User talk:Physchim62

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

→Archive 2005

→Archive 2006

Contents 1 barnstar 2 Glad to see a live chemist in Entropy!! 3 Wait'll you see how many we agree on! 4 Eiffel tower 5 Wrong Before But not again 6 Interwiki 7 SLovakia 8 {{PD-USSR}} 9 {{chembox new}} 10 Template:IPL-EU 11 Directive 98, etc. 12 Sant Esteve Sesrovires 13 Watching 14 Speeches... 15 Lead(I) peroxide 16 WP:FAC for lead(II) nitrate 17 Portal:Chemistry 18 Thallium 19 Template:Free speech 20 Chemical Biology (journal 21 Translations 22 Non-US copyrights

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wrong Before But not again

Evidently the anon IP was not james, but this individual most certianly is: SeparateIssue [1]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] {{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)

[edit] {{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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)