There is people who likes creating, and there is people who likes patrolling. For example, this vandalization lasted for less than one minute. Sometimes vandals focus on one article. In this case, you can always ask an administrator to block it temporarily. Usually it works. If you don't like patrolling, don't do it, somebody will do it for you sooner or later. Wikipedia is huge, you will be overwhelmed if you don't leave something for other people! That's the good and the bad side of teamwork. But don't stop creating! What would this be if nobody created anything? Think of it as gardening: you plant some trees, then they grow and somebody has to prune the bad parts... That doesn't mean you have to look after them 24/7. But we need somebody who plants the trees. Thanks for your great job. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Neutron commentThanks for your reference to the free neutron article, but I got off the quark theory when they started subdividing the charge of the electron. And I believe in Lucretius in that nothing can be created from nothing or decay to nothing, and I dont have a concept of energy without matter. WFPMWFPM (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC). SeeTalk:Nuclear Model WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Michael FaradayHi Astrochemist.
does appear in Experimental Researches in Chemistry and Physics (one of Faraday's collections of papers). Thus, what would you think about starting a list under Experimental Researches in Chemistry and Physics of notable articles published by Faraday? For the fact that Faraday published in Philosophical Magazine and what he published definitely adds to the main article. Sincerely, --Firefly322 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Astrochemist. I have moved this image to Commons. Where is the grave? Would you be able to geocode the image, or give me the coordinates (see WP:Geocoding and/or commons:commons:geocoding. Richard001 (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Bohuslav BraunerThanks for your help! Created him and Jan Hendrik de Boer because of some progress in the wiki project elements. --Stone (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks on Alfred Lee LoomisThanks for the cleaner citations. I left them sloppy last night because I was working late, and tiredly thought "better to have something sloppy than no source support at all." Thanks also for finding and supplying that photo. I noticed that group photo before, and could also see that the Tuxedo Park cover was problematic under WP:NFURG. However, I don't know Wikipedia image management at all well, so I'm just as glad to leave such issues to someone more expert, like you. The article currently seems to be based almost entirely on one book (Tuxedo Park), which is undoubtedly a pretty good source but shoudn't be taken the last word on the subject. Also, some of the recent edits were apparently exaggerations of claims made in the book, where they weren't simply fabrications, so I think this article should be watched closely. The question of credit where it's due is particularly important with Loomis, I believe. His grateful beneficiaries seem to give him slightly more credit than his proper share (perhaps by analogy to principal investigators in academia and R&D, who often get publication credit on research they were critical in funding, but didn't actually perform). When I wrote Aberdeen Chronograph I wasn't sure whether it should be called "Loomis Chronograph"; it seems Loomis had a lot of help from others at Aberdeen. Then I discovered there was another instrument, co-invented later, also sometimes called "Loomis Chronograph", operating on different principles and for different purposes, but also very possibly the fruit of a joint effort. That settled it for me: the article became "Aberdeen Chronograph". Loomis had his fingers in a lot of pies. None other than Luis Alvarez esteemed him a serious scientist, no dilettante. However, it appears he was mainly a co-inventor or co-discoverer on most counts. And that makes me think the photo you supply is more appropriate for this article than its predecessor (cover of Tuxedo Park, featuring Loomis alone). As a scientist and a technologist, Loomis was a good, competent collaborator capable of flashes of insight and genuine ingenuity. Even if he hadn't been been rich and well-connected, he might still somehow have become notable enough as an inventor or scientist to qualify for a Wikipedia bio. As a deep-pockets sponsor, instigator, organizer, coach, confidant and cheerleader, he nucleated centers of collaboration, but wasn't necessarily central to the scientific and technological results. It's really the combination that makes his story unusually interesting. Still, considering the article as a scientist biography, one major area of improvement might be to link him more to other, more prominent figures. Yakushima (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Elias LoomisThank you for uploading the picture of Elias Loomis and the editorial revisions. A picture is worth a thousand words. I agree with your observations on vandalism, if Wikipedia fails to take action the vandals are going to render the Wikipedia concept useless. I became interested in solar super flares after I read a highly inaccurate NASA news report earlier this year of the Carrington Super Flare. After doing a little fact checking, I realized that the Key Observatory had automatic self-recording magnetographs which made a complete magnetic record of the two super flares on August 28, 1859 and September 2, 1859. I was then struck by the realization this technology should not have existed in 1859 and that my education was sadly lacking. As I started following the trail of breadcrumbs, I found that I had to create or expand Wikipedia pages, which included Elias Loomis’ page. I have to confess that I am a bit annoyed by the 2006 paper of Shea and Smart because they make the subtle accusation that Elias Loomis was not the author of the eight papers attributed to him. In his obituary it is very clear the work was compiled at the direct request of Joseph Henry first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and peers such as Balfour Stewart and Hubert Newton considered him the author and/or editor. I would like your advice on a source document issue. I ordered the following paper by Balfour Stewart from the University of Edinburgh library and had it scanned ($$$) to a PDF file, which I subsequently uploaded to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BAssoc1859pp200-228.pdf I am getting some wiki-flack that this is not an image file and I should not have uploaded it. What is the best way to make such a document publicly available in Wikipedia? To the best of my knowledge this is the only existing copy outside of Edinburgh. There is a badly degraded paper copy in the USA but it is in such poor condition that the library refused to scan it for me. The write-up the technology is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_registration_of_instruments_by_photography Michael Ronayne (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Citing abstract from ncbi/pubmedHi Astrochemist, regarding your comment about William_Gregory_(chemist), you're right, the initial article was a copy from the abstract of the original paper. But the abstract belongs to the public domain. See this entry in FriendFeed (about copying this abstract in general and a message from "The Royal Society of Medicine")http://friendfeed.com/e/0795d1b5-cb91-d6ce-d9eb-01eeb12b4752/an-abstract-of-an-article-Is-it-in-the-public/. :-) --Plindenbaum (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
|
