User talk:Bduke/Archive 12

Reverting articles about mathematics
I ran into the Table of spherical harmonics containing a typo at the spherical harmonics of l=2 (namely, the normalization factor of Yz2). I found among other edits your latest revert, which undid a correction made by an anonymous user, thus reverting to an erroneous state. Please stop automatically undoing edits to articles about mathematics without checking the credibility of the edit. I know that anonymous edits can not be trusted in general, but irresponsible reverts are just as dangerous as uncredible edits. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudandras (talk • contribs)


 * I will continue, as a responsible wikipedia editor and administrator, to revert edits that are not supported by reliable sources, particularly when the material has stood for a long time. Changes of "2" to "4" by IP editors with no reason given are exactly what vandals do. There was no reason to know that the IP editor was not a vandal. The credibility of the edit is the responsibility of the editor making the change explaining it by an edit summery. Your later edit was fine because it came with an edit summary. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul Dirac
I suggest semi-protection. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Good idea. Done. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Element Stability charts
Considering your interest in chemistry, I invite you to look at the Talk:Isotopes of lead article where I tried to point out the cognizant advantages of viewing the reported stability data of the wikipedia stability charts in a graphic format, which points out the most important aspects of the data as well as any trend data inconsistencies. This was deleted as being part of a "fringe theory" concerning some Real Physical Model Images that I had created of the atomic nuclei in an article I had also created. Since I really think that these "Element stability profile" charts are helpful in understanding the nuclear stability characteristic of the isotopes of an element as a whole, I wonder if you know a way for this information can be permitted to be added to the element isotopic data information.WFPM (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. I am not going to get into this mess. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry too that you can't see the merits of an Element stability profile chart. So thanks for your attention.WFPM (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bendigo workshop 2013
Can you help? Wikimedia Australia will be holding an introductory training day for editing Wikipedia and related projects. With support from La Trobe University and Bendigo Community Health Services, it is for health information professionals across the region. It will also be open to other information community groups as well (regional historic societies, librarians and the like). The workshop is on Thursday, February 21, at Latrobe University Bendigo. If you can help, please contact Leighblackall or Peterdownunder, or register directly at the Wikimedia page.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexuality Section
I wanted it where it was so I moved it back here.

I suggest that you take your concerns about the sexuality section on the article on B-P to the talk page of that article. If you just keep adding it, you will be blocked from editing and it will be reverted. However, you are not going to get consensus because your addition is not supported by sources. You are just making it up yourself. Getting that section as it now is was hard work with a lot of people contributing. It will not be easy to get consensus to change it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It is customary to reply on your talk page, as I have it on my watch list, so I have moved it back here.

I really didn't appriciate the commentary that follows:

"I suggest that you take your concerns about the sexuality section on the article on B-P to the talk page of that article. If you just keep adding it, you will be blocked from editing and it will be reverted. However, you are not going to get consensus because your addition is not supported by sources. You are just making it up yourself. Getting that section as it now is was hard work with a lot of people contributing. It will not be easy to get consensus to change it. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)"

You ALLOWED to edit the Wikipedia. Telling me I will be blocked simply for editing because you don't care for the content is not appropriate. Admins are not supposed to make threats of this nature. If I break the rules, then block me, until then, stop the threats. 76.118.130.14 (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I was not making a threat and I was not speaking as an admin. I was simply telling you how the place works. I think you added that sentence more than once and it was removed. This will continue, because the conclusion is not supported by a source. It is not that I do not like it. It is that it is against policy. Any editor who continues to edit war faces the fact that they will be blocked. It has been clear for several years that changes to that section only happen after extensive discussion on the articles talk page. I actually hope that you learn to work in a cooperative way and help us expend articles on Scouting topics.-- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You WERE making a threat...that's what threatening to block IS. It is not against policy. I'm not edit warring. I adding something, you removed it without comment, that's actually vandalism, which is against wiki rules. I am working co-operatitivly. 76.118.130.14 (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you actually look at the history. I have never reverted you. My last edit to that article was on November 10, 2012. While this was going on, you have added it twice and been reverted twice by different editors. In total you have added it 4 times and been reverted by 4 different editors and warned by one other editor as well as by myself. You have described those editors as vandals. The rules are clear. All material without sources can be challenged. You have not given a source for your conclusion and it has been challenged, so if you really do want to work cooperatively, you now discuss it on the talk page. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I did look at the history. You claimed you were not involved with content editing on the Baden-Powell page, you clearly were.  You said you had never threatened to block me, you had.  A "warning" that a non-admin is going to block me from editing, is simply put, a threat, both inappropriate and meaningless.  Now, what you did, in blocking me for reverting vandalism, i.e., removal of relevant information without discussion or comment, that IS a rules violation, and as an administrator, you should know better.  I'll be back as soon as the block is off. a day,  week a month, a year...however long it takes...I'm tired of self-serving wikilawyers destroying what could be a worthwhile project.  -- 76/118/130/14  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.71.29 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier I hope you come back and edit in a productive manner. However, you are still not getting it. You were blocked because you did too many reverts. See the three revert rule. You had added material which was removed by several editors. Please read about the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold. Good. You were reverted. You should have moved on to discuss it on the talk page. You did not and continued to add the same material. It was reverted by several editors, not me until I reverted at the same time as blocking you to stop the edit war. Your edit was described as original research and I told you it was unsourced. Let me explain this. Your edit was "Therefore, there is no compelling reason to believe Baden-Powell was anything other than heterosexual". It starts with "Therefore". You are drawing a conclusion from the material above. That is original research. WP does not allow original research. So all these editors were perfectly right to remove your sentence. You describe it as relevant information, but it is not information. It is a conclusion that is not supported by the sources given in that section. What I did is not the issue. If I had not blocked you, someone else would have. However, I did not claim that I was not involved with content editing on the Baden-Powell page. Of course I have been. You added your material at one point with the edit summary "reverting vandalism Bduke". But it had been removed by User:DiverScout, not by me. I noticed his edit and thought it might be useful to explain things to you on your talk page. Have you read the biography of B-P by Jeal? On the talk page here, I added only last month a link to a recent discussion of this topic in the NY Times. B-P's sexuality was discussed first, I believe in "Eminent Edwardians". See this Amazon review. That is not mentioned in the article, because several editors thought it did not support its conclusions well, while Jeal deals with it in much more depth with more care. Many Scout people are upset by this section. Some come along and delete the whole section, but it is always quickly restored. It has to be discussed in his WP article, but it has been very difficult to get it right. Any change will need the same care many editors gave to it earlier. If you interested in Scouting articles on WP, you will find some good editors at the WikiProject Scouting -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Move page
Can you help me with redirecting Kition (ancient state) to Kition? There is only one notable Kiteon. (The first title was previously an incorrect redirect to the city of Larnaka.) --The long road homw (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. you copied the content to Kition which you should not have done. I deleted it make way for move and then moved Kition (ancient state) to Kition. You now need to look at "What links here" and do some cleaning up. Good luck. I'm off to bed here in Australia. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationalisation
Bduke: I'm curious about why the use of the Scouts Australia logo on Glossary_of_Australian_Scouting_terms cannot claim a fair use rationalisation; isn't it simply using a corporate logo for identification purposes, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCI ? Is this because the logo incorporates a trademark symbol? Or for some other reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldshield (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I admit that I am not an expert on licenses for images, but the copyright for this image clearly is held by Scouts Australia. If you look at the image file itself, you will see that there is a justification of fair use for the article on Scouts Australia. It is obviously reasonable to illustrate an article on Scouts Australia with the log for Scouts Australia. Anything else is pushing it and I note that the image is not used on any other article including Joey Scouts (Australia), Scouts (Australia), Venturer Scouts (Australia) and Rovers (Australia). I think the people who really know about images will object to its use on anything other than Scouts Australia. I suggest you accept that. Could you please sign your posts on talk pages with ~ ? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Orbital hybridisation of hypervalent molecules
I've read from the orbital hybridisation talk page, after I overhauled it, that you intended to re-write the orbital hybridisation section on hypervalent molecules, so I thought you could give some input. I didn't personally read the 1994 paper by Cooper (although Dirac66 did and gave a short explanation on them in the article) but from another paper published on Elsevier's Computational and Theoretical Chemistry Cooper used a general notation describing hybrids on such compounds as A(spx-like)+X(p) where A is the central atom and X is the ligand atom. I've tried to interpret that (could be very very erroneous, I'm not sure. Original Research probably) to get a systematic notation where the "missing" hybrid orbitals are "topped up" by the ligand orbitals and hence resulting in nonbonding character, which seems like what Cooper has been trying to say when the central atom's hybrids are delocalized over the ligand atoms to form more linearly independent hybrids than can be afforded by the central atom's orbitals alone. However, I think we need more knowledge on the matter as we are still somewhat confused now on what Cooper was trying to refer to and hence cannot come up with a sure systematic notation to describe hybrids on such molecules as Cooper didn't come up with a systematic notation. Could you help? Thank you very much.--Officer781 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I did not reply to this earlier and even now I really do not have the time to deal with it in a way that it deserves. First, I want to stress that the spin coupled method that Cooper uses always has VB orbitals that are not restricted to basis functions (which you might call atomic orbitals, although Cooper and I might take issue with that) on a single atom, so "ligand" functions always mix with functions on the "central atom". This is the case as much in methane as it is in SFn. Second, I want to stress that this is still contentious in that some VB people think that only basis functions/atomic orbitals on one centre should be used for each VB orbital. However, it is certainly not new, and it should be dealt with on wikipedia. This is not easy. I guess I have a conflict of interest as I agree with Cooper and not with what I (and he) consider to be an old-fashioned belief in "local" orbitals. If I find time, I will take a really good look at the articles you are working on, but it may be a while. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Women's College, University of Sydney for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Women's College, University of Sydney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Women's College, University of Sydney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A Dad Oyster Utters (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Wesley College, University of Sydney for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wesley College, University of Sydney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Wesley College, University of Sydney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A Dad Oyster Utters (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

question about spin-coupled theory
Because wikipedia doesn't have this information about spin-coupled theory, and out of curiosity, I thought maybe I'd like to ask this. If spin-coupled theory is based on a single orbital configuration, how does it model the three-electron bond (oxygen, nitric oxide, etc) and aromatic rings such as furan (Eg. for Benzene it consists of six singly-occupied orbitals, so that one is fine)?--Officer781 (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * SC is based on a single orbital product, but that is multiplied by a sum of different spin terms, which for example for benzene are the spin terms for the two Kekule and three Dewar structures, so it is not a single configuration. SC theory always uses n orbitals for n electrons, so furan probably has two orbitals that are mostly on the nitrogen. I think it has been studied but I can not recall whether those two orbitals are either side of the O atom or both symmetric on the O atom with one more diffuse than the other. I can look it up for you if you want. Problems however really arise for something like the symmetric ring cyclopendiadienyl anion (C5H5-) and here I have a conflict of interest as I am one of 4 authors of a paper that develops an extension of SC that uses 5 orbitals here for the 6 electrons. See Peter B. Karadakov, David L. Cooper, Brian J. Duke, and Jiabo Li, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 116, 7238 - 7244, 2012. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you. I am also now curious, how does spin-coupled theory model excited states? For molecular orbital theory, this is straightforward with an excitation of an electron to an unoccupied orbital, say, an antibonding one. For spin-coupled theory, how would it say, model a hydrogen molecule excited state (1 antibonding electron) and the excited states of say, methane (1 antibonding electron in either an s-orbital or a p-orbital)?--Officer781 (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With difficulty is I think the answer. SC is mainly about ground states where it does a much better job than MO. Sorry, I can not say more. I am a bit unwell and exhausted. I fly overseas in less than 2 days. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you very much. Take care and all the best for whatever you're doing. Bon Voyage.--Officer781 (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Three-center four-electron bond
An article that you have been involved in editing, Three-center four-electron bond, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Officer781 (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoops
Sorry for removing the tags. I thought you remove them when you're done spell checking through different types of English. Gaz and Gaming Fan (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about nitrogen dioxide
I presume you're tired and taking a break now but I have this burning question to ask. No rush. Nitrogen dioxide has a "radical bond" separate from the delocalized 3c-4e out of plane pi bond and the sigma bond system. Traditionally this "radical bond" is described as resonance between a lone pair and a three-electron bond (which is itself composed of two resonance structures). However, on close inspection, two of the resonance structures are the same (the one putting the single electron on the nitrogen atom), hence resulting in three resonance structures where a three-electron bond cannot (strictly speaking) be discerned. The "Pauling resonance" picture, which always puts the three-electron bond opposite the double bond, may not be the only resonance structures as theoretically the three-electron bond can be placed together with the double bond (ie the "radical bond" can be treated separately from the pi bonding system). So should the nitrogen dioxide "3c-5e" bond be considered as a case on its own rather than the "three-electron bond resonance" picture? Sorry if this question might sound philosophical in nature.--Officer781 (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Strictly localized valence bond hypervalent hybrid orbital description
In light of my recent edits to update the orbital hybridisation article to currency, do you by any chance know of the strictly localized hybrid orbital description for hypervalent molecules, such as the Breathing Orbital Valence Bond (BOVB) description? Want to see if the strictly localized description offers a more simplified (but also consistent, for example in allowing the s orbital to bond with all five bonds in PF5) explanation.--Officer781 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. but I am on holiday in Europe, and while I get on WP sometimes, I have no time to think about your question or the one above. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  15:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Localized molecular orbitals talk page
See Talk:Localized molecular orbitals. I've added a comment there. --Officer781 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied.--Officer781 (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Irreducible representations
I was wondering if you've taught group theory for chemists -- specifically what it is that makes finding irreducible so important.

A new article has recently been created (or is in process of being created), Symmetry in quantum mechanics. The lead author is open that there is a long way that it needs to go yet. The key missing link (I think) is presentation of what's sometimes called Wigner's theorem, linking the degeneracy and transformations of eigenstates of linear operators to the irreducible representations of their symmetry groups.

I made a few comments on the author's talk page User_talk:Maschen, and he's also started gathering some material for an article on irreps User:Maschen/irrep; but I think a steer on how irreps are used in chemistry -- symmetrised basis sets, etc -- and their overall significance might be useful.

Not sure how closely this matches your background, but I thought it was worth a shot. All best, Jheald (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have taught group theory for chemists but a long time ago and at a level that is very different from what you are trying to do with these articles. I have largely given up editing articles that have some connection to physical or theoretical chemistry as they are dominated by physicists who make the articles far to complicated without even a simple introduction for chemists. These articles are essentially quite useless for chemistry students unless they are already doing a Ph D in a specialist area and even then they go far further than they need and in a language that is also foreign to them. I am still doing some quantum chemistry calculations and group theory is useful, but it is long time since I have thought seriously about irreducible representations. The "bible" for chemists on group theory is still "Chemical applications of Group Theory" by F. Albert Cotton, even though my edition (the 1st) is now 60 years old. I agree that "a steer on how irreps are used in chemistry -- symmetrised basis sets, etc -- and their overall significance might be useful", but I really find it hard to see how it would fit in with what is already there. Then I suspect that, if I did spent a lot of time doing it, it would be deleted on the grounds that I was oversimplifying or just plain wrong. I am not really sure I can help, and I am rather busy at present. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  07:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thanks. Jheald (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI
PantherLeapord (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
It's a Fox! (What did I break) 23:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

can you move that to his talkpage?
I'd really like to keep the discussion there, and it's not my map.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

WOSM map
I've brought the discussion over to the Talk:List_of_World_Organization_of_the_Scout_Movement_members page. FYI--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Variable Hybridization
Talk: Variable Hybridization. Need you there at the talk page for a little help. Thanks!--Officer781 (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565403028 your edit] to Entropy (energy dispersal) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. To explain to non-bots, I added a correct closing bracket, but did not remove an incorrect one. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikis in Australian Aboriginal languages
Hello, Bduke. I just want to tell you, as you were interested in australian aboriginal wikis, that two test wikis of pitjantjatjara language exist and there is also a test in Torres Strait Creole. Here are the links of the aboriginal wikis: Pitjantjatjara Wikipedia, Pitjantjatjara Wiktionary.--Biol. Cons. (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Bduke. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

FRSN
Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk page
This edit was reverted with no explanation. This is a valid communciation from me to Headbomb. It especially pertains to WikiProject Academic Journals. Also, I doubt very much you are allowed to revert an edit on another editor's talk page, unless it is blatant vandalism. I assume the appropriate guidance can be found at WP:TALK. I am going to assume this was a mistake and I am reverting your edit. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was indeed a mistake. I do not know how I did it. Many apologies. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Oz KT
You're the first person to express an opinion AND explain it. Thank you! However, please take care - you risk getting a reputation for being polite, thoughtful, reasonable, and rational. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (P.S. I have no problem with your argument; my problem is: Who is going to take responsibility for maintaining the post-noms template? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC))

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin
Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at AN. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The County College, Lancaster
Hello Bduke. Do you know if County College ever had the nickname "the piano tuners" and an informal logo to match? I visited a long time ago and may have remembered it completely wrongly. Maybe it was Bowland, or maybe nowhere. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never heard of that but I have been completely away from the College apart from odd brief visits since 1983 and was away from 1976 to 1981 also. Even if we had a source, is it notable? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

List of islands
The prod was made with good faith, however it really should involve discussion - hopefully that might happen... satusuro 23:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept it was in good faith, but a quick deletion will not assist splitting it into separate articles. Why not just split it and leave the current article as just a set of links to the new articles? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=587155691 your edit] to World Scout Moot may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Australian Report on 14th Rover Scout Moot] The next one will be in Ulfljotsvatn, Iceland in 2017.

Size consistency
The third paragraph of the size consistency page needs to be removed. The model like HF, MBPT and CC are size-extensive not size consistent, size-consistency has to do with the description of the PES and is therefore system dependent. For example RHF is not size consistent in the case of the dissociation of H2, and therefore all post HF methods like MP, MBPT and CC are not size consistent in this case neither. Take a look at this page where it is clearly explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lablopoque (talk • contribs) 13:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the different uses of the term "size consistency" and the more recent use of the term "size extensivity", although I had not seen your reference to Dan Crawford's page. However, we have to apply the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. You seem to be new on wikipedia, so I will try to quickly raise some, but not all, issues that we have to address. First, even Dan's page talks about different uses of the term "size consistency" and describes Peter Taylor's reference as a recent change in useage. We have to explain that the term has been used, and is used, in different ways. Second, reference 3 in that paragraph has ""size consistency"" in its title. We have to follow the sources. Third, we have to use reliable sources, and Dan Crawford's page does not meet our guidelines in that respect, although I note of course that you have not added it to the article. I suggest you try to tidy up the article by addressing the various uses and confusions of different uses. I am too busy to work through all the references. We might have to address changing the title (what we call a move on wikipedia) to "Size consistency and size extensivity" or even, to make it even clearer, "Size consistency and size extensivity in quantum chemistry". I know Peter Taylor quite well and bump into him some times when I visit Melbourne University, which I do weekly. He might welcome a discussion of this article over coffee as a change from his now administrative duties. Finally, a few other tips for you. You sign comments on talk pages with ~ (4 tildas). You do not sign edits to articles. When you add a reference to a talk page, you have to check that it dispays. I added here (see below) to ensure that it does display. I will make a reference to this discussion on Talk:size consistency. I hope you stay working on wikipedia and enjoy it. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  20:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer and for the tips about wikipedia. I am indeed new on wikipedia. Regarding the different usage of size consistency, I think we should clarify like Dan Crawford did on his notes. "Though these terms are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, there are very important distinctions to be made between them." We should not talk about size consistency to describe the differences between CC and truncated CI even if many people did (e.g. Modern Quantum Chemistry by A. Szabo and N. S. Ostlund).
 * "NO, most emphatically, NO!". We can not do that, as people clearly did talk about size consistency to describe the differences between CC and truncated CI. When I was briefly in Schaefer's group in 1990, the group did a lot of CI calculations. We often did runs with two fragments 1000A apart to ensure what we then called "size consistency". I do not think I heard of size extensivity until much later. I think "size extensivity" was introduced later and we need to find out when. I will email Dan Crawford. He will probably know. He was with Schaefer after I was there but we have talked at conferences. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  21:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about reference 3, but it seems that (again) they used size-consistency when they meant size-extensivity.
 * Do you have a source that says they meant "size-extensivity"? Without a source we can say that. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a page where I can see the guidelines for sources on wikipedia?
 * There are several links in the welcome banner I added to you talk page, but you should also look at WP:RS if those links do not get you there. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Finally I agree that the title of the page has to be change and the content modified, I will try to work on it. Lablopoque (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I will move the page when I have time. I do not think we need to propose it anywhere. I will be bold.
 * I think we can use the modern terminology, but we have to go on to say that what is now called "size-extensivity" was earlier called "size consistency", but both have to be sourced correctly. The earlier usage is sourced, although they could be improved, but we need a source about the first use of the term "size-extensivity". -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have moved the page and changed all the redirects to redirect directly to the new title. We can discuss moving to a different title later if that is needed. I was wrong above about "size extensivity" being new. It seems it was introduced by Bartlett in 1981, so I will not pursue that point. I have made a few changes to the article. We need to address why the two terms were used in different and confusing ways in the past, why Szabo and Ostland appear to only use "size consistency", and why a reference uses one term in its title when it seems the other term should have been used. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes, it's much better now. I took a look at ref. 3 and it seems that they do talk about size consistency, they also used the term size-extensivity in the introduction in the right context. I am not familiar with multi-reference MP theory but there are still some parts of the article that look confusing to me. Anyway I think the reference to this article is technical and not so important and I suggest we remove it from the page. In my opinion the confusion between size consistency and size extensivity comes from the fact that they can be formulated in the same way. The only thing is that when one talk about non-interacting systems in the context of size extensivity it implies that the Hamiltonian of the full system should be separable into the Hamiltonian of the subsystems which is not the case when one looks at dissociation curves.Lablopoque (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Greens Infobox
Can you please help me. I tried to but the Greens' political position as Left to Far Left, however HiLo48 reverted my edit and told me to go on the talk page, which I did. I provided my argument and my evidence in support of putting the Greens' political position as Left to Far Left. The user then reverted my comments for no reason, after I had discussed it on the talk page like he asked, and is now threatening to block me. All I'm trying to do is put a more accurate summary of the Greens so users can get the best experience when using wikipedia. Please tell me what I have done wrong and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours and that is against the rules. I also do not think that you have read the long previous discussions about this. There is a strong consensus to keep the infobox simple. "Green politics" covers being left-wing. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

PP's edits
Just to make sure that my response to your message does not get lost, here is the core message again, because I would really like to hear your response:
 * !) When is enough enough? Review borane. So in terms of your advice of "educating PP", that experiment has been tried, repeatedly.
 * 2) He has been reprimanded/banned for disruptive editing of chemboxes, nomenclature, categories.
 * 3) Now look at PP's very recent edits of cyclopentadienyl:
 * "The 2λ3-propane-1,2,3-triyl-1,3-diylidene group (⩾CC(R)C⪕) in 1λ3-cycloalk-2-(di)enes such as cyclopentadienyl can accept or donate a single electron by association:
 * + R →
 * Because of this acceptance or donation of the electron, cyclopentadienyl has radical character. It is a highly reactive monoradical. Its functional group is cyclopenta-2,4-dien-1-yl ."

The implication from your message could be that PP is subject some sort of persecution whereas I see the situation in reverse: we have a recalcitrant editor who has a long record of mediocre or disruptive edits.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think that he is subject some sort of persecution. I agree that he is a pest. However, I want to engage him. However, his reply is not addressing any of the issues you and others have raised, so it is not helpful. I disagree with you about the paragraph above on the cyclopentadienyl radical. As it stands it is unacceptable, but I think the article should discuss the radical as well as the anion, so why not just improve it rather than delete it? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article should probably discuss the radical as well as the anion. My version included that aspect as indicated here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyclopentadienyl&oldid=607164082.  In any case, hope springs eternal so you are encouraged to engage him and collaborate on the articles that interest him.  Thanks for the note.  --Smokefoot (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Titanium hydride
I'm giving you a chance to discuss your grievance with the editing of Titanium hydride on its talk page. If you do not use this chance to solve the issue, and continue with such unconstructive reversions, I will have no choice but to take this to WP:ANI. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In re PP edit controversy
…see interspersed italic comments, and final proposal at. Written at the time, and just discovered as not posted. Cheers, and respect your involvement. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bt.
Just a heads up. I have restored the anon editors restoration of the removal of Bt. from Baden Powell. For somewhat technical reasons surrounding the origin of Bt as an abbreviation not post nominal it is never used after peerages - since it is a qualifier of 'Sir'. As such official sources cease to use it upon the creation of a peerage. See -v-  immediately either side of the creation or a contemporary example like The Duke of Westminster Garlicplanting (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

ORCID
Hi,

If you have an ORCID identifier, please add it to your user page, using Authority control. See WP:ORCID for help. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Chemical physics
Hi, Bduke! I've seen that you've contributed to chemical physics article. I ask to comment on the isssue of difference between physics and chemical physics on one hand and on the difference between chemical physics and physical chemistry on the other hand. I've seen somewhere a discussion on the delimitation between physics and chemical physics/chemistry and as a consequence of this delimitation (if a strict delimitation is possible) whether wikisources from chemical physics are allowed to be used for articles pertaining to pure physics.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no strict delimitation between chemical physics and physical chemistry. For example, I and many of my colleagues have published in both the Journal of Physical Chemistry, published by the American Chemical Society (ACS), and the Journal of Chemical Physics, published by the American Physical Society (JPS). Indeed I have had papers rejected by one and accepted with no change by the other, in both directions, without understanding why they were inappropriate to one and appropriate to the other. My first degree and doctoral degree are in Chemistry yet I was once a member of JPC but have never been a member of ACS, although I belong to the British and Australian Chemical Societies. People with a doctorate in chemical physics from a physics department and people with a doctorate from a chemistry department in physical chemistry or theoretical chemistry can be working together on the same problem. On your final point, there should be no ban on the use chemical physics sources for articles on physics. Such a restriction would be nonsense and imposable to enforce. Do you have an example where you think a chemical physics source is inappropriate? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. I do not know personally any chemical physics source that is inappropriate/factual inaccurate. Nevertheless, I've heard some rumours about some wikipedians complaining about Peter Atkins's treatise on physical chemistry being (inappropiately?) used s source in pure physics articles instead of pure physics sources. This use of Atkins source was considered by some (wikipedians?) as a sort of attempt to confiscate the domain of a base academic discipline (physics) by a hybride academic discipline (physical chemistry/chemical physics), this substitution (base by hybride) of sources' domain on Wikipedia being unallowable, according to some opinions. I wanted to check these allegations but I didn't know where (on wikipedia) to look for.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from now. Yes, some people have complained about the book by Atkins being used as a source in some articles on thermodynamics. I disagree that these articles are pure physics articles. They are certainly not read only by readers wanting to know about physics. They are read also by readers who want to know about chemistry and engineering. I have taught thermodynamics as part of courses on physical chemistry to chemistry students and they do not understand the pure view of some physicists. Some of the articles on thermodynamics are classic examples of wikipedia articles that are only understood by the people who write them and are almost totally useless for readers. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  19:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you give a link to some of those discussions? I think that such views of pure/base disciplines are an effect of focusing too much on dividing the knowledge in boxes of academic disciplines, boxes with walls (quasi)impermeable to the transfer of information.
 * I want to ask if you know some other wikipedians who share your and my views on the uselessness of wikiarticles based on the misleading impression of pure disciplines. Knowing some wikipedians would be useful in order to avoid the possible accusation of marginal views.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One more aspect I want to mention. This uselessnes of artificial division (a phrase from the first pages of Journal of Chemical Physics) between disciplines I think it is well attested in sources like many journals having two disciplines in their names such Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids, Chem Phys Chem and the like.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought you already had knowledge of discussions about this, otherwise why did you raise it? I thought you were referring to the discussion at Talk:Entropy (energy dispersal). Perhaps you could point me to some links that got you concerned about this issue. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  19:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The comments about Atkins have informally been brought to my attention, but not specific links. I had no knowledge of this particular entropy link that you've mentioned. I raised the topic because I saw recently on another language wikipedia this type of reasoning on the (strict) delimitation of disciplines. I think it should be countered.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have also noticed your similar comments on talk:quantum chemistry.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Request
I open a new section here on your talk page. I've noticed on User:David R. Ingham a list of research articles written by him. I have a request from you: Could you put on your user page a similar list of articles?--188.26.22.131 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I prefer to keep a little distance between my wikipedia life and my scientific life. However I am clear who I am on my user page. A search on my name will find my web page which links to a list of my publications. You can find it easily. On the other hand, while I am open about who I am, I have no idea who you are. Please use the wikipedia email from my user page to tell me something about yourself. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Quantum chemical applications
I open another section on your talk page. It concerns the application of quantum chemistry to the estimation of molecular properties of various compounds. Are you aware of any such (semi-empirical) applications directed specifically on activity coefficients determination?--188.26.22.131 (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am rather rusty on semi-empirical applications these days, so I can not recall anything. It is not something I have worked on anyway even with ab initio methods. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)