User talk:Astrochemist/Archive 1

Frederick George Donnan[edit]

Answered on my talk to continue conversation. -- Dakota 04:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Astrochemist 13:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:EPR methoxymethyl.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:EPR methoxymethyl.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. - Astrochemist 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley grave photo[edit]

Many thanks for the photo (I'm the guy working on the text). Now, exactly which graveyard is it? Labelled Golders Green, but it can't be 1) the Jewish cemetery in Hope Lane, nor 2) the GG Crematorium in Hope Lane -- unless it is just a commemorative stone [he was definitely buried not cremated]. So just possibly East Finchley cemetery [Desmond relates his burial in Finchley]. Perhaps you have an actual address? I like to get things straight, and also I can easily visit once I know where it is.

Ah! I have it!! He was buried in the same grave as his beloved son Noel who died young many years before; and I think his wife was buried there as well. Carved on the tombstone is his wife's poem on Browning's funeral. It is St. Marylebone Cemetery, Finchley, not Golders Green. It is known now by the name of the East Finchley Cemetery and may now by run by the City of Westminster.

The text 'Golders Green' should be deleted and text should read 'St. Marylebone (now East Finchley) Cemetery.' It is important to list both names.

Regards Macdonald-ross 12:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the Huxley-related photo I added. I made the changes to the Huxley article this morning. I'm not sure how I got Golders Green in my mind, but it's been about 20 years since I visited the place. I also remember that Leopold Stokowski, the conductor, is also buried near Huxley. -- I'm also leaving this comment on your user-talk page. Astrochemist 14:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley photos[edit]

I've been thinking about THH photos for some time. Yes, I do think we need two or three more, and they should be in fine condition. For instance, the first two graphics on the Wiki page are not in good condition; I have better versions of both. In fact, I have two originals: 1) of the Ape cartoon and 2) an original Woodburytype print of THH in middle life. Otherwise, as you say, one has to use out-of-copyright plates in published books (UK copyright in photos lasts for 70 years after the death of the 'author' ie photographer). Now to get the best result one has to use a dedicated flatbed scanner (rather than one's mult-purpose printer) and be able to press the original flat on the machine.

My plan is to buy some cheap copies of biogs (not Len Huxley, that's too valuable) and disbind the photos (cut out) That should give a basis. Then rework (eg crop) the image on something like Photoshop. (I have a friend who's a whiz at this). I've been loathe to divert myself from the text, so this is just a mind-experiment so far!

You might like to check the hardback version of Desmond (2 vols) In vol 1 you'll see he has the same photo of 'Young Huxley' as plate 6. It's in better shape that your scan, but it's from exactly the same source. I mention this, not to score points, but to show that the whole process needs attention to get a good result. Note also 'Hawk-eyed Huxley', plate 18. Not that I'm planning to use Desmond as a source, rather a couple of older books with similar plates.

There are also a number of drawings by THH, some rather good.

Macdonald-ross 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danzig (Gdańsk), Poland[edit]

Hello Astrochemist, On Talk: Edmund Halley I added a few maps of Prussia[1] with (Freie Stadt) Danzig, (a Free City, a city republic, city state). I am greatly saddened by the unacceptable ramblings made by Space Cadet. Despite his constantly ongoing reverts, which he himself stated 'he does it, when he has nothing better to do', I still had a glimmer of hope, that reasoning and facts might eventually get through to him. Something came up and for at least the next several months it is very important for my health to have pleasant surroundings. I will therefore have to stay away from negativity, from Wikipedia spitefulness, vicious attacks and deliberate suppressions of factual history, in other words, no Wikipedia. I just wanted to let you know. 75.7. Ainan 1 July 2007

Hi, Astro!
I was of course not serious, when I stated I had nothing better to do, but I guess sarcasm is a foreign language to some people. I'm really sorry about Ainan's health, but interpreting old maps on one's own is Original research, and he was instructed to avoid it by other Wikipedians many times. He was unable to produce any current historical maps prepared by modern historians (even German), representing our knowledge about those times and supporting his theories. I am not negative but just share my knowledge with others. Sorry to bore you with Polish-German (or should I say patriot-revisionist) controversies and happy editing! Space Cadet 21:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to drop by and suggest that you could upload your free images to Wikimedia Commons, where they can be used in all Wikimedia projects. Cheers! Reinis^talk 21:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! - Astrochemist 23:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Janssen[edit]

Please, could anyone give me the right division (and row/number) of the grave of Jules Janssen at Père Lachaise. Last year I searched for one hour and could'nt find him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.83.4 (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Janssen is buried very close to François Arago. Enter the cemetery through the main gate from Blvd de Menilmontant (at the bottom of the hill, near the restrooms) and walk straight ahead along the main path. Keep looking on the right-hand side. Janssen and Arago will be there. - Astrochemist 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cavendish experiment[edit]

Hi, I'm Chetvorno, we've both been working on Cavendish experiment. I felt with our efforts the article was really coming together, so I nominated it for Good article status. I didn't think they'd get to it so quick, but yesterday the GA reviewer left a note that he'd begun the review (see talk page).

Sorry I haven't answered the 2 notes you left on the talk page yet. I like some of your changes, but I need to consider them more.

One of the criteria for GA status is a stable article, so what do you think about putting off changes to the article until the reviewer finishes? It should just be a few days. I know the article has my version of the first sentences, which you disagree with, but I'd just like to see what the reviewer thinks about them. Afterwards I wouldn't object to changing them. We could even present both versions to the reviewer and see what he thinks. After he posts the review, if it doesn't pass, we have a week to address his criticisms.

BTW, just wanted to say I liked the rewrite you did of the experiment's description around Sept. 5.

Regards, --Chetvorno 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make additional changes, but I now see that the reviewer left a lot of comments. Do you plan to re-edit the article? -- Astrochemist 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R W Fox FRS[edit]

Thanks for the clean-up. I hope to add more about the Dipping Needle, noting its practical application in Polar Exploration. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above. I'm afraid that I've about exhausted my knowledge of Fox (from the USA), so you more-local guys will have to make up for my ignorance. Maybe I can work on the format of the references or keep snooping for a public-domain photograph. -- I'll also leave this message on your own talk page to be sure you see it. - Astrochemist (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've done well from so far away! DuncanHill (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions. I live near Falmouth and have access to a number of resources, so hope to do a bit more. The Royal Cornwall Polytechnic Society is celebrating its 175th birthday next year, so I hope for some local collaborators. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent comment on Talk:Caroline Fox. Hope you come across Barclay Fox's journal somewhere. It's very entertaining. Wendy Monk's selection from Caroline's journal is also a good read. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} —Preceding comment was added at 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the refs. Duncan Hill found an amusing account of his daughter, Anna Maria Fox's trip to Montreal and Philadelpia in 1884. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 08:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the portrait. I hope my changes to the article are improvements. Sorry about the gravestone. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 22:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

On 28 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Josiah Parsons Cooke, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

On 8 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Helen Abbott Michael, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies[edit]

It is good that somebody is also interested in the biographies of scientists! I added several biographys and most of them need a look from somebody else! Zincke, Gerischer, Zintl, Auwers, Huisgen, Folin, Ruff, Reformatsky, Griess, Elderfield, Nef, Villiger, Liebermann, Henneberg, Rosenmund , Erlenmeyer, Arndt, Eistert, Beckmann, Favorskii, Paternò‎, Chugaev. Thanks --Stone (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above. I recognize some of those people, but know little about them. I'll try to look at your articles and contribute what I can. -- By the way, there may be material on the German Wikipedia that will be useful for some of the English articles I've created, such as those on Adolph Strecker, Karl Weltzien‎, and Ludwig Wilhelmy. (Unfortunately, mein Deutsche ist schlecht.) -- Keep up the good work! - Astrochemist (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added also somethings to Ernst Otto Beckmann!--Stone (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Wikipedia?[edit]

COMMENT FROM AN APPRECIATIVE READER: I understand your sentiments and in fact I have the same sentiments myself. It's also true, however, that I benefit from Wikipedia several times a week as a user. So do millions of others. So do you, probably. The "everyone is equally qualified to edit" attitude will kill Wikipedia only if too many of the people like you give up on it. With the aim of getting you to stay, or at least to come back intermittently, I ask that you quit being a policeman. Let others do that. It takes less knowledge and skill to do police work than to add new content. I suggest you remove from your watchlist the pages prone to crap edits and trust that most of the crap will be undone sooner or later by somebody else, while you work constructively, not defensively. But, yeah, I know why you're pissed off. Totally separate matter: I just made changes to the biography of the chemist Adair Crawford‎ (1748 - 1795) and I'd be pleased if you would edit it. - Seanwal111111 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above. I did work on the Adair Crawford page earlier this week. I wonder if a picture of the man is available. - Astrochemist (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skip[edit]

Hi,

We have a RfC regarding skip. As you have come across him before I was wondering if you would be able to add some comments? Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Skipsievert 130.239.156.94 Isenhand (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above and the Josiah Willard Gibbs article and discussion page, the individual you mentioned seemed to have a tendency toward endless reverts and the citing of http://www.technocracy.org as opposed to relying on hard, respected, published scholarly materials. From what I could tell, he/she simply argued about what I suggested on the Gibbs talk page, as opposed to doing the research on Gibbs, finding solid, supporting references, and so forth. My interpretation, perhaps wrong, was that there was less interest in compromise, than in promoting a particular opinion. Given all of this, and a finite amount of time I have for Wikipedia, I felt that there was nothing for me to do but leave. -- I'm neither a Wiki-holic nor a Wiki-expert, but I have been active around 2 years and am approaching 2,000 edits, mostly related to science and its history. In that time I've only had one bad experience on Wikipedia. Guess which one. -- Let's hope all can be resolved amicably. Astrochemist (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, spot on. We have had problems with him for years. There is a second request for comments, could I ask you to cut and past what you said above onto those two pages, and hopefully something will be done about skip. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Technocracy_movement_2

Isenhand (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole business sounds so contentious that I'd rather stay away from it. A link to my comments here already has been added to the above page, and that should be enough to let others read of my brief experience. I have no special authority (e.g., administrator rights) to effect change, so I'd prefer to stay with other Wikipedia activities. -- And for the record, I know little of modern-day technocracy movements. - Astrochemist (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hooke article[edit]

Thanks for the protection you added to the Robert Hooke article. In mid-February I spent some major, quality time rewriting essentially all parts of the article, only to see it beaten to death by vandals since then. That's not a situation that makes me want to devote time to this project, and certainly not to that particular article. So again, thanks for your help. - Astrochemist (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It happened to a few I've done myself. Don't know why these kids single this one out. Don't let them deter you. -- Alexf⁴² 10:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrochemist, do you fancy collaborating on the Hooke article? I have Margaret Espinasse's old copy of Gunther, left to me by my father, and some other sources. Gunther includes reproductions of many of Hooke's papers, including Micrographia and Animadversions upon Hevelius' Machina Caelestis. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a book to have! Last month I contributed a lot of time toward improving every section of the Robert Hooke article, and so I'm not sure I have that much more to add. I'll be glad to do what I can. I am particularly interested in adding good references for new and old material. -- And thanks for your own contributions. According to this page there were over 25,000 views of Hooke's Wikipedia article in March, 2008. - Astrochemist (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar![edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		Keep up the good work. Hopefully Wikipedia can figure out ways to screen out the negative effects of easy participation without losing the benefits, before you decide to leave.--ragesoss (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above! - Astrochemist (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the message - it is appreciated. I'll try to reply more fully at some point, right now I'll just say that it is very hard for someone who appreciates both good science and good manners to operate on Wikipedia at the moment. Certain self-appointed guardians of science have managed to behave so badly for so long, either through abuse or sockpuppetry or whatever, that they have actually undermined Wikipedia's ability to deal with pseudoscience and all its associated nonsense effectively. Anyway, thank you again for the message, I do hope to contribute more at some point, and I am glad to see you contributing. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks again . . .[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to William Babington (physician) and, previously, to RW Fox. How civilised you are! Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 14:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

isaac newton[edit]

hello! i restored the edits i made to the footers that i'm assuming you inadvertently deleted. -- emerson7 00:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS! Thanks for catching it. Sometimes I wonder if anyone reads this stuff! I'll continue working on the format for the references in the Isaac Newton article as time permits. - Astrochemist (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need people like you in wikipedia[edit]

I have just read that you want to leave wikipedia. Don't give up. I understand perfectly what you mean. Maybe you are just trying to take on too much. There is people who likes creating, and there is people who likes patrolling. For example, this vandalization lasted for less than one minute.

Sometimes vandals focus on one article. In this case, you can always ask an administrator to block it temporarily. Usually it works.

If you don't like patrolling, don't do it, somebody will do it for you sooner or later. Wikipedia is huge, you will be overwhelmed if you don't leave something for other people! That's the good and the bad side of teamwork. But don't stop creating! What would this be if nobody created anything? Think of it as gardening: you plant some trees, then they grow and somebody has to prune the bad parts... That doesn't mean you have to look after them 24/7. But we need somebody who plants the trees. Thanks for your great job. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully. But if you give up patrolling, please don't give up photographs of scientists and diagrams. They do make such a difference! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron comment[edit]

Thanks for your reference to the free neutron article, but I got off the quark theory when they started subdividing the charge of the electron. And I believe in Lucretius in that nothing can be created from nothing or decay to nothing, and I dont have a concept of energy without matter. WFPMWFPM (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC). SeeTalk:Nuclear Model WFPMWFPM (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Faraday[edit]

Hi Astrochemist.

"Thoughts on Ray Vibrations", Philosophical Magazine, May 1846

does appear in Experimental Researches in Chemistry and Physics (one of Faraday's collections of papers). Thus, what would you think about starting a list under Experimental Researches in Chemistry and Physics of notable articles published by Faraday? For the fact that Faraday published in Philosophical Magazine and what he published definitely adds to the main article.

Sincerely, --Firefly322 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the tardiness in my response. My first thought is that a list of some representative papers is a good idea, particularly if the list has full citations (titles, dates, etc.). My second thought is that the list should focus on examples of Faraday's main work, as opposed to topics on which he published little. My third thought is that you should post the above suggestion on the Faraday discussion page to see what others, particularly regularly-contributing editors, think. Good luck! -- Astrochemist (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thomas Huxley grave.jpg[edit]

Hi Astrochemist. I have moved this image to Commons. Where is the grave? Would you be able to geocode the image, or give me the coordinates (see WP:Geocoding and/or commons:commons:geocoding. Richard001 (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the image. I don't know the coordinates, but the grave is located in "St. Marylebone (now East Finchley) Cemetery" in London, according to Macdonald-ross. - Astrochemist (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bohuslav Brauner[edit]

Thanks for your help! Created him and Jan Hendrik de Boer because of some progress in the wiki project elements. --Stone (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've checked a few discoverers of elements, but my Wikipedia time has been very limited of late. I'll take a look at Jan Hendrik de Boer soon to see if there's anything I can add. As always, thanks for your comments. - Astrochemist (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on Alfred Lee Loomis[edit]

Thanks for the cleaner citations. I left them sloppy last night because I was working late, and tiredly thought "better to have something sloppy than no source support at all." Thanks also for finding and supplying that photo. I noticed that group photo before, and could also see that the Tuxedo Park cover was problematic under WP:NFURG. However, I don't know Wikipedia image management at all well, so I'm just as glad to leave such issues to someone more expert, like you.

The article currently seems to be based almost entirely on one book (Tuxedo Park), which is undoubtedly a pretty good source but shoudn't be taken the last word on the subject. Also, some of the recent edits were apparently exaggerations of claims made in the book, where they weren't simply fabrications, so I think this article should be watched closely.

The question of credit where it's due is particularly important with Loomis, I believe. His grateful beneficiaries seem to give him slightly more credit than his proper share (perhaps by analogy to principal investigators in academia and R&D, who often get publication credit on research they were critical in funding, but didn't actually perform). When I wrote Aberdeen Chronograph I wasn't sure whether it should be called "Loomis Chronograph"; it seems Loomis had a lot of help from others at Aberdeen. Then I discovered there was another instrument, co-invented later, also sometimes called "Loomis Chronograph", operating on different principles and for different purposes, but also very possibly the fruit of a joint effort. That settled it for me: the article became "Aberdeen Chronograph".

Loomis had his fingers in a lot of pies. None other than Luis Alvarez esteemed him a serious scientist, no dilettante. However, it appears he was mainly a co-inventor or co-discoverer on most counts. And that makes me think the photo you supply is more appropriate for this article than its predecessor (cover of Tuxedo Park, featuring Loomis alone). As a scientist and a technologist, Loomis was a good, competent collaborator capable of flashes of insight and genuine ingenuity. Even if he hadn't been been rich and well-connected, he might still somehow have become notable enough as an inventor or scientist to qualify for a Wikipedia bio. As a deep-pockets sponsor, instigator, organizer, coach, confidant and cheerleader, he nucleated centers of collaboration, but wasn't necessarily central to the scientific and technological results. It's really the combination that makes his story unusually interesting. Still, considering the article as a scientist biography, one major area of improvement might be to link him more to other, more prominent figures. Yakushima (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your extensive comments above. Perhaps the fact that Loomis did so much with high-profile collaborators can somehow be worked into the introduction. Pardon my brief response, but I really don't know all that much about Loomis. I'll check in on the article, but I hope that you and others can take the lead on it. Best wishes. - Astrochemist (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Loomis[edit]

Thank you for uploading the picture of Elias Loomis and the editorial revisions. A picture is worth a thousand words. I agree with your observations on vandalism, if Wikipedia fails to take action the vandals are going to render the Wikipedia concept useless.

I became interested in solar super flares after I read a highly inaccurate NASA news report earlier this year of the Carrington Super Flare. After doing a little fact checking, I realized that the Key Observatory had automatic self-recording magnetographs which made a complete magnetic record of the two super flares on August 28, 1859 and September 2, 1859. I was then struck by the realization this technology should not have existed in 1859 and that my education was sadly lacking. As I started following the trail of breadcrumbs, I found that I had to create or expand Wikipedia pages, which included Elias Loomis’ page.

I have to confess that I am a bit annoyed by the 2006 paper of Shea and Smart because they make the subtle accusation that Elias Loomis was not the author of the eight papers attributed to him. In his obituary it is very clear the work was compiled at the direct request of Joseph Henry first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and peers such as Balfour Stewart and Hubert Newton considered him the author and/or editor.

I would like your advice on a source document issue. I ordered the following paper by Balfour Stewart from the University of Edinburgh library and had it scanned ($$$) to a PDF file, which I subsequently uploaded to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BAssoc1859pp200-228.pdf

I am getting some wiki-flack that this is not an image file and I should not have uploaded it. What is the best way to make such a document publicly available in Wikipedia? To the best of my knowledge this is the only existing copy outside of Edinburgh. There is a badly degraded paper copy in the USA but it is in such poor condition that the library refused to scan it for me. The write-up the technology is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_registration_of_instruments_by_photography

Michael Ronayne (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above comments. I was about to write you just before they were posted, to suggest that a new Wikipedia article be created. What is now in the Elias Loomis article is some standard biographical information and references and a large amount on a geomagnetic storm. The latter information is so great that it overwhelms the main subject of the article. Moreover, the information you've already gathered is more-or-less buried in this article on an obscure (in 2008) American astronomer. Could a new article be started on just the geomagnetic storm itself? It looks like you have plenty of material. -- Regarding your question, I don't know how or if Wikipedia archives old copies of public-domain journal articles. You might try asking at the Village Pump page. -- Astrochemist (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing abstract from ncbi/pubmed[edit]

Hi Astrochemist, regarding your comment about William_Gregory_(chemist), you're right, the initial article was a copy from the abstract of the original paper. But the abstract belongs to the public domain. See this entry in FriendFeed (about copying this abstract in general and a message from "The Royal Society of Medicine")http://friendfeed.com/e/0795d1b5-cb91-d6ce-d9eb-01eeb12b4752/an-abstract-of-an-article-Is-it-in-the-public/. :-) --Plindenbaum (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! If it's in the public domain then let's put it back in. I've just now added quite a few references for you, me, or anyone else wanting to fill out the article. -- Astrochemist (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]