User talk:Astrochemist/Archive 2

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.)

Thanks for the above information and please pardon my delayed response. By "champion" I meant an advocate for the article, someone who will do the hard work of research, writing, adding references, and uploading appropriate images. Certain Wikipedia article have editors who are very loyal in doing these things. Unfortunately, James Bradley has no one like that. I've done a little, but Bradley's article needs someone to both add to and protect it on a regular basis. - Astrochemist (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

I'll take a look, as you suggested. Thanks again. - Astrochemist (talk) 03:34, 11 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)

Thanks for your interest in this matter. The "original uploader" you mentioned was me, as is shown by an inspection at Wikimedia Commons. I purchased the relevant issue of Sky & Telescope in 1978, and saved it for 30 years before scanning and uploading the image. Wikipedia's stand appears to be that there are no copyrights for faithful representations of "old" two-dimensional works of art. Therefore, in uploading the John Goodricke image I did not give a copyright owner because, according to Wikipedia, there is none. However, I was very careful to note that the painting was done by a particular artist who had long since died. A reference to MNRAS (1912) also was given, as was one to The Observatory (1912). The latter, in fact, has a black-and-white copy of the Goodricke painting. I also included the page and issue of Sky & Telescope. -- I prefer to remain on the good side of all laws, and so I welcome enlightenment on any of these points. At the least, I think that a "fair use" case could be made for this somewhat-fuzzy scan of a cropped image of a 200-year-old painting. -- Astrochemist (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now added a credit to the original source of the image, i.e. the Royal Astronomical Society. Rights in RAS images are managed by Science Photo Library and we have raised it with them. RoyalAstronomicalSociety (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll put any future comments I have on this subject on the discussion page for John Goodricke. That will allow others to more easily contribute. - Astrochemist (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

References v. further reading

When someone identifies a text as a reference for an article, they are asserting that that text supports the article content: either the text was used to write the article, or the article has been validated against the text.

When someone identifies a text as further reading, they are merely observing that the text might contain further information on this topic. There is no assertion that the article has been checked against the text.

The difference is crucial. Fundamental even. It is improper and irresponsible to change one to the other without a valid reason. The absence of inline citations is not a valid reason.

Hesperian 13:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, though of lesser importance: the use of a "References" heading in this context is supported by the Wikipedia:Citing sources#General reference summary style guideline. Hesperian 13:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The easiest way to suggest, if not ensure, that "the article has been validated against the text" is to add a direct citation at the point of usage and to get the information into a section called "References" or "Notes" or something similar. The use of in-line citations is important for any claim for the use of a book, etc. in the writing of an article. Without a specific link between a reference work and a line of text, one does not know just where the given source was ever used or even if it was used. That's a situation where the "Further reading" heading can be important. That category can list books, etc. that are useful, but that are not cited specifically within the article itself. No value judgment is implied by either a "References" or "Further reading" heading, it just indicates what can or cannot can be traced back to the article with specificity. -- As you probably know, there are variations among Wikipedia articles about some of these points. Headings that read "Notes", 'References", Bibliography", and more are easily found within high-quality articles. Comparing the section headings in Joseph Priestley, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin one finds some things that agree with your ideas, but some that may not. -- Thanks for sharing the above Wikipedia page. Here is one that I find useful: Wikipedia:Guide to layout. -- Astrochemist (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

A sockpuppet investigation regarding your edits at Talk:Joseph Priestley has been opened here. Please be aware that using multiple accounts violates policy. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll have to read the details and see what it means. Astrochemist (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Astrochemist, it hasn't been made clear to you here, but this account is actually blocked - you can still edit on this talk page. I'm away for a few days this week, but will look in again when I get back to see if I can do anything to help. DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, this account will soon be unblocked, so I do hope we will see more of your excellent contributions soon. DuncanHill (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tribute (moved from userpage)

In my experience, Astrochemist has made excellent additions to the article Robert Were Fox the Younger. He/she has used a variety of specialist, reliable sources to extend the WP article beyond the ODNB article. I value her/his collaboration in this article and hope that some civilised resolution of the alleged problem can be reached, despite the case being "closed". Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 09:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Dick

Thanks for your many additions, corrections, and general cleanup to the Thomas Dick page I originated last year. What a great job! I have several other pages that I originally created or completely rewrote that need a similar treatment. (See my user page for information). Unfortunately, real-world work is consuming so much of my time that I can't seem to get to them. My hope is that my fellow wikipedians will do the job for me. Thanks again, and keep up the good work. It is much appreciated. Aletheia (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Dunkin

Wonder if you could cast a scientific eye over Robert Dunkin (1761–1831), of Penzance, Cornwall, was a Quaker businessman and a mentor of the young Humphry Davy, a founder of the science of electrochemistry, in the practice of experimental science. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 18:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Coblentz-CC.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coblentz-CC.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Simulation Software for EPR spectra

Hello, I'd like to know how you created the simulations of EPR spectra here. I've seen KAZAN viewer for Matlab™ which makes use of the EasySpin toolbox and I am particularly interested to see if either of the above works with open source software like : GNU Octave, Scilab, or Sage --MarsInSVG (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)