User talk:Astrochemist

• My edit statistics
• My contributions (count)

If you leave a note here please keep in mind that I may not respond for a few days.

Joseph Priestley

Thanks for editing the JP article. Unfortunately, find a grave is a not a reliable source, as it relies on information sent in by the public and is run by a guy interested in graves. :) If you could add the information using a more reliable source, that would be wonderful. Otherwise, I will try to go to the library in the next week or so and check a Priestley biography. Awadewit (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also interested in graves, and I've never known Find-A-Grave to err. If you know of an example, please let me know. In this particular case, the Find-A-Grave site is 100% accurate and even includes a photo of Priestley's marker showing the epitaph. After Thanksgiving I can check for a printed source at work, although words alone won't do much for me since I've seen Priestley's grave in Northumberland for myself. I may even be able to dig out a picture I took. By the way, the marker shown at Find-A-Grave isn't the original one. I may have pictures of both the old and new ones. The old one is, as I recall, hard to read and almost hidden by the newer marker. -- I'll leave this message on your user page to be sure you see it. - Astrochemist (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just readded the gravesite material, but this time with two other references, each containing a picture. - Astrochemist (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the printed source and the pictures - that is one thorough note! Ruhrfisch also posted a reference to Talk:Joseph Priestley, so we are all reffed up. I don't know if find-a-grave is wrong. It is just better, in my opinion, to use sources that follow Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines all of the time, no matter how insignificant the fact may seem. There are some famous grave stories, as I am sure you are aware (Thomas Paine and Mary Shelley come to mind). I would hate for those stories to be sensationalized or misrepresented simply because we skimped on the reliable sources. :) Awadewit (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Work!

		The Original Barnstar
		For providing such rapid photo identification for John W. Riggs. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the above. In return I've added some material to the page you created for James Leon Williams. - Astrochemist (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ha -- you deserve another, but any more will cheapen them!

		Another Original Barnstar
		For providing even more rapid photo identification, as well as swell referencing, for James Leon Williams. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 23:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Transit of Venus diagram

I've noticed that you removed the diagram I created and inserted showing how the transits of Venus evolve over time. It appears that you removed the diagram because it lacked some labels. It is difficult to label the axes of the diagram because it is over a long time span. Each row of the diagram corresponds to one transit cycle of 152 inferior conjunctions, and the rows are then stacked on each other to show the recurring pattern.

Please offer some suggestions on how to improve it so a modified version of that diagram can be inserted into the article. In particular, I would appreciate some constructive suggestions on how to label the diagram so it's clearer. However, some version of the diagram would be helpful because the diagram shows that the transit cycles do not constantly advance like the Saros series, but instead oscillate back and forth. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 05:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll certainly try to give you some suggestions, but at first glance the diagram is a nearly-complete puzzle to me. I only see one thing on the diagram that looks like a row, a dark thin rectangle stretching horizontally acorss the middle of the figure. Other than that, the diagram consists of a large block above that thin rectangle and a similar large block below it. Both of the large blocks, as well as the thin darker rectangle, are crossed in many places by black vertical lines. Let me start with these questions:

1. Can you tell me what is being plotted on the x axis and what is being plotted on the y axis?
2. Can you tell me what the long thin rectangle represents?
3. Can you tell me what the thin black vertical lines represent?
4. What units (dimensions) correspond to each axis? (time? angle? distance? an ordinal number without units?)

Thanks! - Astrochemist (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The caption originally supplied with the image and the image description both provide some information. In answer to your questions:

1. The x axis plots each inferior conjunction, modulus 152, with each horizontal step being one inferior conjunction. The y axis plots groups of inferior conjunctions, with each step being 152 inferior conjunctions. There are 152 inferior conjunctions in 243 years, when transits often recur. To visualise better what is happening, for each inferior conjunction a point is plotted running from left to right with it being pale if there is no transit or dark if there is a transit. When 152 conjunctions are plotted, start again in the next row.
2. The darker region (it is not strictly a rectangle) represents the inferior conjunctions between 2001 and 3000 (the current millennium).
3. The black vertical lines in the diagrams are each series of transits. For example, the black line second from the right that intersects the darker region plots the 27 transits that occur in -2856, -2613, -2370, -2127, -1884, -1641, -1398, -1155, -912, -669, -426, -183, 60, 303, 546, 789, 1032, 1275, 1518, 1761, 2004, 2247, 2490, 2733, 2976, 3219 and 3462 (Series 3 per Espenak: [[1]]).
4. Each axis is best described as an ordinal number of inferior conjunctions. The units for the x axis increment by 1, and the units for the y axis increment by 152.

What I'm attempting to show with the diagram is how transit series evolve over time, with emphasis on the variability in the lengths of transit series, and how individual transit series can restart after a hiatus. Series 3 goes into a hiatus in 3705 with a near-miss, but restarts in 9780 with a new series of 21 transits.

The diagram shows the circumstances for all inferior conjunctions over a timespan of more than 40,000 years. This long time span is required so that the side to side oscillations of transit series can be seen.

I hope this is helpful. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 22:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be helpful

In case you haven't yet commented (I haven't followed it all) your input could be helpful at Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial‎ and Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection etc in light of the ongoing vandalism which has driven you from Charles Babbage. Ignore me if I'm not quite up with the play. Cheers Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles White (physician)

Thanks for finding and adding the portait. Articles always look so bare with an image in the lead. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

transit.savage-garden.org

Hello... with regards to the site "transit.savage-garden.org", I looked at it first but did not see anything suggesting an official tie to the Smithsonian, or anything else for that matter. Is it an official site, or just a personal page? (If it is official, I'll restore the links.) Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you're right and I'm wrong. It doesn't appear to be Smithsonian. If the link does not provide useful information then you could delete it again and see what other editors think. - Astrochemist (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article on James Bradley, and miscellany

Hallo Astrochemist, your recent edits to 'James Bradley' were interesting, as also your comment that the article seemed to be in need of a 'champion'. What's a 'champion' on Wikipedia? -- (I'm not very experienced here.)

I saw on your user page some signs of disillusion with vandalism and the rest -- for which, my sympathies to you (for what that may be worth). I hope the problems don't drive you away, you're clearly an author of much valuable content. Have you seen Wikipedia:WikiSpeak? If not, then maybe the wry humour could appeal freshly to you. I came across it when it was recommended to another WP contributor who is also of great expertise in his field (Chris Bennett), and who also seemed to be suffering wear and tear from similar causes. But I doubt if there is any complete answer. (I also just noticed Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars and if anything ever said "Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'intrate", that looks like it!) But I specially also doubt whether CZ will be better or even as good (it looks much too exclusive and elitist for its own good, and the problems of the other-side-of-the-coin do not seem to have been thought through). So for my part, I expect I'll continue to try on WP somewhat, and hope not to become either too addicted or too frustrated.

With good wishes, Terry0051 (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

John Goodricke

I note you reinstated the image of John Goodricke. Please don't. This has been the subject of a complaint by the Royal Astronomical Society to Wikipedia. The original uploader scanned a copyright image from Sky & Telescope without an acknowledgement to the source. The original art, the reproduction from which it was scanned, and the image rights are all unambiguously owned by the Royal Astronomical Society, on whose behalf I am removing the image. RoyalAstronomicalSociety (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)