User talk:Physchim62/Archive 2006

Saw III

Did you know that this article is still around even though it was voted for deletion?

TheRingess 02:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am investigating the matter, notably with the admin who restored the article less than three hours after its deletion. I note that the only verifiable part of the article is copyvio. Watch this space. Physchim62 (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright law in Germany

In a German book ("Die Olympischen Spiele 1936 in Berlin und Garmisch-Partenkirchen" I think), I came across a photo of some bobsledders (Britain I) competing. Would you happen to know whether such a photo would count as a "Photograph" or a "Photographic work"? Thanks, Andjam 23:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This would be a "photographic work" (Lichtbildwerk) as 1) it was taken by a human photographer; and 2) the photographer exercised some choice as to what to include in the photograph; making it a persönliche geistige Schöpfung in the sense of section 2(2). As such, the copyright period is seventy years after the photographer's death. If you want to use it on English Wikipedia, see our fair use guidelines. Physchim62 (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Hello Physchim! First of all I wanted to wish you a (quite belated) Happy New Year. Then I wanted to thank you for catching the vandalism to my user page, that was quite fun to see.

There a few chem-related things for which I wanted to hear your opinion. I was thinking of putting Raney nickel up for FAC this weekend, now that I added the pictures I took in December and clarified some bits for non-chemists. Your expert opinion regarding the handling of the nomination would be more than welcome.

About the pictures of chemicals, I was a bit disappointed to find out that all the technicians I used to hang out with were already on holiday when I arrived to the lab. I could only take pictures of raney nickel because I still had a sealed flask on my bench, but not of other chemicals. I'll try to get those pics once again sometime in March.

Also, I realized there are many "standard enthalpy of..." articles that right now are stubs because they are little more than a dicdef. I was thinking that merging all of them under standard enthalpy would be far more useful, specially for students trying to build born-haber cycles. What do you think?

Finally, I just wanted to share with you that I graduated last December! Now I have a shiny BSc in Chemistry diploma begging for some wall space in my room, and lots of applications to masters programs claiming most of the Real State on my desk :D

Thank you for reading, looking forward to hear from you. Cheers! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your BSc, and Best Wishes for the New Year.

I think it is worthwile nominating Raney nickel for FA status, so long as you have the time to address the criticisms which people will undoubtedly find. A typical FA candidature lasts for 10–14 days, and can be quite stressful: yes, there is a time limit on corrections!

I'm not sure a merge is appropriate for these thermodynamics articles. It would leave us with an article on enthalpy that would be long and very mixed between theoretical and practical considerations. The solution must surely be to try to expand these stubs (which are widely linked to); I would favour more info about the determination (practical or by calculation) of the values. Of course, Born-Haber cycle and Hess's law could also do with some improvement! Physchim62 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hallo see Pleas User talk: Muhamed

Canadian election results template!

Hi there! Thanks for your work on this; I've tweaked the template you created, incorporating notions from the pre-existing 'upcoming election template', and your and my predecessors. Should we mention Elections Canada at all? (Note: I've since updated the template to include this.)

Anyhow, please feel free to edit it as needed, and contact me if you've any questions. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! By the way, the template you created and I've since edited has been tagged for deletion!! I jumped the gun and reverted the nominator, but still think it's unjustified; in any event, I encourage you to edit the template and weigh in at the earliest opportunity. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

TY! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I've responded to your query on my talk page: too many discussions in too many spots does not allow for effective decision-making. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Ha! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Leading up to Monday, a few questions:

• (1) What time should the "ElectionResultsCA" template (of which the current edition is fine, methinks) be placed atop the election results article (currently inert)? Note that the TfD transpires over seven days (ending 28 Jan.), and there currently appears to be a consensus to retain it – 15 keep (65%), 8 delete. Regardless of the outcome, there shouldn't be an issue in placing it.
• And, when should it be removed? IMO: it should not be removed right at the gong, but it should persist for a brief period (hours?) afterward to serve as a reminder yet allow for editors to properly verify information from Elections Canada and appropriate sources.
• (2) Should the ERCA template replace the current "future election" template et al. atop the federal election article or others? Which?
• (3) Should the ERCA template be placed atop any other related articles, like the polling article? Which?
• (4) Should the template itself be placed in the relevant articles OR merely the coded text contained in the template?

Get back to me when able. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just placed the template on the article, replacing {{future election}} but not {{currentevent}}, to let people know what the consensus position is before polling starts. It should remain until 03:00 UTC, and preferably until CBC start giving out results: on the other hand, if anyone insists on removing it at 03:01 UTC, it's not worth a fight over a question of minutes! I also placed the template on the timeline: no point in putting it on the opinion polls page (although there is another section of the CEA which prohibits us from publishing new opinion polls...) I have created {{ERCARiding}} if the need arises to place a template on an individual riding. Physchim62 (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and efforts; I concur with you on all points! I've commented at the election talk page; as for retaining the template beyond the time indicated, I suggest editions that reflect the time change (perhaps as RO has suggested). If you agree, please suggest alternate/revised wording. Is the timeframe for prohibition of new polls similar to the general ban? If so, the template should be included, and perhaps modified, atop it too.

I'll keep an eye out. Please let me know if you've question or need assistance. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

How goes it? Mea culpa for you and me both regarding the template; BTW, I agree with you ... c'est la vie!

As well, how are you with the current wording of the template? I actually prefer my version before it was recently edited again; I'm neither here nor there with edits since then. Please edit/comment as needed. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I know: however, I thought it'd be an issue with the actual article, not the template, which a certain user of mutual acquaintance continued to wilfully assert one's changes unto without discussion nor consensus. Moreover, out of concern of stoking the very flames the template was meant to prevent, note that I made unique edits (though minor) with each change ... not reverts. I wonder if additional actions against the offender should be pursued (e.g., disruption, et al.); ah well.

Otherwise, events seemed to proceed without substantial incident ... except for the electoral result, that is! Anyhow, thanks for your help. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there; thanks for your reply. I wonder — I think this does beg for added clarification/investigation and would support, if necessary, corrective actions. FYI: I also engaged in a brief discussion with Admin Splash (who judiciously applied a longer block) regarding this situation, possible improprieties, and reasons thereof. Also note ch's solicitation (unsuccessful thus far) at WP:VP/P: there are issues with his (mis)representations, misinterpretations, and poor judgement regarding this issue. I hope this helps; thanks again. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

TY. I'd support any attempt to rectify what turned out to be an unnecessary morass. Moreso to clarify related Wp policies or to guide future decisions of this nature ... particularly if the EC law is upheld further or if the Conservative government (blech!) falls anytime soon.

I realise my breach, and I'm not disputing the block per se (I would've truly been incensed if the other party wasn't sanctioned equitably); remember that my revertsedits were precipitated and – given the deliberations regarding the contentious template/text – were judicious on my part. Ah well. :) Lessons learned. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW: TY for copying/consolidating necessary discussions on the template talk page, which you'll note is one of my concerns regarding this issue. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

LICRA case

Thanks. No hard feelings. -- Ray Oiler 14:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocks in violation of policy

I was monitoring Canadian federal election, 2006 to check for the previously threatened violations of Wikipedia policy (WP:NLT), and I noticed that you placed an improper block on User:Mirror Vax. First of all, according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, you are not allowed to block users engaged in an edit war with you. Secondly, both you and Mirror Vax had made exactly three reverts - not the fourth revert that would justify a 24-hour block. This is clearly an inappropriate use of administrative powers. I have asked for its reversal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that Mirror Vax did not violate 3RR. He reverted three times, but not four. As a courtesy, since you were the blocking admin, I'm asking that you please lift the block. Also, you must not block anyone with whom you are in a content dispute. Beyond the fact that he didn't violate the 3RR, you should have placed a report at WP:AN/3RR for another administrator's review. Also, please don't use your rollback button unless you are reverting clear vandalism. Rollback should never be used during a content dispute. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please consider my wrists well and truely slapped. User:Mirror Vax is now unblocked. Physchim62 (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

making & modifing a transcluded infobox

On the trancluded cheminfo infobox talk page and the normal chembox talk page there is some question of how to customize it. I'm two new to the wikipedia & mediawiki to understand what can and can't be done by normal users. There are probably additional sections that consensous would recommend adding but I'm not sure anyone knows how. In any case, the current template is very nice. The syntax is fantastic. I switched over a few pages to use it. Thanks in advance, Jeff Carr 17:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to your specific points at Template talk:Chembox transcluded, so that there is a more accessible record. I'm glad you like the chembox, and thanks for helping to convert older versions to the new format. Physchim62 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

re Quoxotic WikiQuests

Thanks for your message on my page... I've indeed noticed linkimage is not currently being used on lolicon - the question of whether the image in question should be kept inline or linked is in fact currently the subject of a straw poll. Attempts to keep the image linked have resulted in an edit war which I'm trying to keep out of... WRT the "doesn't allow for legal warnings" issue, what do you mean? That there is no functionality in this regard or that it is not allowed by policy? If the former, this is what I have in mind. If the latter, would you perhaps elaborate? Thanks -- Mikkerpikker ... 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, re the linkimage issue: why not just have a link to a subpage of the page in question? I.e. you'd go something like: "Please see this legal warning before opening the file" (or whatever) and have the warning on that sub page. I.e. on the Canadian page you'd have a sub-page about the law that forbids the early publication of results with a link to it on a template. Re your legal warnigs page: I'll def. support you there, I think they're necessary sometimes! Mikkerpikker ... 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Art copyright

Thank you for your response and invitation! I have uploaded several works from 1919-1922 by the German artist Max Ernst and two by the Spanish artist Salvador Dali from 1921 and 1922. In future I would also like to use pre-1923 works by the Dutch artist M. C. Escher.

My main question is if it is legal for an American user to apply the template PD-US to images from other jurisdictions? This question mostly concerns works by the Italian artist Giorgio de Chirico from 1911-1917.Justin Foote 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Making friends

Herr Physchim62

You seem to be making friends. I have no idea who you are, but upon seeing the clearly incomplete pages on DU and the Gulf War, I decided to offer a small portion of the large amount of information I have collected about DU. Since you provided almost no information about your subsequent reversion, and what you did provide was not only inaccurate but entirely cryptic to me, it took me some time to understand why my comments were immediately censored, based on a login technicality referencing one of my IP addresses and a user I know nothing about, but whom perhaps I should now get to know. I've reposted the comments to the DU page with my correct login, which Wiki sometimes fails to keep. I will now repost to the Gulf War page, being careful my login is maintained. Barring a timely response, I plan to contact some type of Wiki "ArbCom" about the wrong assumption you apparantly have made about my identity, and what I think is overstepping whatever authority you seem to have within Wiki, though I know nothing about that process and no information seems to be provided by you or Wiki in that regard.

Fieldlab

This is James, same editing style, trying to push the same information. A Check user request will determine nothing because records are not kept that long. Please Dont buy it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

== Depleted uranium ==

Yes, it is a violation of his ArbCom ban, and I´ve blocked him for it. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but is a dynamic IP, so it wont last too long. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you heroes are really burying yourselves here. Be my guest, just remember caution, respect and the benefit foa doubt at all times in dealing with strangers, OK? Fieldlab 17:59 24 July 2006 (PDT)

Um- excuse me conspiracists, I hate to break the news, but that is my IP and no one else's, and certainly not the person you seem to suspect. It is a hard IP I have had for 4 years. And you certainly cannot justify blocking it based on anything I have ever done or posted at Wiki. You have banned this IP I believe because you believe me to be someone else. If you bothered to check the IP of that person, chances are he has never posted from anywhere around Olympia, Washington, USA.

You have not only blatantly violated and abused Wiki policy, which you seem to have little regard for by doing this, you also seem to be behaving in a juvenile, vindictive fashion, contrary the spirit of the Wiki.

You have left me no choice but to escalate the incident, as this type of behavior could threaten the integrity of the Wiki itself.

Simply put, this is just LAME.

Please note:

• 216.173.207.10 has very little editing overlap with Nrcprm2026
• 216.173.207.10 is a static IP in Olympia, Washington while Nrcprm2026 claimed to be in Menlo Park, California
• No checkuser was performed before this block.
• Fieldlab (talk · contribs) claims to be 216.173.207.10, and not Nrcprm2026

Please be more careful next time. SeparateIssue 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE:

When I posted this, I was not aware that new posts are normally added to the bottom, but in retrospect, posting to the top may have been justified. I will move it if requested.

In order to clear your name and keep people from reverting you, you need to go to WP:RFCU and request a checkuser on you and me, and then publish the results (e.g., on your user page, and User talk:Physchim62).

OK, I posted something at the bottom of checkuser, though I'm not sure if was in the right form, and the IP ban seems to be lifted. There do not seem to be results available to publish. This is no big concern for me, the ban did not effect my user. I'm more concerned with whether the ban was ever really justifiable, and returning the content from other people that was deleted in DU because of my ban.--Fieldlab 17:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Als Wissenschaftler (Dr. phil., Jg. 1958, an die 200 wissenschaftliche Fachpublikationen v.a. zu Themen der Geschichte) liegen mir freie Inhalte und insbesondere bildrechtliche Korrektheit der Wikipedia-Projekt sehr am Herzen. Da mein Englisch eher mittelmäßig ist, fällt es mir schwer, juristische Spezialfragen angmessen auf Englisch zu kommunizieren. Der Streit um das Template GermanGov hat einige deutschsprachige Benutzer, die auch in en angemeldet sind, frustriert, da es nicht möglich war, die klare Rechtslage zu vermitteln. Es wurde immer wieder revertiert, ohne die Autorität der deutschen Benutzer, die oft erhebliches Ansehen in der deutschsprachigen WP genießen, anzuerkennen oder auf ihre Argumente einzugehen. Ich bitte meine diesbezügliche Unfreundlichkeit auf meiner Benutzerseite zu entschuldigen und würde vorschlagen, dass jeder seine Muttersprache gebraucht. Möglicherweise ist es auch einfacher, mein deutsch zu verstehen als mein Englisch. Lies bitte Fotos als amtliche Werke unter [1] und du wirst feststellen, dass es ausserhalb der Wappen, der Briefmarken und der Abbildungen in amtlichen Werken wie Patentschriften oder Urteilen keinerlei Anhaltspunkte dafür gibt, dass irgendein Foto von einem deutschen Gericht oder einem deutschen juristischen Autor jemals als Fall von § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG betrachtet wurde. Es gibt kein Sonderrecht für Nazi-Bilder und der einzige Fall, wo eine Karte als amtliches Werk betrachtet wurde, ist eine Karte des Meeresstrands zum Zweck von Warnungen vor Badeunfällen. Es muss also ein besonderes Interesse vorhanden sein, dass ein amtliches Werk unter Absatz 2 fällt. Dieses Template aber suggeriert, dass es genügt, wenn eine amtliche deutsche Stelle das Bild veröffentlicht hat. Das ist irreführend, denn z.B. Nazi-Bilder fallen online nicht unter § 5 Abs. 2, sondern unter das Urheberrecht des Fotografen bzw. unter die Nutzungsrechte des Rechtsnachfolger des damaligen Dienstherrn, möglicherweise aber eher ersteres. Bei jedem Foto amtlicher Herkunft aus Deutschland hilft es aber auch nichts, dieses Template als Ergänzung zu einem fair use-Template einzusetzen, denn zum einen ist der Verweis auf § 5 UrhG verfehlt und zum anderen besagt es nichts anderes als: Möglicherweise hat der Rechtsnachfolger der damaligen amtlichen Behörde das Urheberrecht, möglicherweise aber auch die Nachkommen des Urhebers. Daher ist auch der Nutzen als Quellenangabe nicht gegeben. Alles sehr schwere juristische Kost, aber ich bin gern bereit, auf Verständnisfragen klärend einzugehen, wenn du bitte meine Meinung/Angaben dann auf Englisch bei den entsprechenden Diskussionen einbringst. Danke --Historiograf 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:GermanGov Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 21:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Es wäre schön, wenn Du, Lupo und ich eine kleine Bildrechte-Arbeitsgruppe bilden könnten, wobei ich meine guten Kenntnisse des deutschen Urheberrechts einbringen könnte, denen leider nicht entsprechend gute Englischkenntnisse entsprechen und leider auch nur rudimentäre Kenntnisse des US-Copyrights. --Historiograf 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with this second comment. Here on EN wikipedia we have more problems with German copyright than with any other, partly because of contributers who wish to se photographs from the Second World War period. To sort these problems out we need clear guidance, and it is that which I am trying to find. For the moment I do not accept your analysis of Amtliche Werke, but I am investigating further (IN GOOD FAITH) and I may change my mind. In any case, it is not my personal opinion that matters, but rather that which we can convince other editors to follow in the years to come. Wikipedia:German images awaits! Physchim62 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ich kann nicht verstehen, wieso du mir nicht glaubst. Ich kann dir alle nötigen Belege nennen. Ich habe die Frage des Vorgängerrechts (KUG/LUG) umfassend geklärt. Und zwar auf http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/1185888/ Hier ist die Rechtslage bis 1965 aufgearbeitet und zwar ohne Lücken. Wenn du mein Ergebnis "Während also bei in amtlichen Akten vorfindlichen Maschinenzeichnungen § 16 LUG anwendbar war, kann dies für alle Fotos (und auch für Filme) ausgeschlossen werden" anzweifelst, solltest du BITTE Argumente nennen. Du darfst davon ausgehen, dass ich das deutsche Urheberrecht wirklich SEHR GUT kenne und gern bereit bin, alle Nachfragen nach Belegen und Literatur zu beantworten. Wenn du auf meine Mail hin an dein Mail mir deine Mail nennst, maile ich dir die zwei Seiten aus dem jüngsten und besten Urheberrechtskommentar Dreier/Schulze, die ich gerade gescannt habe (1988 KB). Gruß --Historiograf 20:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Historiograf, I am cautious because I know that I am going to have to explain my reasoning to many, many people who desperately want to show a WW2 battle photo on Wikipedia! We already have (small) problems with editors who have discovered § 72 UrhG—see above. For the moment, I still find inconsistencies in your argument: I prefer to think that they are my fault for not understanding German law well enough and it is for that reason that I am still reading around the subject—including the articles in Archivalia—and consulting my contacts here in France (who have contacts in Germany). I am sure that we can come to a consensus, but it will take a little bit of time. Physchim62 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is NOT fair a) not to say WHERE are inconsistencies b) not to give a mail that I can send you 2 MB page images from a German "Urheberrechtskommentar" (2004). § 72 UrhG is another question and en WP has the possibility unlike Commons to use fair use. It is not necessary to clear clear things for months if an expert user of the German WP like Steschke or me is saying that a template is full nonsense. --Historiograf 17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I received the file, thank-you very much. Please remember that Wikipedia does not work on the basis of "expert users", but rather by persuasion. If that is not the case at de, it certainly is the case at en. Physchim62 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright?

Sorry if I misunderstood that. Frankly I am not familiar with German copyright law (Dutch yes, English/American yes, German no). But neither is TFD, so yes, this merits closing a discussion there because it will not yield the right answer (either it's legally sound, in which case the nomination is pointless, or it's legally wrong, in which case the debate is pointless). What I usually do myself is ask either BD2412 (USA lawyer), or drop a line on WP:CP. Radiant_>|< 20:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Tricky issue, but TFD really isn't the place for that. I believe the problem is that certain images may be deleted if this tag turns out to be invalid? The template still exists but now reads "PUI", and WP:PUI does investigate for about a week before blindly deleting, so there seems to be enough time to doublecheck. If you wish to be absolutely sure, download all images to your computer for a safety backup. Radiant_>|< 21:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

commons:Talk:Yousuf Karsh

If you could do it, that'd be great—I'm rather busy off-Wikipedia right now. Can you ask not only whether these images are copyrighted in the U.S., but also when and in what publication they were first published, and when the copyrights were renewed? After all, Mr. Fiedler may also have an economic interest in these images... And hey, maybe he'd even agree to release these JPG versions into the public domain also outside Canada. (Unlikely, but one may hope.) While they're of decent quality, they're nowhere near good enough for people to be able to produce full-scale prints from them. These Karsh images are printed and sold at sizes of the order of 50×40&nbasp;cm, or at least as glossy full-page prints in art books. Lupo 08:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lupo. It would be a great help. --Historiograf 15:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I'll do it (although it wont be before Friday, probably). I understand your point about the economic interest, but I think it can be dealt with: as Lupo says, any claim to copyright should be substatiated, we already have Library and Archives Canada who say these are PD. All the same, I shall try to be at my most diplomatic! Physchim62 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congrats

I owe a lot to the people in WP:Chem, and your personal help was invaluable as well. Now that I think of it the notion of having a featured grey powder sounds rather funny indeed... I look forward to the day I see the article in the front page! Cheers. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:GermanGov

Regarding the images previously tagged as {{GermanGov}}, if they are tagged correctly and are indeed works commissioned by the German government or one of its legal predecessors, they are all copyrighted. Do help tag and source them properly over at WP:PUI where they are listed now. (Originally I did put them up at WP:CP, but WP:PUI is the more appropiate forum.) Some of them can be used under the fair use doctrine, but all need sourcing. There is much to be said for proper sourcing to help out folks when the licence tag turns out to be wrong.

"Messing with image copyright tags" - that's the wrong attitude when it comes to legal issues that you don't like. One doesn't determine what the law says in a debate, one consults a legal text or an expert. After dinner: a consensus discussion on the subject why the sky is green. Pilatus 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have seen a 1989 DDR Gorbatchev photo in this category. We have other G. photos and for the DDR there is no separate law but according to the Einigungsvertrag the relevant law is only Western germany law (UrhG 1965 sqq.). This photo can not be used as fair use because it is not neccesary for the G. article. --Historiograf 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is my understanding of DDR (East Germany) law as well, and I believe it is the position taken by German Wikipedia: the applicable law is the same as in the old West Germany. As for the image in question (Image:Gorbachev GDR 1989.jpg), I agree as well; the article Mikhail Gorbachev already has three fair use images. Counting fair use images is not a sure way to ensure that we stay on the right side of the law, but it helps the people at WP:WPFU find the worst offenders. Physchim62 (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Chemistrees and misc.

Hi PC,

I wanted to ask for your (& Wim's) opinion. My work on WP1.0 has got me interested in how articles are "arranged" in a hierarchy, since we need to work out a set of articles to put in 1.0. On Wikipedia we currently have categories, but I personally find these very "clunky" and it's hard to see the bigger picture. There is (in some obscure corner of Wikipedia) a way of expanding these in a "tree" format using a script from de, but this is only a little better IMHO. We have a few nice boxes like Template:PeriodicTablesFooter, but these are rare and usually only cover major topics. Over the last month or so I have been experimenting a bit with what I call a tree, and although it's technically very crude (like most things I do!) I do like the basic idea. I wanted to get your thoughts on the basic concept and, if you like it, how it might be improved. There are some symbols I'm using, ↓ means go one level down (↑ to go up), @ means go to the article, = means go to the list and © means go to the category. I have a few test pages, these don't have every link done yet, but you can go all the way through to iron(III) oxide (or any other oxide up to SeO₂). Can you try looking up an oxide starting here, and let me know what you think?

BTW, I put a merge notice on oxoanions --> oxyanion. Do you happen to know which term is preferred by IUPAC? Google prefers oxyanion, so I chose that as the home for the combined article, am I right? I also noticed that iron(II) oxide has a merge notice on it. Do we have a list of chem merge notices, for the portal? Regarding the portal, I'm thinking we should update the "news" section, any suggestions? Finally, could I persuade you to look at doing a decent hazards section for sulfuric acid, I think it might just tip it over to be A-Class, as Wim suggests. What do you think? Cheers, Walkerma 07:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's a fair number of individual questions!

1. According to IUPAC, it is oxoacid (ref in article), so I would suggest oxoanion as well. We also have Category:Oxoanions.
2. There is a list of merge articles at Portal:Chemistry/Things you can do, and a longer list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Articles to be merged.
3. The main problem with expanding the category system is that it is not necessarily tree-like. You also have to think of criteria for your lists... I should take a look at Wikipedia:Category and the articles linked from there.

Physchim62 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for clearing up a lot of things. I'll fix the merge later. I understand that the articles are NOT in a simple hierarchy, certainly below the top 2-3 levels they can be more like a set of neurons with connections. For example to find iron(III) oxide, you might go Chemistry -> Subdisciplines -> Inorganic Chem -> Inorganic compounds -> Iron compounds -> iron(III) oxide. Alternatively you might go Chemistry -> Chem substances -> Chem compounds -> Inorganic compounds - Oxides -> iron(III) oxide. Although I call this a tree, if the system is complete one should be able to take either routse very easily. One reason why I don't like categories alone is that they are too one-dimensional - if you take a wrong turn, you can end up in a dead end. This new system couldn't prevent that totally, but it gives a much wider view of the subject area so have more chance to see where you want to go. It also allows you to jump 2 levels down at a time - try going through the latter sequence on my tree, and compare it with the same navigation through categories. I also find this approach helps to see how things all link together, something you can't visualise with cats alone. Finally, what do you mean by "criteria for your lists", do you mean the table headings? Cheers, Walkerma 22:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, by "criteria for lists" I mean the method by which you choose the articles which go onto your lists. How do you plan to choose which chemists are sufficiently notable to appear on the list of chemists, for example? Physchim62 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

These are in fact related, since the article list on level 1 provides the basis of the column headings in level 2. OK, in chemistry I mostly used our project worklist to guide me through things like the list of chemists. If I don't have that to go on I just picked what I thought was important, knowing that someone else could easily edit things, Wikipedia-style. I realise it's subjective, but we have to start somewhere. Also, many of our category structures are likewise subjective, but they often evolve over time into something effective. Walkerma 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(PC, I hope you won't mind my misusing your talk page for adding my two eurocents worth of discussion, other than a separate discussion on my one talkpage.) I have been thinking about this the last couple of days, and found the following:

• The categories are simply tagged on by authors because they deemed their article fitting in that category. This is a bottom-up approach, which is very wikipedian: anyone can add a category to an article if they choose, and anyone can edit all articles in a specific category to weed out the inappropriate ones.
• The chemistrees should work in a very similar way. What I saw sofar is a standalone system top-down, where there is a highest level Chemistry and everythings comes down to the lowest level, viz., the article This multilevelness makes it for me much harder to grasp: where do I weed out the wrong ones and how can I put another one in the tree?

Sofar I understand it to be a standalone, structurally organized presentation of the chemicals pages. And that is GOOD. But how to integrate it INTO these pages? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your comments, Wim, I hope PC doesn't mind me continuing the discussion here. I wanted to refine (or abandon!) the idea before I took it further, e.g to WP:Chemistry. I would add

• The grand plan is not to limit it just to chemistry, at WP:1.0 we are considering something along these lines for the whole of Wikipedia, so it's important to get it right. I didn't realise it, but apparently Britannica has a two-volume index something like this as an alternative to the alphabetical organisation.
• As PC implies, much of the organisation will in fact be gleaned from the category lists.
• The purpose is different from categories, however - in some ways it's like a cross between a list and a category. Categories are good for classifying, but poor for navigating. These trees would be good for navigating and seeing the "landscape", but not good for classifying.
• You can very easily edit content of the tree table to add in another chemist, or something like that. That doesn't affect the hierarchy at all. To change one of the column headings would be a bigger edit, as it would require creating a new page. Once the trees were established, I think an edit like that would require discussion.
• As with lists like List of inorganic compounds it is not integrated into the page, and I accept that as a weakness. Can you see a way to do this, poss. through categories? Walkerma 06:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have started to describe the idea in the following way. To find out about a topic is rather like making a journey. Using categories is rather like making a journey using only road signs - you probably get there, but you can't know much about far ahead, you don't easily know what's nearby, and if you take a wrong turn you can get lost. The tree is supposed to be more like a map, where you can get a sense of the article landscape, so you (the user) can poke around and explore more easily. It also serves a second (related) purpose. From the admin perspective that type of map is (IMHO) essential for WP1.0 as we try to see what articles we have in a given area. We need to be able to visualise a subject, IMHO. Is there a better way? I would love to find a way to make the system dynamic (like cats) rather than static (like lists), but my tech expertise doesn't allow it. Any suggestions? Thanks, Walkerma 06:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• No suggestions, but merely repeating the —in my humble opinion— weakest spot, fully equivalent to the List of ... pages: It is a separate system, needing separate administration. Categories don't. So to make it succesful (and as I see it truly wikipedian), it is necessary to make some sort of tree template such as the category templates ({{tree:upperleveltohangthisarticleon}}. In this way the tree can be build on the fly, equivalent to categories, but then multilevel. (P.S., I can't make this work. I'm merely suggesting an idea.) Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

German image copyrights

Just a quick question: you've mentioned the LUG 1901. I thought we were discussing primarily images. AFAIK, the LUG 1901 does not cover photographs and other artwork, they were instead covered by the KUG 1907 (and before, photographs were covered by a law from 1876). So what does the LUG have to do with all this? Lupo 13:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the LUG to point out that it would not apply in the situations we are interested in! Thanks for the reference to the KUG: are these images covered by §2 or §3? It appears to me that the distinction between Lichtbildwerke and Lichtbilder only appears in the UrhG 1965, and so that Werke der Photographie published prior to 1941 remain in the public domain (§129(1) UrhG)... Physchim62 (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop repeating nonsense on German law. Nothing what you wrote is of relevance. As you can both read German I will continue in my native language. Die Frage, ob Bilder amtliche Werke sind, richtet sich nach dem heute gültigen Urheberrechtsgesetz (§ 5 UrhG). Es wäre denkbar, dass amtliche Schriften, die nach dem LUG keinem Urheberrecht unterlagen, nach wie vor gemeinfrei sind. Amtliche Schriften konnten nach dem LUG auch Zeichnungen wissenschaftlicher und technischer Art umfassen, aber keine Fotos oder Filme. Der Anwendungsbereich von LUG und KUG überschnitt sich also. Zweitens: gemäß der EU-Schutzdauerrichtlinie hat man bei den meisten Lichtbildern europaweit davon auszugehen, dass sie persönliche geistige Schöpfungen sind und daher Lichtbildwerke. Gemäß deutscher Rechsprechung lebte der erloschene Schutz am 1.7.1995 wieder auf, da die Bilder gemeinschaftsrechtlich in Spanien am 1.7.1995 noch geschützt waren. Es gilt die normale 70-Jahre-Regelschutzfrist pma und man hat die heutige Einschätzung als Lichtbildwerk zugrundezulegen nicht den damaligen Schutz der Photographie. Für den kleinen verbleibenden Rest ist zu prüfen, ob die Bilder 1985 womöglich noch als Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte geschützt waren. Dies kann insbesondere dann der Fall sein, wenn die Bilder postum veröffentlicht wurden [2] --Historiograf 21:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: "Der Anwendungsbereich von LUG und KUG überschnitt sich also." Thanks, thats all I wanted to know. I didn't claim either LUG or KUG were relevant for the question of "amtliche Werke". (I didn't think so.) I was just confused by the mention of LUG in that context. Lupo 07:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:PPEist

I have redone the indef. block on User:PPEist. I stated my full reasoning on AN but in short I feel that it is beyond the required cause needed within blocking policy to indef. block a user who has stated that he is planning on reporting Wikipedia editors who are located in England to the police, you also ignored the fact that other editors had chimed in supporting the block. I do not want to edit war if at all possible but this block is more than justified by the user's behavior. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

PuO2

Physchim62 - my comments on PuO2 are directed at a student who is assigned to growing, ever so slightly perhaps, this entry. For example, that it has a CaF2 structure. In this particular case, Trying reinforce the difference between molecular and non-molecular structures. Their first instinct is that PuO2 is like CO2. We are working on ca. 25 entries this week. You are welcome to continue to join in.Smokefoot 06:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Removing Images

I think you have a good point regarding the images on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. You can revert them if you'd like while I let WP:CP deal with the underlying issue; I won't mind. --Aaron 01:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Open proxies

Hello, Physchim62! I noticed that you blocked 203.162.2.133 indefinitely for being an open proxy, citing APNIC. Would you mind clarifying this? It does say "Allocated portable" on there, but I'm not sure that that means it is an open proxy. I'm not that technically proficient, but I used the site to check a few of the IPs I have edited from before (workplace, library, etc.) and some said "Allocated portable"; however, those IP addresses certainly weren't open proxies but instead just public-use computers or a high-use network used by a company, system, district, etc. Would you mind clarifying this? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! What do you mean by that it was behaving like an open proxy? Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Erronoeus Block

Look up the user history of the IP User:165.230.149.152 - and you'd see that there was no repeat cartoon blanking vandalism on the Mohammed controversy from that IP. 165.230.149.154 05:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There were certainly two vandalism edits on the cartoons, and another which I shall call "neutral", on an IP address which has only ever been used anonymously to edit pages associated with this controversy. This is not the sort of behavior we encourage from our users, a fortiori those from a respected academic institution such as yours. However, on looking at the record, I see that I mistook this address for another registered at Rutgers, one which had a history of vandalism on other pages as well. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Physchim62 (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

While there were two vandalism edits, they were not the repeated blanking vandalism edits that you claimed; also, the first edit got a response of "test", and the second got a response of "Please do not add "pbuh", thank you". Thus, those warnings did not indicate an immediate block response. After those vandalism edits, I didn't contribute any more vandalism edits to that page, AFAIK.165.230.149.154 06:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I DID NOT VANDALIZE THAT PAGE!

I have added a complaint to the Wikipedia block discussion pages, normally used by admins. 165.230.149.154 05:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC reform

I've opened a straw poll on the issue, which I hope will be more productive than my previous nomination attempt proved to be. Please see Wikipedia:User RFC reform, which is now open. I've announced it on WP:AN and WP:VP/P. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

{{PD-because}}

I left a note at Template talk:PD-because, but it hasn't gotten any reponse yet. There is an svg version of Image:Achtung.png available, and it is suggested at Commons:Images for cleanup that svg replace png where practical due to a number of reasons. I would make this change myself, but the template is protected. You are listed in the edit history for the template, so I figured I'd leave a message. Thanks. McNeight 16:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. McNeight 17:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

You are deleting templates that garnered overwhelming support in W:TFD. If I started going around deleting pages that I didn't like, I would expect to be booted off of Wikipedia. If you do not restore those and any other pages that you deleted without first reaching a consensus, I think that we should take this to the Wikipedia:Mediation committee. --M@rēino 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I read WP:TFD as you suggested, it states:

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement.

I then went to Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus, where I found:

Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article.

Some opinions can override all others. For instance if someone finds a copyright violation, a page is always deleted. If a page was to be deleted, but a person finds references for a particular topic or rewrites the article, the page might be kept. If the consensus so far was to delete, but it is requested that a page be userfied, then typically the page will be moved into the user namespace.

I am not convinced by your arguements of "overwhelming support" on TfD, and templates which fit the speedy deletion criterion should be deleted regardless of a TfD discussion, as is the case in all other XfD procedures.

I cannot see how mediation would help in this matter—what is really needed is a clarification on policy from Jimbo—but I will not oppose if you place a request. Physchim62 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

arabic wikipedia

A home-delivery Welcome to the Arabic wiki. --Tarawneh 06:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

Hi there. I noticed you removed a block of text from the Brian Peppers, citing the reason as it being unsourced. The problem is, however, that it is impossible for this information to be sourced as the page that first declared this information has been taken down by the news site that originally posted it. Archived versions of the page couldn't be found by me after searching, other than a YTMND page I came accross. Previous versions of this article have included this information with the source listed, and there was no complaint. Furthermore, I personally visited the source when the page was still up and can verify that the information you deleted was correct. How do you propose this is dealt with? VegaDark 08:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would propose that it stays off: it only reports unspecified "concerns", followed by speculation by an unnamed "spokesman". The details of Ohio sex offenders are still available for all to see, even well beyond state and federal borders! Physchim62 (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

I have undeleted {{User Unionist}} and {{User Irish Republican}} because there was a consensus to keep them on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion when they were speedily deleted. If you think they should be deleted again, feel free to nominate them on TFD. —Guanaco 21:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for mediating Depleted uranium

Thank you for your offer to mediate the Depleted uranium dispute. I hope the arbitration committee agrees. --James S. 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you begin familiarizing yourself with one of the aspects of this issue by reading Uranium trioxide#Gas as aerial uranium combustion product which was authored by the above editor. --DV8 2XL 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the main pages involved thank-you! Can I take your comment as acceptance of mediation? Physchim62 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm game - just wanted to make sure you were aware that the scope of this issue goes beyond Depleted uranium - and that you are willing to address all of the pages that the ArbCom case would cover. Otherwise I think you would be wasting everybody's time. --DV8 2XL 00:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take anything which is scientific. For the moment I've seen depleted uranium, uranium trioxide, uranium hexafluoride and Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium. Parties are welcome to add to this list if they feel that this is necessary. Physchim62 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I would add:

Reproductive toxicity

Arfsten, D.P.; K.R. Still; G.D. Ritchie (2001) "A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development," Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 17, pp. 180-91: http://www.bovik.org/du/reproduction-review-2001.pdf Summary contains: "A number of studies have shown that natural uranium is a reproductive toxicant...."

Hindin, R.; D. Brugge; B. Panikkar (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17 "Conclusion: In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."

Developmental toxicity

Domingo, J.L. (2001) "Reproductive and developmental toxicity of natural and depleted uranium: a review," Reproductive Toxicology, vol. 15, pp. 603-9. Abstract: "Decreased fertility, embryo/fetal toxicity including teratogenicity, and reduced growth of the offspring have been observed following uranium exposure at different gestation periods."

Durakovic A. (1999) "Medical effects of internal contamination with uranium," Croatian Medical Journal, vol. 40, pp. 49-66: http://www.bovik.org/du/asaf_99.htm Abstract: "well documented evidence of reproductive and developmental toxicity...."

Immunological toxicity

McDiarmid, M.A., et al. (2006) "Biological monitoring and surveillance results of Gulf War I veterans exposed to depleted uranium," in International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, vol. 79, pp. 11-21. Abstract: "genotoxicity measures continue to show subtle, mixed results...."

Schröder, H.; A. Heimers; R. Frentzel-Beyme; A. Schott; W. Hoffmann (2003) "Chromosome aberration analysis in peripheral lymphocytes of Gulf war and Balkans war veterans," Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol. 103, pp. 211-220: http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.pdf Abstract: "there was a statistically significant increase in the frequency of dicentric chromosomes (dic) and centric ring chromosomes (cR) in the veterans. group...."

Miller, A.C.; M. Stewart; K. Brooks; L. Shi; N. Page (2003) "Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay," Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, vol. 91, pp. 246-252: http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf Abstract: "chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals by depleted uranium in vitro exceeds radiolytic generation by one million-fold...."

Neurotoxicity

Briner, W. and J. Murray (2005) "Effects of short-term and long-term depleted uranium exposure on open-field behavior and brain lipid oxidation in rats," Neurotoxicology and Teratology, vol. 27, pp. 135-44: http://www.bovik.org/du/du-on-rats.pdf Abstract: "DU is a toxin that crosses the blood-brain barrier, producing behavioral changes in male rats and lipid oxidation regardless of gender in as little as 2 weeks...."

Monleau, M.; C. Bussy; P. Lestaevel; P. Houpert; F. Paquet; V. Chazel (2005) "Bioaccumulation and behavioural effects of depleted uranium in rats exposed to repeated inhalations," Neuroscience Letters, vol. 390, pp. 31-6. Abstract: "depleted uranium is able to enter the brain after exposure to repeated inhalation, producing behavioral changes."

Background information

Abstract of Mishima's late 1970s work [3] (search for "75 percent"; observe only particulate measurements);

The 2000-era vet birth defect stats [4];

Evidence of uranyl ion near DU munitions fires [5];

Health Physics Society's study of particulate (non-gas) dispersion patterns [6];

Suggested questions

A. How accurately will isotope ratio urine studies which depend on particulate uranium aerosol remaining undissolved in the lung measure total inhalation exposure?

B. Can the value of a poison be known without knowledge of its long-term effects? --James S. 01:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The RfA has been refused pending the outcome of the mediation that you suggested. We can start anytime you're ready. --DV8 2XL 22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Will be ready in about half an hour, I've just got some chemistry cleanup to do first :) Physchim62 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

TDC suggested that I scan in Ackermann et al. (1960); I'm working on that now. --James S. 23:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The mediation is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles. I still have a little bit of WikiBureaucracy to finish, but if anyone is watching this page then they can get started. Physchim62 (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Kaiser Page

Hi, Psychim62 - Could you please revert the Kaiser Permanente back to the Omsbudsman version (or mine before it) and then re-protect it. You put on the protection after FCYTravis had made major deletions. If you check the Kaiser Permanente talk page, I intended to source the questioned areas and had asked for the best way to do it. Putting the protection on after Travis's deletions amounts to a decision that approves suppression of criticism.--Pansophia 07:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Be responsible!

Please, immediately revisit {{user Irish Republican}} and {{user Unionist}} and wrap {{deletedpage}}'s in <noinclude></noinclude> tags. Tagging people's user pages with {{deletedpage}} is just short of being considered vandalism. Thank you! Misza13 ^(Talk) 11:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's done now, but have you ever heard of WP:AGF? Physchim62 (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User queerrights

Could you elaborate on why it was deleted? Moe ε 02:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

New CSD criteria T1. Also, because userboxes don't belong in template space. --Cyde Weys 05:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Henry F. Schaefer, III

Hi, I need help from an Admin, preferably a chemist. The article Henry F. Schaefer, III was started by me and I included a section of his home page bio, but in quotes and referenced. Later an anon editor removed the quotes and it was later tagged as a copyvio and blanked. I have fixed the article in Henry F. Schaefer, III/Temp as the tag box indicated. The user who put the copyvio tag on it is happy (see my talk page), but is not an admin. Could you please fix up putting the fixed article back in place? Thanks. --Bduke 20:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been sorted out now. Just a couple of comments on the revised article:

• As an experimental chemist, I cannot accept that a calculation "overturns" my experimental results: it might "force a reinterpretation" or some such phrase like that, but the like time I checked experiment remained the stronger proof.
• You should add a source for the claim that he is the sixth most-cited chemist: "according to Science Citation Index" is better than nothing if we can't find the full study.

Thanks a lot for helping to improve our coverage of twentieth-century chemists! Best wishes Physchim62 (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for turning Haydar into a proper disambiguation page. I wasn't quite sure of the format.

Perhaps that will keep the Shi'a zealots at bay. Zora 01:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Depleted uranium and related articles

I am no longer interested in continuing this farce. The uranium trioxide article's section on UO3 gas is an embarrassment to your project in particular and Wikipedia in general. If you care to spend the next few months dealing with Salsman's delusional views on science, his stonewalling, and bullying, then be my guest. I have had more than enough of it. If he will not yield on something as elementary, and obvious as this, it is unlikely that he will show any flexibility on the more contentious topics listed.

It is unfortunate that so much time and effort is spent in the vain attempt to save the intellectually bankrupt. I wish you luck. --DV8 2XL 01:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for your advice, but i do not appreciate the deletion of information in order to rename the article to a diambig page. You are in practice deleting it without a afd, and i cant accpet that. --Striver 10:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Citations

It appears that you are saying that James S. provides genuine citations, but that the article does not state the opinion that he attributes to it. That is a common problem. It is also very subtly misleading, because the typical editor will believe that the article at least states the opinion that is attributed to it. I will not advise you to read the arbitration case against EffK, but he repeatedly cited various historians whom he claimed supported his position that there had been a deal between the Vatican and Adolf Hitler. In fact, the historians, in each case, discussed Hitler at length, but were at most tangential to his claim of a conspiracy. A non-chemist is very unlikely to check a reference in an article on chemistry. For that matter, someone with a B.A. in chemistry who has not done chemistry (myself) for 35 years is unlikely to check such a reference. References that do not say what the editor says they say are a common problem with disruptive editors. Sympathies. Robert McClenon 00:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hypovolemia

Thank you for responding, but you did not address my question. I was not trying to investigate what amount of blood loss is tolerable. That is an easy figure to find. I am specifically trying to determine how much blood can be lost into each leg. Shaggorama 23:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

French Chemists

I have just added articles for two French chemists, Raymond Daudel and Bernard Pullman. Would you consider translating these into French for the French Wikipedia? I am sure that people there would add more usefull information. My French is pretty rusty and I would not want to write an article, but I can probably translate back anything that is added to the French article. Any comments on the articles would be welcome of course and in particular whether the redlinks actually do have a page, possibly on the French wikipedia. I will add an article for Alberte Pullman soon. I am working through the membership of the International Academy of Quantum Molecular Science. These two at least complete the five founding members mentioned right at the top of the article. --Bduke 07:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As you see, the article Alberte Pullman is done, albeit a stub. Could you translate that as well? Do you know whether the Radium Institute in Paris is the same as the Curie Institute? Regards, --Bduke 21:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, but yes, the Radium Institute is now known as the Curie Institute. The name chnage came sometime after the Second World War, I think, I will try to find details. Physchim62 (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I missed your response. There are several redlinks to Radium Institute. I'll just fix them to go to Curie Institute. Any chance of you translating these bios? --Bduke 22:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your block of Babajobu

Hi, I'm not seeing any warning note on Babajobu's talk page, and this block seems a bit, err, hasty. Care to come and chat on IRC about it?
brenneman^{T}{L} 11:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very fond of this block either. Blocking an established administrator with apparently no warning, because of perceived disruptions? That is not a good block. Discussion is ten grillion times more preferable than a knee-jerk block. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The block was certainly knee-jerk, and hence not in the best form; it was quickly lifted after discussion (I myself lifted the autoblock on Babajobu's IP address). However, do not forget that blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive: IMHO, there was no need for Babajobu to raise the issues on WP:AN/I in the first place, and even if there were there was no need for his gratuitous comments about another admin, particularly one who is the current subject of an RfC. Babajobu had many better places to air his point of view; I hope that, in the future, he will use them rather than generalist noticeboards which have more serious purposes. Physchim62 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Which other places are you talking about? Zocky | picture popups 17:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just found this discussion, until now really had no clue why I'd been blocked except for Physchim's comment in IRC that I had "reaped what I had sown". Well, Physchim did lift the autoblock, which I appreciate. However, if he felt that I should have posted my comment somewhere other than AN/I he might have dropped me a note to this effect, which possibly would have served as as effective a "preventative" measure as the block; would have been worth a crack, at least. But to be honest, I don't see that AN/I was an inappropriate place to raise the issue: I wanted the feedback of other admins because I feared a new uprising over the userboxen, and AN/I seemed a reasonable place to request it. Finally, I disagree that I had made "gratuitous comments" about another admin...I made a point of directing my comments toward MarkSweep's actions, rather Mark himself. Thought that was how we're supposed to do in such situations. Babajobu 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"However, do not forget that blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive". So, uh, what was the intent of the block then? Were you worried he was going to place multiple messages on WP:AN/I? Ashibaka tock 03:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:CCorrosif.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CCorrosif.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sulfuric acid to A-Class?

These users ought to contribute more to the Chemicals Wikiproject

Hi PC, Thanks for writing a good safety section on H2SO4 that went beyond "What Johnny thought was H2O..". I think sodium hydroxide still needs some of your caustic comments on safety. Do you think the sulfuric acid article is ready to be A-Class now? Wim will probably be working on the statistics this weekend and he'd no doubt love to see at least one article upgraded from B to A-Class (so would I, it's been a while since we upgraded any!). Please leave comments here. Warning: If you don't, I'll create a new UserBox that says, "This user thinks PC should spend more time on chemistry articles"! Hope your term/semester is going well - mine is busy but good. Talk & posters at Atlanta ACS very soon, fortunately we have spring break to work on htem. Cheers, Walkerma 16:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• I was already doing some counting (you're right there, Martin), and indeed I was a bit disappointed to see no further comments on the A-Class Recommend list (right again, MAW). Being inquisitive (that's a eufemism for simply nosy), I checked to see whether there was actual progress on the listed articles (compliments, PC). I'll await a little so see what is been added in the comments. I'm pretty busy this weekend, so I'll probably postpone doing the counting until an evening next week (more A-Class articles?). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Physchem; arguments are underway, please come and join the fray at your earliest convenience. It's vintage James and shouldn't be missed. --DV8 2XL 04:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

JamesS is claiming here: [7] that you have reopend Mediation in this matter and is moving that the case be remanded back to you. Is this true? --DV8 2XL 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving me to twist in the wind over in arbitration. Salsman was more or less under control in mediation and prior to your generous offer to interfere with the first trip to arbcom my co-litigants weren't, as they are now 'too busy' to engage.

But you know what? It really doesn't matter now, because I am not going to soil myself with this issue or this crank anymore - but now he is running barefoot through all of the uranium compound articles spuing his nonsense ideas about UO3 gas. And all I can get out of Chem Project is some vague promises 'to help clean up when all this is over'. Well if you guys don't give a damn about the integrity of the compound topics, why should I? A simple show of consensus was all I needed to put a lie to his contention that it was only the three originals that don't believe this gas exists at STP and you have wimped out.

Well have fun 'cleaning up after 'cause he's going to float through arbitration with a slap on the wrist, unopposed. --DV8 2XL 02:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Give James enough rope and he'll hang himself with it: he seems to be doing a very good job of it for the time being. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Logo

Template:Logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Jerry Fiedler

I had asked before, but you probably missed it. Did you ever send that e-mail to Mr. Jerry Fiedler on the subject of these Karsh photographs? Did you ever get an answer? Lupo 09:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This might interest you

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

Cheers! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

While you attempt to show that I should have known that Smokefoot was not a sockpuppet of DV8 2XL, I suggest that you examine the history of DV8 2XL's user page in relation to the creation date of Smokefoot's account and initial burst of editing activity. I am still not entirely convinced that there is no attempt to manufacture an apparent consensus going on under our noses. I wish you could have been a neutral mediator, but your edits show that you took sides a few days after you took the case. That would have been fine for an outside observer, but I guess you didn't review the mediation policy and guidelines pages. Also, taking sides on the factual issue of UO₃ gas vapor before reading the Wilson (1961) reference I cited seems like another big mistake to me. Good luck. --James S. 18:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? You are not convinced by a CheckUser report which shows that they edit from different countries, not to say any other evidence which you could have had at the time which you made your accusation. Physchim62 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no access to the CheckUser log, and after those who do reported their findings, I apologized to DV8 and Smokefoot, both of whom accepted my apologies (although the exchange has been deleted from Smokefoot's talk page.) --James S. 18:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Translations

Hallo, I'm cleaning up the Wikipedia:Translation into English/French page (categorizing articles, removing completed translations, etc.), so I was wondering if you'd finished fr:Droit d'auteur? The original French article is longer than the tranlated version (French copyright law), though I haven't looked through it yet. Also the French grammar and Morphology of the french verb articles, and Occitan language--are they done as well? You can reply on the talk page here Wikipedia talk:Translation into English. Thanks so much! Tamarkot 21:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Chemistry statistics

Hi PC,

Hope you're well. I have a favour to ask - could you give me any statistics on the Chemistry pages on Wikipedia for my Atlanta talk on Sunday morning? I have no clue how to locate such information, I'm afraid. I'm looking for basic stats like total no. of chemistry articles, no. of chemical compounds covered (about 4000, I think Wim said, is that right?). I'd also love to know which chemistry articles get the most traffic, which are the most popular Google searches, etc. Any such information would be helpful. Probably none of these numbers are essential to the talk, but the audience will be mainly Chemical Info people who will no doubt love to see statistics like that! Many thanks, Walkerma 05:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well here are some stats from the stub categories to get going with:

Category:Chemistry stubs 964 articles (needs cleaning out to other categories)

Category:Organic compound stubs 776 articles

Category:Inorganic compound stubs 382 articles

Category:Organic chemistry stubs 87 articles

Category:Chemical reaction stubs 105 articles

I would apply a rough multiplier of 1.5 to get the total number of articles (ie, two-thirds of our articles are stubs). This makes Wim's estimate of 4000 compound articles a bit optimistic: he may however be including all our articles on drugs (prescription and illegal :), in which case he is probably not far from the mark. We also have some good pesticide articles which the project has not caught up with yet. As for Wikipedia:Size comparisons, the Merck index has about 10,000 monographs. Most edited chemistry articles:

LSD 1493 revisions

Diamond 1121 revisions

Wikipedia does not keep data on hits to individual articles as the server load is too high. I'll see if I can dig up some data from Google (no promises, obviously!). Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that's a great start! Yes, Wim was including at least prescription drugs in that posting, he mentioned those explicitly. Any further info would be most welcome. Cheers, Walkerma 15:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Danke

Ich habe nie gelaubt, dass es soviel Arbeit macht zwei Artikel gegen einen hartnäckigen und verbohrten möchtegern Wissenschaftler zu verteidigen. Ich habe mehr zu abgereichertem Uran und Uranoxiden gelesen als ich eigentlich wollte. Vielleicht bekommen wir es ja gemeinsam mit den anderen hin das Gespenst vom Urangas zu vertreiben!--Stone 11:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Translations of German combat units

In Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#19th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_.282nd_Latvian.29, you ask for "translation or gloss of names of German army units". Presumably, it is not just this particular page that would need glossary/translation, but all pages referring to units of the German army. Some page comparing the different ranks, plus a page comparing the unit sizes, as well as the different types could be created (if it's not already there). And then it could be auto-linked by category or whatever (sorry, I'm new here; not familiar with all the auto/semi-auto features of Wikipedia. If you point me in the right directions I'd be willing to help. Nczempin 14:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Lolicon

There is another stawpoll on the disputed offensive image currently underway at Talk:Lolicon. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

UO3/U3O8 equilibrium

Hi there, you removed the value of the oxygen partial pressure from the paragraph that gives the UO₃ vapor pressure in the UO3/U3O8/O2 system.

Obviously the position of the equilibrium is dependent on the oxygen pressure:

¹/₃ U₃O₈(s) + ¹/₆ O₂(g) ⇄ UO₃(g)

Ackermann (1960) has several series of measurements in figure 6 of the paper, some at 0.2 bar (air?) and others at 1 bar (oxygen at ambient pressure). If I read that right I think we can put the pressure back in. 129.215.37.163 14:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I'm wrong; I was getting misled by the figures in Table II on the last page of the article. Ackermann et al. did indeed use air and pure oxygen at ambiant pressure for their measurments. I will revert my change: thanks for pointing this out! Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

benzoic acid

I added the cite. You gotta give a person a second - man you reved that way too fast. Just add the cite needed tag next time, and remove the text only after giving a chance for that.

Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages

I just came across this page by random browsing through the Template categories. It looks like a very nice idea, but it seems like you stopped working on it a long time ago. Is there anything that speaks against completing the page by adding more languages and linking to it more prominently from WP:PNT? Kusma (討論) 04:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Uranium

The uranium trioxide gas reached the uranium page! --Stone 09:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Chlorides

Did some work on Erbium(III) chloride and Boron trichloride and found the new page on Tellurium tetrachloride, maybe you have a look?--Stone 15:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! I have done a little copy-editing. Physchim62 (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good progress. I re-assessed the erbiumchloride article to Chem Start level in the worklist. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC).

Possibly unfree Image:Barham Salih.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Barham Salih.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

RFC. Troll. Remember him...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 You are mentioned in it. Midgley 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium

This arbitration case has closed. James S. is banned from depleted uranium, placed on probation, and placed on general probation. Those opposing editors who have made personal attacks on James S. are reminded of the policies regarding courtesy and personal attacks. TDC is placed on revert parole. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 17:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your transcluded chembox needs some more help from you

Hi PC, I have used your version of the transcluded chembox in the lead(II) nitrate article. As you can see, it shows two similar errors in tranclusion: solubility (water/other) and Other compounds (anions/cations): the lower entry unexpectedly copies values from the upper entry. Do I do something wrong? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

The second bug was quite easy to fix, as it was a copy/paste error in the template (it reaaly did call the same parameter twice!) The first one is rather more complicated, and will take a bit of code rewriting. The parameter solubility should give a solubility in water, but this doesn't seem to be fully working for the moment (it misses out the name of the solvent). Otherwise, I will need to include more parameters if we wish to place more than one non-aqueous solvent in the table. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll see what can be done. Physchim62 (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Blatnica, Martin

I am sorry, but I do not understand why you have moved Blatnica (Slovakia) to Blatnica, Martin. Blatnica is an independent municipality in Slovakia, not a part of the city of Martin. I think the previous name of this article (which I originally created) is more appropriate than your change because we usually use the name of the state to disambiguate whenever two towns having the same name are icluded in the Wikipedia. Moreover, as far as I know, there are no more municipalities called "Blatnica" in Slovakia. I would be grateful if you can explain or eventually revert this edit. Well, perhaps the best alternative would be to move the article to Blatnica, Slovakia. Tankred 14:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• The relevant guidelines are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names).
  • The "comma convention" is the norm on English Wikipedia for disambiguating placenames even where it is not used in the native language: this is what struck me about Blatnica (Slovakia).
  • It is more usual to disambiguate to a sub-national level: this avoids problems later on if further duplicates are found, and avoids allegations of WP:BIAS. Hence, I have disambiguated Slovak towns and villages to the okres level (except Martin, Slovakia, which seemed better where it was).

Physchim62 (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about the comma convention and it was my mistake not to use a comma in the original article. But do you really think it is necessary to disambiguate the names of Slovakia's municipalities to the district level? Slovakia is a tiny country and there are not many cases of duplicates. I guess this rule makes more sense in the case of large countries, such as the US (with four or so different settlements called Geneva). But even in the case of the US, names are disambiguated to the state level and not to the county level. Slovakia's size makes it similar to a rather smaller state within the US while Slovakia's district is even smaller than an average American county. Back to the Blatnica case, there is one Blatnica in Croatia and another in Slovakia. That is it. Why should it be called Blatnica, Martin? Since there are no other municipalities with the same name in Slovakia, its case is similar to any other Slovak town. But we have an article Ducové and not "Ducové, Piešťany". If another municipality with the name Ducové exists in Poland for instance, would it make sense to create an article "Ducové, Piešťany"? I do not think so. This disambiguation goes too far in my opinion. It would be more user-friendly to base it on the most obvious difference (the state level in this case). What do you think? Tankred 15:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I can understand your argument, but I do not agree with the analysis. I terms of user-friendliness, the most important point is to have a link from a disambiguation page both from the spelling with diacritics and the spelling without diacritics: hence, I must be able to type "Ducove" and find my way easily to the article which refers to the Ducové in Okres Piešťany, even if I don't know the difference between an okres and a kraj and a narod! For editors who are writing articles, on the other hand, what is needed are simple rules as to what the article title should be: otherwise we risk having articles at Ducové, Piešťany, Dukové, Slovakia, Dukové (Slovakia), Dukové (Slovak village), Ducové (Piešťany District), Dukové (Okres Piešťany) etc, which will need to be merged. There are some examples where disambiguation to the state level does not work: Potok is one, Podhradie would be another (except that the disambiguation page doesn't exist yet because the only article we have so far is Spišské Podhradie). As far as I can tell, disambiguation to district level is always unambiguous (at least if we are only dealing with obece and not their consituant parts): it is the solution used on Slovak Wikipedia, and on English Wikipedia for Czech villages. Still, I am not sure if it would be better to have Blatnica, Martin or Blatnica, Martin District... What do you think? Physchim62 (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I still think that disambiguation to the district level is unnecessary (especially while compared with the cases of some other countries, such as in my US example cited above), but you are absolutely right that redirects are more important than the actual title of the article. In my opinion, Blatnica, Martin District would be definitely more accurate than Blatnica, Martin. Martin is the name of a town, so the current title of the article may suggest that Blatnica is a part of that town, though it s a separate municipality in the Martin District. The title "Blatnica, Martin District" is a clear description where the village is situted. Btw, I forgot to thank you for the ammount of work you have done writing all those articles about districts of Slovakia. Great job! Tankred 10:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Physchim, and thank you ajodisajoidj for your comments in my request for adminship. With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. If you have any issues or comments, please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and while I realise I did not have your support, I will do everything I can to justify the trust others have placed in me! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

NFPA 704

I will not be adding the NFPA 704 images to IMD. I thought that since we have an NFPA 704 template, the images would be pointless. Thanks for proving me wrong. :)

--Evan Robidoux 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Lossy substitution

Where you are substituting {{Spanish comarca}} into articles on the Catalan comarques, you appear to be dropping comarcal coats of arms because they don't fit the template. When you do things like this, could you please at least place the lost image elsewhere on the page, or note the lossiness in the edit summary, or something? You are removing an image from an article, and nothing in your edit summary lets someone easily work that out. Also, fr what it's worth, I notice that the new template provides only the file name as "alt" text for the map. This is not usually considered good in accessibility terms: it can be very hard for a blind person to know what the image is. - Jmabel | Talk 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• {{Spanish comarca}} definitely needs some work doing on it, for example to provide a robust solution to the coats of arms problems: it would be nice as well to have some discussion on comarca (and municipality) coats of arms in the article text (info is available on ca:, as you well know). I will try to fix this before I do any more substitutions (I have only got as far as Cerdanya), although I have the other tables ready offline: on the other hand, I think that the old HTML tables really do need to be fixed... Do we have any information on the copyright status of Spanish public coats of arms, or do they still have to be treated as fairuse? Physchim62 (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• The problem is now fixed. (I hope) Physchim62 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Poyntzpass / Poyntz Pass

You have changed the entry for Poyntzpass to Poyntz Pass. I understand that the NISRA entry had the second incorrect spelling (I have now corrected). Can you please reset the title back to Poyntzpass. I moved to Poyntzpass in 1974 and lived there for 14 years and my parents and brother still live there. The correct spelling, if you following the external links to local sites, you will find the same correct spelling as 'Poyntzpass', just because someone in NISRA decided to change the spelling on their documents does not mean that the vilage has this incorrect spelling.

Thanks

[Trevor McComb] [talk]

• I did the Google search you suggested, and Poyntz Pass is slightly ahead (32,500 hits as opposed to 31,000 for Poyntzpass). The Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland also uses the two-word spelling [8]. As Wikipedia is committed to verifiability, I shall not be changing the title of the page. I suggest you take up the issue with NISRA or with the Armagh City and District Council. Physchim62 (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

hello

I'm just learning about all th userbox controversy of late. do you know of one good central location where I can see comprehensive list of userboxes that have been permanently (or until further notice) deleted? your page is a good one. this one has a big list- some listed there survived. thankz, McKzzFizzer 18:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you there. I haven't had much to do with userboxes for several months. Many were substed directly onto userpages to make them less visible to the community as a whole, a small number have not survived at all, and some have been the subject of longrunning debates at TfD and Deletion Review. Of those which didn't survive at all, the majority were probably the result of trolling, although not all. You might like to ask User:Karmafist, who came up with the compromise which has allowed things to settle down, he might have a better memory than I as to where you might find this sort of information. As for the current situation, if you want to say something about yourself on your userpage that might be controversial, you are better off writing a short paragraph of text to explain yourself rather than placing "This user likes to barbeque six-year old children" (as a random example) in a little coloured box! You should also take a look at the ArbCom case on userboxes... Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

municipalities of Croatia

Please answer my question at Category talk:Municipalities of Croatia before going on to recategorize another few dozen articles... --Joy [shallot] 14:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

retitling for "dab syntax"

What's the point of moving Nin, Croatia to Nin, Zadar County‎ or Obrovac, Croatia to Obrovac, Zadar County when there are no other Nins or Obrovacs in Croatia (at least no other notable ones)? This does not contribute to the disambiguation in any way and only lengthens the title and adds information that is not useful or particularly intricate to the topic, since županija affiliation is not generally used in the name of the villages in Croatia, in cases where it is actually useful, rather the closest city (at dzs.hr you will note "Otok (Vinkovci)" and "Otok" for the two of those). --Joy [shallot] 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Templates for Croatian cities

Why do you feel I wsa blaming you for the infoboxes? I liked a lot your template. The problem is that the infoboxes have the peculiraty the that city of the active entry is represented in bold: if there are other cities names in bold, this will be lost. My advice is to differentiate "grads" and normal cities writing them in different lists, as in some German infoboxes (where there are "free cities" and "municipalities"). Ciao and good work! --Attilios 15:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Your block of User:SPUI

Hi. Your block of User:SPUI has come up as a topic at WP:AN. Jkelly 22:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research

I tried to start a discussion about this article at Talk:Original research but I see you deleted the article again. May I ask what reason you deleted this redirect without a AfD since I don't see a speedy delete reason to justify this action. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a cross namespace redirect (known as XNRs in admin circles) which was blocking a space for what seemed to me to be a perfectly valid encyclopedic topic. Such ("ambiguous") redirects are commonly deleted under WP:SNOW. Physchim62 (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The snowball clause is not a reason to delete an article. As admins, you and I have to follow specific rules when deleting articles. See Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, you should see Under Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects. This does not appear to have been a valid reason for deleting the redirect.--Alabamaboy 14:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you agree to the current compromise. Physchim62 (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I did agree to the compromise. I also hope you will read up on the criteria for speedy delete, which it appears you and other admins did not follow in this situation. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I do try to keep up with developments on CSD, and I hadn't noticed that only redirects to Userpages fall directly within the current definitions. On the other hand, I also keep track of other policy developments; you may remember Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Physchim62 (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sign your comments

Don't forget to sign your comments. This is even more important for closing of policy stuff. --Cyde↔Weys 18:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly several hard slps on the wrist with the Large Wet Haddock. Physchim62 (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Only 10% of images are unfree?

Take a look at the upload log. It shouldn't take much looking to discover that the percentage is closer to the other way around. Jkelly 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my post, many free use images have now been moved to Commons. If you look at images used in pages, most are free: free use images are used much more frequently than fair use images (thank God!). The last survey I saw put the figure as high as 97% of images visible on Wikipedia pages as free use (this figure counts image uses, not image files). In other words, deleting every fair use image (which I don't advocate) would only reduce WP's illustration by 3%. --Physchim62 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

See User_talk:Gmaxwell#Number_of_fair_use_media.3F for some information about where we were in March. I suppose that if we're interested in this question, we would need to do a real database query. I just don't encounter that many articles without unfree content, so it is very hard for me to believe that 97% number. Jkelly 16:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Statistics:

Type	Count
Category:Free images	853215
Category:Fair use images	374304
All images	1376546

See User:Kotepho/reports/Images by copyright status statistics for more information. Commons has around 677 000 media files at the moment. Jkelly 17:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I must have got the wrong end of the stick somewhere then, because my stats came from Gmaxwell. We certainly don´t have 400,000 good reasons to use copyrighted images! It would be interesting to program a bot to do a random sample of a couple of thousand pages to see what the stats for image use look like, although this is beyond my capabilities. Physchim62 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Page moving

Hi, when moving page titles, please remember fixing links (eg Jelsa). Thanks! Cheers, Punkmorten 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I try to, but I obviously missed some on this one... sorry! Physchim62 (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your hard work in adding template information to geographical articles in Europe, you are awarded this barnstar.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked that this is your first.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't worry, I'm not on Wikipedia to make friends (as some of the comments on this page will show!) Thanks for the barnstar, it goes to prove that at few small and simple steps can make a difference to the project! Physchim62 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see a live chemist in Entropy!!

I happened to tune in to WP Entropy the last of June, thinkng that it would welcome the revolution in US first-year university chem (+ Atkins (Oxon.) phys chem) texts that delete 'disorder. The widely published textbook replacement (see http://www.entropysite.com/#whatsnew, scroll to "December 2005) is simple intro to the subject by viewing entropy increase as,usually, the spontaneous dispersal of molec motional energy -- spatially and temporally (the latter in a 'dance' over a greater number of quantized microstates). What a shock (and waste of my last three weeks) to learn that the two total obstacles to any suggestions were pure information 'entropy' specialists whose view was stated by Nonsuch on 2 July:

"My POV is very different. Modern statistical physics and information theory forces us to acknowledge that there is no fundamental difference between thermodynamic and Shannon entropy".

Of course, I challenged him (twice) to cite any chemistry textbook that made or supported such a statement and equally, of course, he has not been able to do so. Then, following up, two or three times I have told the Talk:Entropy of my solution to the old argument (that is now under second review for publication in JChemEduc; should have final response in 4-6 weeks): Thermodynamic entropy increase is a two component concept: In chemistry, it is enabled most commonly by molecules' motional energy, but only actualized if the process provides an increased number of accessible of quantized microstates, a most probable/maximal distribution of energy. The latter is indeed a Shannon probability.

However, the contrast is clear: Thermo entropy is always a two component function -- both necessary, neither sufficient alone: energy PLUS probability of maximal energy distribution. Information 'entropy', the Shannon probability is always only a one component function; the probability alone is both necessary and sufficient. See seminarfor an informal presentation, but profound implication for union of 'positional' (stat mech) entropy and 'thermal' entropy: http://www.entropysite.com/calpoly_talk.html (That latter facet is part of the journal article in process -- and a more profound basic paper by a colleague in process.)

Yes, that last 'solution to the stupid joke of von Neumannn' probably can't be in the WP Entropy until it has been peer-reviewed and published. But the private acceptance by others supports me in believing that it is the ultimate solution that will be accepted by thermodynamicists, if not by information 'entropists'.

As an experienced teacher of beginners, I urge that you consider those who probably will be the largest segment of those who look in WP for "Entropy": young people confused by their texts or inadequate instructors and non-scientists who have seen the word entropy in news reports or their fiction reading. Thus, I hope you will approve: at least a half-page or so of slow entree -- that already-present ice melting example, then (what is conventional in US texts), gas expansion (molecules' motional energy becoming dispersed in a greater volume/additional accessible microstates/ due to denser energy levels in larger volume) and fluid/substance mixing (again, molec. motional energy becoming dispersed, etc., etc.) BEFORE your use of chem reactions (These would be very scary to the naive non-chemist reader without a 'running start' I think.)

I'd like to contribute but sure as hell don't want to labor as much I've already done -- putting something up in the Article and then having it deleted by the self-certified cognoscenti. (They undoubtedly understand high level straight thermo, but never taught youngsters and have abandoned thermo entropy for the fun game of info 'entropy'!)

THANKS for bringing chemistry back to thermo entropy! Best to you, and please -- in your enormous span of work on WP, put some of that aside for your extremely needed aid in making the WP article on Entropy, a treatment of thermodynamic entropy -- what else!!!-- with appropriate refs to other uses of the word :-) FrankLambert 15:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait'll you see how many we agree on!

(If you'd send me email to flambert@att.net, it would be more time-economical and private.)

But 1. I use 'thermodynamic entropy' ALWAYS in the sense of Clausius PLUS B. because that's the only way in which B. referred to his conclusions involving H -- they led to the entropy of HIS day. Of course you can (correctly!)call them statistical, especially when you are showing the identical results from Clausius expansion of a gas to 2V (q/T, calculated from reversible compression of the gas) and contrasting yet correlating B. calcn of Wfinal/Winitial = 2^N, etc., etc. The prime importance of classifying both as 'thermo entropy', an evaluation of a physico-chemical change that involves energy dispersal (I'll come back to this, later!!), is to keep both Clausian and Boltzmannian treatments distinguished from information or any other non-energy-consideration-requiring (!)'entropy'.

2. We absolutely agree that US "thermal entropy" and US "positional entropy" (more dignified as "configurational entropy" are wave and particle (QM) or momentum and location (classic stat mech) are EQUIVALENT. But, are there NO UK or French/Spanish texts for first-year college (your 'upper form'?) youngsters, as our several prominent US texts that have that abominable division into "two entropies"? Describing gas expansion, fluid mixing as "positional entropy" using little squares for larger volumes, etc.? Total distinction from "thermal entropy". (No mention that these squares happen to represent energetic molecules, but no comment about how they GOT to those squares! i.e., no mention of momentum or wave relationship?) Seemingly therefore, NO possible relation to 'thermal entropy'! Stupid. Why haven't a host of thermodynamicists knocked that down years ago?? THAT is what I am yelling about -- the best selling US texts in the past and maybe 2-3 today took/take that approach and I'm just old Don Quixote riding into them after knocking off that absurd 'disorder' windmill :-)

3. Hey! Hold the phone! The ice water example...re-glance at it. It quietly develops the idea of entropy (as q/T) -- NOT telling or requiring you to know ANYTHING about the 'entropy of liquid water' or the 'entropy of ice'! Starting from ground zero, and 'adding some heat' to the system, you are led -- unbeknownst even to a good thermodynamicist! -- to see the power of the entropy concept by realizing that the same amount of 'heat energy' in a hotter (surr)/T is lesser than that energy/T in a cooler (sys). Voila! (My only French but, I hope OK, here :-) ) So if q/T is entropy, it always will be increased by a spontaneous flow from hotter to cooler. Great. Who needs to know the entropy of ice at 273.14 K - or ice water (or surroundings) at 273.16 K? But the reader knows that the system (and the only thing changing in the system is the ice melting to liquid water) has increased its entropy... and student or layperson has seen the power of the entropy concept. (Though they may not be in as much awe of Clausius ingenious ratio as they should be!)

4. Why load the kids with Ficks? I know UK (and French) education is vastly more in- and ex-tensive than US chem but do they really need to be loaded with one more calculation, rather than a qual description..? So, whythell not just get them to think (as I've pleaded 3x-5x with these abstract info 'entropy' types) about thousand mile an hour particles in a LeMans constantly-colliding and undamagedly-bouncing existence that, of COURSE, would result in movement into a vac, into another fluid, etc. (That's component #1, energetic particles. THEN, perhaps much later, tell them about the absolutely essential other component of probable energy distribution, to complete the 'what is entropy, REALLY' explanation :-)

5. PLEASE send me email re the equivalence you mention in your next to last paragraph!

6. Also please challenge me specifically about points re the dispersal of energy as fundamental to understanding entropy change -- the spreading and sharing of energy, spatial and temporal, (the latter neat combo, as Harvey Leff, taught me...!!)

Thx so much for info and for stimulus!! FrankLambert 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Eiffel tower

Hello - thanks for your reply, and thanks a million for forwarding the question to the French copyright pages for me. By what I read there the application of that copyright is rather flou even in France - but I think you are correct as far as international standards are concerned. I think it's best to be sure though, so thanks for your help in this. THEPROMENADER 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the correct reasoning is that the SNTE are asserting a copyright which they don't really have: this is fairly common practice throughout the world! I know that the issue generates quite a bit of discussion in France, so lets see what today's viewpoint is (Champs de Mars, Esplanade des Droits de l'Homme, bateau-mouche sur la Seine...). Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The only answer given to date on the French page is a re-affirmation of the SNTE's affirmation : ) All the same, I would say that the "abnormal trouble" cour de cassation judgement clears away a lot of doubt so far as the picture's publication in France is concerned, and the inapplicability of anything remaining under US law pretty well cleans up the rest. I'm going to wait a couple more days all the same before concluding.

You know, I really get the impression that you are right about the SNTE's inapplicable copyright claim - but thing is, any such claim will remain as long is it is not challenged by law. Thankfully the concept of an 'image content copyright' has been cut down a few notches every time it has passed through the courts - and little is left of it today. Or so it would seem. Anyhow, thanks for the help in this, the clouds of doubt are clearing. THEPROMENADER 09:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the helping hand - I have forwarded the question to User:David.Monniaux as reccommended. Happy vacationing! THEPROMENADER 09:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I should be careful with this image. The more I read the Court of Cassation judgement, the less I feel it can apply in this case. It is argued on the basis of Art 544 of the Code civil, in other word on the general provisions of French Law concerning "property". The petitioners (owners of a hotel in Rouen) did not argue that they held any rights under the Code de la propriété intellectuelle (CPI), merely rights as owners of the physical structure of the hotel. As in most countries, France has distinct rules concerning specific types of property—the CPI is one such set of specific rules, and it confers rights and imposes obligations beyond what is contained in the Code civil. Art 422-1 (check ref) governs the droit de représentation in intellectual property law, and seems to apply here. One must assume that the SNTE has bought the droit de representation from the company which designed the lighting.

The droit de representation has become less absolute in recent years: as I have argued on French Wikipédia, a strict reading of article would effectively prevent the publication of almost any photo of a French city! The strict reading is tempered both by informal arrangements (which architect objects to images of his/her work being published for free?) and by European law. However both Euroepan Union law and interpretations of Art 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights are more concerned with "events" (ie, news) than with ongoing situations: in any case, the provisions and interpretations are only to limit the exercise of the droit de representation, not to abolish it altogether. It would seem to need a drastic change of opinion by the European Court of Human Rights to make an unlicensed image of the illuminations legal in France.

The question remains as to whether these rights could be enforced in the USA. American law does not afford any greater protection to French (or other Berne Convention) works that that enjoyed by American works. The illuminations are freely visible, without charge or other restriction: to what extent is such a work of architecture or such a theatrical performace in USA protected by copyright? The illuminations could be considered to be either.

A fair use claim could certainly be made for some uses of the images, provided that there is sufficient encyclopedic discussion in the relevant articles: to use the image to illustrate Paris does not seems to be fair use, and so is only possible if the image is free of US copyright. Physchim62 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point completely, thank you. In fact it would seem that trying to sort out whether the French law applies in France is almost irrelevent - but while on that note, this copyright claim is 'flou' to say the least, and most likely will remain so until some definite legislation appears on the matter. IMHO this 'trou flou' was very carefully researched before any copyright was even applied for (insert string of expletives here).

So what really counts is if US law covers such a copyright. I've seen examples of architecture being copyrighted (the NY 'flatiron' building, a tree), but never lighting - and again, these cases were far from what one could call clear-cut. I really wish there was somplace we could ask (in Wiki) for a definite answer.

No, the tower picture would only be 'fair use' in an article on the tower itself. Right you are there too.

I'll have yet another look around - but in the meantime, thanks again. THEPROMENADER 16:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: Everything US and copyright is here but I have yet to find anything on lighting - only architecture, and it is certain that the tower itself (structure) is not protected - daytime photos are completely legal. There is also the "audio-visual" angle so researching there too, but nothing yet. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 16:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else is following this discussion, the droit de représentation in French copyright law is CPI Art. 122-2, and the ECHR reference should be to Article 10. Apologies for not checking before posting! Physchim62 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this what you were looking for? Physchim62 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

From 17 U.S.C. 120:

§ 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. — The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

Good lord, yes - that covers the architecture in a nutshell - thanks a million! I have as of yet in the same document been unable to find any stipulation pertaining to the lighting of architecture - only a passage including laser-light diplays (works of art themselves) in a description of "audio-visual" art.

Added - also important is the definitions pages of the US copyright act - both "architecture" and "visual display" are clearly described dedans, and neither make any mention of lighting. THEPROMENADER 18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Added added - moving one step back, also worth examining are articles 106 and 106a - even if lighting of architecture doesn't fall into this category. Perhaps this is digging too deep - but it's best to be sure. THEPROMENADER 18:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just found this:

§ 113. Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works

(a) Subject to the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work in copies under section 106, includes the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise.

(b) This title does not afford, to the owner of copyright in a work that portrays a useful article as such, any greater or lesser rights with respect to the making, distribution, or display of the useful article so portrayed than those afforded to such works under the law, whether title 17 or the common law or statutes of a State, in effect on December 31, 1977, as held applicable and construed by a court in an action brought under this title.

(c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.''

...but in looking at the definitions of the above types of work, lighint falls into none of the categories above. Puzzling. thepromenader 09:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen §113 and decided that it didn't really apply. As I mentioned above, the best comparison apart from architecture would be to a theatrical performance such as a street parade. One of the characteristics of the current lighting is that it glitters, ie it is not static. Other similar events would be the laser light show, or a firework display. I think the problem will be that US law will use a concept of "tacit licence", which could not be transferred to a foreign work: I may be wrong though, I am neither a lawyer, nor American! Physchim62 (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No more stress as the picture is now gone from WP:FPC. I've gone straight to the top in this - I ran off a couple mails to (who seem to be in) the Wiki 'Legal department', and asked one of Wiki's top admins about who I could approach for a clear answer to all this. I hope all your (our) research can serve as an example once this affair reaches its conclusion. Thanks. thepromenader 14:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Before But not again

Evidently the anon IP was not james, but this individual most certianly is: SeparateIssue [9]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I will leave this one to Tony Sidaway as he aware and willing to help. Physchim62 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Thanks for creating articles about Catalan locations! Please do remember to include all interwiki links present in the ca: version. See for instance the diff to Castellgalí. Thanks, Punkmorten 20:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I include the interwikis when I have them, but most of these articles are written offline. YurikBot keeps the Catalan interwikis up to date, so the links will be added fairly soon in any case. Physchim62 (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See this edit for an example. If other users are following this (I see that Rigadoun is doing some cleaning up and article improvement behind me), it would be good to include the Catalan external links when I've not been able to do this. Otherwise, I will do a run through when I'm back in France in September. Physchim62 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I keep my eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/es and it's been nice seeing the Catalan municipalities get filled in, with a nice template to boot! I mostly fill in the interwikis to make sure it gets linked in from es: as there will be new listings generated fairly soon and I want to make sure they're not on the list at that time. I agree it makes sense not to worry about them from your perspective (I think it's easier for me) and YurikBot usually does a good job. Thanks for putting one in, though, as I think that's necessary for the bot to work. Rigadoun (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There are another thirty or so Catalan articles to come, with as many template again for existing articles. Unfortunately, I cannot add the es: wikilinks by hand (I can guess that nl: and it: will have articles on these towns, but hell, YurikBot will get round to it and it doesn't seem as important as having the encyclopedic information available on en). I know that ca: has 100% coverage (though not always with complete sentences...), so as you say adding the Catalan interwiki ensures that the articles don't get lost. Version 1.2 of the template will be coming soon, to take account of geographic coordinates, postcodes and other info which is available and to remove the map-in-place-of-location-map from the bottom. Physchim62 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

SLovakia

Hi you have done a super job on the templates in SLovakia but is it possible you could create on for the Poltár District as this seems to be missing. thanks James Janderson 11:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

{{PD-USSR}}

Hi there! I have pointed out 17 USC 104A (or the URAA) repeatedly... Lupo 10:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that other country-specific templates need looking into, too. That's for later. Anyway, no need to be sorry at all. I'm glad that finally other people knowledgeable in the area of copyright join the debate. See also the discussions over at the commons. Lupo 10:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

{{chembox new}}

Thanks for the reminder and the explanation. I answered on the talk page for the chemboxes. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:IPL-EU

I just thought I'd ask what was your rationale for adding designs to {{IPL-EU}}, as I'm not positive, but I'm fairly sure that they'd fall into one of the others already there, or a mix of them.

I have not removed it, as I just wanted to ask you first, however I have removed the bottom row of articles you added. They were not directly related to the EU, so therefore don't belong there. I'm sure you'll notice most templates of this nature only include links to articles specific to the region in question (in this case the EU) and rarely include links to generic articles (as the ones you added were generic). More specifically, links are usually only added to articles the template is embedded in, and it would be crazy to add {{IPL-EU}} to the list you added. - ^Рэд_хот 15:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, I would support keeping the "See also" section of designs, but would prefer to either merge the links to their most relevant out of the previous 3, or start a general EU "See also" section. Also, I think Design might fall under Patents, no? - ^Рэд_хот 15:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see the problem—the box is too big! Industrial design rights form a specific part of European IP law, and so I added them to reflect that. There is, for example, a Community-wide protection system on the same lines as Community trade marks. I feel that the solution is to split these boxes along the lines of {{Copyright-EU}} with a smaller template for the top level articles. On the other hand, we also need better articles on the main foundations (where they exist, which for various reasons they don't for patents) of EU IP law. I am working on the latter. If you really feel that the box has become too large, then take out the national law links for all categories of IP law (most are red anyway); otherwise lets take another look in a few weeks time. Physchim62 (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Directive 98, etc.

I do believe that you get the award for creating the longest legit title in Wikipedia history.  :) - Lucky 6.9 14:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society is slightly longer (but is a redirect) :) Physchim62 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sant Esteve Sesrovires

Hi I noticed your good work on Sant Esteve Sesrovires. I was wondering if you would consider turning your attention to a quick stub for Sant Feliu de Codines which is currently a red link on a few pages - notably my entry for Enric Miralles - he died there. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sant Esteve Sesrovires is hardly a wonderful article for a number of reasons, notably because I still don't know where to draw the line with Masquefa. Apparently the infobox still has some problems as well, but these are hardly serious given the general lack of info. I will try to do something for Sant Feliu de Codines, although my better sources are in Catalonia whilst I am in Northern France! Physchim62 (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Watching

Hmm...you know, the WikiProject seems to have evolved into something more like a place for resolving editing disputes. Something doesn't feel quite right about it. Note the double meaning intended here. I'd like to help more actively, but I think I'm stretched a bit thinly at the moment. --HappyCamper 18:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Speeches...

Could you take a look at User talk:Lupo#Licencing of suicide notes and speeches? What do you think? Lupo 13:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead(I) peroxide

Interesting name? Can you (admin needed) move this back to its correct home at lead(IV) oxide or lead dioxide, whichever you prefer? Greenwood & Earnshaw (p386) indicate that it usually exists as the lead(IV) compound, though a lead(II) polymorph (a peroxide, presumably) is also known. I really don't think we have a superoxide of otherwise unknown lead(I), do we....! Thanks, Walkerma 23:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In my considered opinion, the former title of this page constituted original research on the part of the editor. Until such time as he or she has produced published, peer-reviewed results indicating that the lead atoms/ions are in the +1 oxidation state (I suggest photoelectron spectroscopy or calculations based on the electron localization function), and that the distance between the two oxygen atoms is of the order of 145 pm (X-ray crystallography should do the trick), I have decided to restore the more normal name of lead dioxide (normal naming rule ofr the p-block), with a redirect from lead(IV) oxide! Physchim62 (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAC for lead(II) nitrate

Yoh, PC, I just put the lead(II) nitrate article up for FA-class. Feel free to contribute your support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

• Hi, PC, thanks for your chipping in to the FA-discussion here. Would you care to put an Support of your own in there? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

Portal:Chemistry

Hey Physchim62, don't worry about this too much if you're busy. But if you've got a spare minute, would you mind taking a look at my sandbox? I've made some proposed additions to the main portal page, and I'd like some feedback on them before I actually launch them (I'm not that bold!) Cheers, riana_dzasta 02:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thallium

I have seen some mention of the idea of radioactive thallium before, if active thallium was used then it would be more difficult to detect in the human body as the chemical concentration would be much lower. What do you think about the idea of active thallium being used to poison spys ?Cadmium

The isotope of thallium used for medical purposes is thallium-201: it has a half-life of 72 hours. Why bother? If you want to kill someone by radiological damage, use something else, notably something which will keep its activity long enough for you to import it into the country where you want to do the killing AND which will be excreted by the body so as not to leave a trace (any person with experience in nuclear medicine can think of a better isotope to use). Radioactive thallium fails on both these counts (it decays to lead, which is not rapidly excreted). Plain and simple rat-poison thallium will do the job just as effectively, and is much simpler. Dr. Henry is an eminent toxicologist, but I get the impression he reads too many spy novels! Physchim62 (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I would say that spy novels are not a good source of data. But I would say that the amount of stable Hg-201 left in the body would be hard to detect if someone was dosed with Tl-201 which had been recently milked from a Tl-201 cow. I think that the use of a "cow" would enable a evildoer to use a shortlived isotope. Tl-201 is a beta+ emitter.Cadmium

Yes, I realised my error in the decay after I logged off, and slapped myself with the large wet haddock (see above, even though this was not a administrative action!) I am still not convinced by the idea of a thallium cow: you still have to import the cow, charge it up just before the poisoning and ensure that it delivers a much higher concentration than it is usually meant to. Are people really suggesting that Litvinenko's poisoners had access to a medical-scale nuclear reactor in the London area? It seems so much more likely that they got the dosing right: most cases of thallium poisoning are either chronic or with a dose which is very much hiogher than is needed to kill the individual. To ingest about 3 grams of thallium in one go is a very rare occurance: usually the patient/victim ingests milligrams or tens of milligrams per day or a larger amount in a single dose. Three grams of thallium is about 0.7 ml of a saturated solution of thallium(I) sulfate. The delay between poisoning and symptoms does not really fit with radiation sickness either... Physchim62 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Polonium 210 (as is speculated on the article page) seems a more likely radiological candidate that thallium 201 (still not the one that I'd use though...)! Physchim62 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Free speech

Just an fyi, the above template is currently under a TFD. IF you want to keep it, you should userfy it. ---J.S (t|c) 20:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Chemical Biology (journal

Could you please speedy delete this redirect which was a typo (no final bracket)? Nothing goes there. Chemical Biology (journal) has now been merged into Royal Society of Chemistry and redirects there. Thanks. --Bduke 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. However, I do wonder about the merges: scientific journal pages serve a valid purpose IMHO, and while I agree that we cannot have pages for all 13000 which are listeed in CASSI a certain number should survive. Maybe this is a point to be raised at WP:Chem. Physchim62 (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. I am not merging journals. "Chemical Biology" is not a journal, in spite of the article name where "(journal)" was added to avoid linking to a redirect to Biochemistry. It is a supplement, added to other RSC journals, that points out key papers and news. The other two, "Chemical Science" and "Chemical Technology" are similar. It is these that have been merged. Note also that the names are very general and lead to other links. I had to play with several links to "Chemical Technology" that really meant, well, technology, not the supplement. Curiously we do not have an article on "Chemical technology". I used the lower case "t" title for the links I found and redirected it to Chemical industry but it is not ideal. As for journals, I have added many of the articles on RSC journals, both Australian journals and many more. I plan to work on more. Note the List of scientific journals in chemistry is much longer than those in other disciplines. I added a lot. I fully support articles on peer review journals, but draw the line at magazines and supplements. They can be mentioned in Society articles, for example, as here with the RSC supplements. --Bduke 22:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Translations

Aren't translations derivative works under U.S. law, and as such copyrightable as they contain original elements (choice of words, phrasing)? See s:Talk:1924 Constitution of the USSR... I have currently two different translations of section IV of the 1961 Fundamentals of the USSR, one by Levitsky, published 1964, and one by Newcity, published 1978. The two English texts differ quite a bit, although they say the same and are both obviously translated from the same Russian source. The differences between these two translations clearly shows that translating allows enough creativity to warrant copyrightability. I have the impression that s:1924 Constitution of the USSR is actually a copyvio... I'd hate to see it deleted, though. Any way to save it? Lupo 23:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Translations are indeed copyrightable. However official translations of Soviet laws do not appear to be subject to Russian copyright (Art. 8 of the 1993 law), and this would override a foreign copyright claim as per Art. 2.4 of the Berne Convention. So to save this text, we need to show that it is an official translation (there are probably one or two around). Works with unknown translators should, as usual, be deleted, IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I think we can treat official translations like the originals as official legislative documents in general, not just in the case of Russia. But showing that something is an official translation is a big problem. Lupo 11:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be wary about applying this argument generally. Translations by the UK government are covered by Crown copyright, translations by the German government are only available under the Panorama-Freiheit. Physchim62 (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama has nothing to do with this question whatsoever. German official documents are PD by virtue of §5 UrHG. But otherwise, you may be right. Lupo 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there appears to be a great number of translated legislative documents listed at s:Wikisource:Legislative documents, which all are candidates for tagging as {{Translator?}}. Lupo 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a question of policy more than anything else. Why I agree with you in general, I don't think these are the most pressing copyvios on WS... Physchim62 (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-US copyrights

Given that a total of two people commented on its talk page other than yourself and me, how can you claim this has consensual support? I'm sure it was advertised in a lot of places, but for whatever reason people weren't interested enough to give feedback. (Radiant) 10:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me a reason why it would not have support? The current section at Wikipedia:Copyrights is obviously limited, both in its coverage and in the space available to it. There is a need to have information available to users, hence my decision to classify it as a guideline, rather than the old policy. Making policy does not have to be a battlefield, sometimes its is just common sense. Physchim62 (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Vic

Please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". A replacement link for the edit you removed wasn't hard to find, but it could easily have been overlooked when you simply removed the old link. - Jmabel | Talk 01:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

To be quite frank, I was more concerned about removing the grossly inaccurate statement (out by a factor of about four) than with the niceties of referencing. Thank-you for finding the archived version all the same. Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Titanium

Yikes - whatever you just did, it's moving the wrong direction. The article had nicely laid out Footnotes and References; now it has information in Footnotes repeated because references were deleted. I'd like to revert to what was there before - the way you've set it up is less than the standard on current FAs, which tend to show repeat refs in References, which individual pages in Footnotes - it was fine before. Hope you understand, Sandy (Talk) 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Errm, "information reapeated"? Precisely once, as there are two seperate references to Emsley's book (one to pp. 451-3 and one to p. 455), justifiable by the number of times it is referred to. Otherwise, the information is with the references, which is the whole point of having inline references. There are no true footnotes in the article as it stands, only references: the previous version split the bibliographic information from the reference tag, which was confusing to say the least. This was commented on the FAC review, which is why I set about tidying things up. Personally, I would prefer a "General references" section for Emsley, Krebs etc. but the FA people insist (in practice) on inline refs throughout. Physchim62 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, well - but we did have Emsley, Krebs, etc. in general references before, with only page numbers to footnotes. It doesn't much matter to me - I'm sick of seeing this article :-) Sandy (Talk) 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)