User talk:Bduke/Archive 5

=Archive from January 24th - June 31st, 2008=

Wow... 42 C in Aust?
Well, it's 21 C in Melbourne, Florida right now, but I'm on vacation in San Francisco, California right now... and it's 8 C here. Good luck with the heat... whew. - Jameson L. Tai  talk ♦ contribs 06:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 43 in Adelaide.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Old AfD
I might be jumping the gun, but I don't see an old AfD tag onthe talk page of Etruscan coins. MBisanz 04:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are right. I forgot. Done now. Thanks. --Bduke (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead(II) nitrate, back to FA?
Hi, Bduke Wim copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. Care to look at the FAC this round? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 18:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Scouting WikiProject in the Signpost
We'll be in the Signpost on Wednesday, 2 Jan about 17:00 UTC, someone noticed us, be sure to read it, many of us get it, read it on my talk page if you like. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

ScoutWiki...
Hi Bduke,

I've left you a message over on the English ScoutWiki, and just thought i'd let you know it was there.

Thanks,

 Bluegoblin  7   20:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/XCritic
Hi Bduke! No consensus? 7 deletes with reasoning; 4 keeps, of which one is SPA, one is the author and one provides reasoning that indicates they haven't read the article. That doesn't look like 'no consensus' to me: it looks like a walkover delete. Would you like to reconsider, rather than have me take this to WP:DRV? Thanks! ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw an increasing number of sources being added as the debate went on, so I'm not prepared to reconsider, particularly as that would change a keep 3 days ago to a delete. If it is to be changed it has to go to Deletion Review given the time lag. --Bduke (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As you wish: An editor has asked for a deletion review of XCritic. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki chapter
Many tHanks for the invitation. I am interested. However, might I ask the benefit by setting up an Australian chapter rather than particupating in the process centrally. I have incorporated many bodies and written many constitutions - so perhaps I can assiSt there. i will gladly answer any question in this regard (AltHough I will be overseas for 2 weeks from next Thursday). Alan Davidson (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!
Dear Bduke, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget . 15:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks on the AfD log
Kudos for having fixed the mess at the AfD log page! I had added a new AfD (California Chess Congress of 1858) but it somehow merged with the following one (Federal monarchy), as this last one was not correcly configured. My knowledge of markups and susbst is too low so I could not see how to fix it, it was driving me mad! Finally I understand the problem was in the AfD itself of Federal monarchy. Many thanks! SyG (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate. --Bduke (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papua New Guinea fixtures and results
Hi, I have started to expand the page - perhaps you would be good enough to revisit Articles for deletion/Papua New Guinea fixtures and results, please? TerriersFan (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!
I just wanted to thank you for all you criticism and editing of the page I created. Although it was eventually merged, I am very thankful that wikipedia has such thorough editors.

Jokermole (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope I helped you to learn some of the ways of wikipedia. Doing the merge yourself was very wise. I have just done I few more bits of cleaning up, avoiding double redirects, etc. --Bduke (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm having some problems. Smokefoot wants to delete the section entirely. Can you possibly help me persuade him that this small section deserves to stay? Jokermole (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page and suggested a rewrite of the section on the talk page of diatomic molecule. --Bduke (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Molecular geometry
To go with your motto of the day, I'm here to request a third opinion. As per request of my chemistry teacher, I built the template for use on the molecular geometry pages. It contains information such as steric number, coordination number, examples, and bond angles. I was directed here by User:Jokermole as User:Smokefoot (the very same) has requested that the infobox is misleading and contains false information and should be deleted. Hybridized orbitals have already been removed from the infobox based on his request (though nobody else "actively discourages" it as he claims). No solid third opinion has been given, although User:Dirac66 posted a critique (whose changes I applied). If you could give a third opinion we could stop quarreling over whether or not we think the information is relevant (it may or may not be relevant, but it is at least correct).&middot;&middot;  TVO talk 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. I will try to give an honest opinion. However, I do have something of a POV on this question as during my career as a chemistry academic I have argued against the use of hybridization in General Chemistry textbooks. However, it turns out that I and others were right, as it is, perhaps more slowly than it should, being removed from these texts. Hybridization was a brilliant idea when Pauling introduced it, but in most cases and in particular for hypervalent molecules, it is simply untrue. sp3d2 hybridization implies a fixed amount of d participation, in this case twice the s participation and 2/3 of the p participation. Highly accurate calculations have shown that the d participation is much less. I would also note that hybridization is not needed in VSEPR. One of the founders of that, Gillespie, has made that quite clear in several places. Therefore I see no need for hybridization to be in the infobox. --Bduke (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your insight. In that case I will remove the hybridization syntax from the pages.&middot;&middot;  TVO talk 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

article and NZ
I've just set a copy up at User:Kintetsubuffalo/press, please feel free to edit coding if it makes reading easier, I'm just going off what they e-mailed me. Hope that helps.

As to NZ, the land area may be large, but they can't have near as many Scouts as the UK, can they? Chris (クリス) (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * May 8, 107 days, but who's counting? ;) Chris (クリス) (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again
Brian- Following my comment on the molecular geometry discussion re Sam Small, let me introduce myself, Len Waterworth. You will not remember me but I was a chemistry student at Lancaster where you lectured on theoretical chemistry. I went on to do a PhD with Ian Worrall. It is good to see that you are still so active, and I am impressed by your contributions article and admin-wise to Wikipedia. Stay well and maybe we will "meet" on Wiki again. regards --Axiosaurus (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding deleting of American Jour...
Hi, I wanted to talk about a page that was deleted off of Wikipedia. The content was incorrect and libelous, and we are guessing was created by a ex-employee. Some of the information posted violates the employee non-disclosure agreement that is legally binding even after the employee left work. I have confirmed that the page was created twice by a single-purpose account: BlueDevil1. Is there any way for you to help me further with this issue? -Vic (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How can I help you further? What help do you want? I thought the sources were adequate but opinion was against me and I have no problem with the deletion of that article. --Bduke (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well actually some of the information on the page was outright wrong, and some of it was personal opinion, so I have no problem with the speedy deletion of the page. In fact, that would have been the end of it had Google not cached the page and caused a PR nightmare earlier today. However, now, we want to see if the user is one of our ex-employees. Is there any way you can help me with that? I would at least like to see what was posted in the Talk section of the article if you can recover that. -Vic (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that this user like others is entitled to privacy. However, I could not help you anyway, as I do not have check user privileges. These are used to determine whether one user is the same as another, so it is highly unlikely that the reasons given above would be accepted as reasons to do a check user on that user. The talk page does not appear to have anything that would help you, so I am not convinced that I should recreate it for you to look at. I strongly suggest that you leave this all well alone. --Bduke (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am as much a privacy advocate as the next man, and I would leave it alone if not for the breach of contract which is forcing my hand. What does the talk page contain? All I want to see is if the allegation is real, and if not, how much trouble this user went to to create a spoof email. Thank you for your replies. -Vic (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As this has legal ramifications, I suggest you don't ask individual admins for this information. Contact the Wikimedia Foundation if you want to pursue this. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chafik charobim.jpg
I would fix it rather than nominating, (I do this often- see Image:Maurice K Goddard.JPG and Image:Maitreya project.jpg for a couple I have done today for instance) but I personally believe that it is being used on rather shakey ground anyway. A painting has an awful lot of commercial value, and the article is not about the painting itself or even the artist, but of the subject. A publicity photo, I would have written one, but a professional portrait by another artist? No, I don't think so. I nominate only when I feel that I wouldn't have uploaded the image myself if I was working on the article- otherwise, I fix. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I will mention the specific details of why I think the image should go if anyone contests the deletion- until then, I just use a generic tag- nobody contests the vast majority, so explaining the whole thing would just be a waste of time. J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Academic Journals
Hi there. Things have gone a bit quiet over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals (I didn't check in for a long time myself). I've started up two new subpages at WikiProject Academic Journals/Images and WikiProject Academic Journals/Scope (please see the talk pages as well), in the hope that this might generate some comment or activity. I've notified three other active contributors, but what about the others on the members list? A newsletter seems overkill at the moment, but is there a way to keep things more active? The weekly collaborations seemed to work well for a while, but maybe a monthly one is better? Carcharoth (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

an, again
Surely replacing "a Sc D" by "an Sc D" as the bot did on George G. Hall is wrong. --Bduke (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian. "Sc. D" is pronounced "ess cee, dee" right? If that's the case then going by the "use 'an' before vowel sounds" rule on A, an is the correct thing to do. Unless, of course, I'm missing something, which is always a possibility. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I do not pronounce abbreviations when I read them, so "a" rather "an" seems natural to me. It would be "a" if the abbreviation was spelled out. --Bduke (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Boy Scout
Hi, I keep re-reading the article and the more I read it the more its presence here seems like a nonsense. Reading through the talk archives I think you have had misgivings too. I have thought about making changes but some editors regard it (and scouting in general) as proprietary. Albatross2147 (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do have misgivings. The problem is that we do not have an international article for the Scout Section and this sort of replaces it, with a focus on the Boy, yet many countries also have girls. There are concerns about the equivalent Guide/Girl Scout article, which is about the girl, but some have boys. It is confusing. I'll try to look at it tomorrow. I'm rather exhausted now and would not be very clear. --Bduke (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In actual fact the article is more or less redundant - a lot of what it says is covered in other articles and seems to be an attempt to claim scouting as a male only activity. (However the photos included do undermine this with girls and young women being clearly visible.) Even the attempt to explicate the article is incomprehensible. What on earth is meant by Some troops are co-educational, for those troops this article is about the girls too.        For girl troops and boy scouts in co-educational troops see: Girl Guide and Girl Scout.'? Albatross2147 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon me if I butt in here. I just raised similar questions about a number of articles that really fail at being "universal."  See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  23:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed. Butt in all you like. That link was what I was going to point out to Albatross2147 last night, but I was close to asleep and the old brain cells were not working too good. I plan to look at it later today. --Bduke (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are quite welcome. I added a laundry list of articles that need to be evaluated.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  23:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good(?) to know that there are others who have similar qualms. Albatross2147 (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue has come up several times within the ScoutingProject and there are many views on it. The problem is that with the various Scout associations being structured so differently around the world, this issue will never go away until all of them are fully coed and hence that subset of articles will never be fully stable nor fully accurate for every Scouting association around the world. Just as one example, some are fully coed, some not at all and some are coed only for specialty programs. User:Kingbird has what I think is an excellent proposal for revamping the Girl Guide/Scout part of the articles. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AJE stuff
Hi there. An IP left a note on my talk page pointing out User talk:DGG. Seems to have been a follow up to User talk:Bduke? As you know (you started the thread), there was also something very brief at ANI: see Administrators' noticeboard/Archive123. Possibly there wasn't anything on the talk page, and I'm sure DGG looked first, but just wanted to make sure things were OK here. I've left a note for DGG as well (see his talk page). I haven't notified Blue1 (see Special:Contributions/Blue1). Do you know what is going on here? Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Missed the following: and . Have left a note for JForget as well. Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Failing any other location, User talk:Carcharoth (started by Jforget) seems as good a place as any to centralise discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue V (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! &mdash; Noetic  Sage  22:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted page
Please don't threaten to block my account over the deleted page. And please don't send any messages if you are going to be rude, thanks. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme
 * I was not threatening and not rude. You had recreated a category that had been deleted after discussion at "User categories for discussion". If you do not do that again, there will be no problem. --Bduke (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong
I think they probably are important, but I'm not sure how to best deal with them. Probably a separate article for their jurnal project is appropriate--it actually is a major initiative. In addition they've been spamming links fairly widely. I've left a note on the usertalk page & reverted most of the additions. DGG (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm happy to help by supporting HKUK and keeping a eye on things. --Bduke (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just realised--I know their university librarian rather well. We had a featured debate at a conference a while ago when he was still at columbia & it did wonders for my reputation :). DGG (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

John Albery disambiguation link
Hi,

Sorry about that, I'm going fellowship blind. It was an academic fellowship, so I've alter the link accordingly. Srpnor (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. That disambig page is a mess though. I was just about to start an IRC meeting about Wikimedia Australia and now i'm off to bed. I'll look tomorrow. --Bduke (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Meetup Connection
Hey Brian. We had a lovely meetup of only four of us, but in the meantime we couldn't get a wireless signal inside the Pancake Manor but otherwise we walked down to Gloria Jeans at 1pm AEST and got a signal; went on IRC but we finished at 1.40pm, 20 minutes before your meetup - I am at home now waiting in #wikimedia-au for you guys. I can also Skype with you guys - add e.wikimedia. Thanks :) &mdash; E  talk 05:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ab initio chemistry
I'm not sure, I don't know much about this topic so don't feel that competent to judge it. The section does however look a bit long to me. I'd also consider removing the phrase "shows clearly the power of ab initio computational chemistry" or tone that down unless we get a very good citation saying that it does that. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. The deletion has been reverted, but not by me. --Bduke (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Roxon
Jeez, I don't know how you manage being an admin at times. What a complete and utter... *must not bite the newbies* Timeshift (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I "hammered on" because he kept coming up with crap about me that was completely untrue. Of course i'm not going to allow his untruths to propagate. Timeshift (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD (second nomination)
I've nominated this article for deletion. It still has no sources besides the book itself, and having got hold of a copy of the book, I find that it actually makes no claims to be derived from an authoritative survey, so I see no notability. Since you've edited the article or participated in the old AfD you might like to comment. As there has been confusion about the book's actual content, I'd be happy to back up all the assertions I've made by Emailing you scans of the relevant pages. Best, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Scout Association naming
It has been a week since I made proposals to cleanup the section names of the Scout Association over at WP:SCOUT. If you don't have any issues, I will make this happen in the next day or so. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you unprotect this page? It was only protected for five days, and it's constantly vandalised by an IP hopping vandal. Will (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP had become a registered user and he was working to a compromise on the talk page. He complained he could not edit. I thought it was fully protected so I removed the protect. He actually could have edited. The dispute raged after I went to sleep, but it was resolved by that user being blocked for 48 hours. The user had a point but was making it extremely badly and did not seem to know what references were. He had agreed to not add "Jewish" to the infobox and he had a reference that Roxon's grandfather was Jewish. He was not really a vandal. His edits were in good faith but very muddled. I hope it is resolved now. --Bduke (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "He was not really a vandal"? Take a look at the page's history. Will (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have. He really thought it was information that should be in the article, but he did not properly support it with references. If Roxon is a practicing Jew then it should be in the article, but we have no evidence that she is. At first, I thought he was adding it as a slur (as indeed someone did by adding "lesbian") but that turned out not to be the case. He really thought that she was and that it should be added. A nuisance, yes; a vandal, I do not think so. --Bduke (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * AGF isn't a suicide pact. The edit summaries in particular and 8RR in 1 hour are bad enough. Will (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pairs of hydronium ions
Hi, I updated Portal:Chemistry/In_the_news and wrote a short Wikinews story on the pairing of hydronium ions found in modeling aq. HCl. I thought it was interesting enough for the general science reader to be interested in, but it's totally outside my field (organic synthesis). Can you check that I didn't make any gaffes, so I can "publish" the Wikinews piece. BTW, I've learnt the hard way, Wikinews stories have to be aimed at the lay reader. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it will be tomorrow. I've just got in after midnight here and have no energy. --Bduke (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I downloaded the JACS paper and had a careful read of it. It is indeed most interesting and it does deserve a news item in my opinion. This sort of work is not what I do, but I have heard enough at various conferences over the years to have a pretty clear idea of what they have done. The work is indeed pretty sound. Of course it would not get into JACS if it was not. You have summarized the finding pretty well. In terms of the language I did wonder  whether wikinews readers might be confused by molar concentrations and whether it would be better to say something like "highly acidic solution with a pH between 0 and 1". Of course pH is not a really useful measure at these concentrations but it might give the idea to readers better. I'm not sure. --Bduke (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I really appreciate it.  I was never that good at P-Chem!  I'll tweak it as you suggest, then I'll watch for feedback (there usually is a flurry of comments when it's posted). Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please deal with GG
Sigh... he just doesn't get it. Timeshift (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories
I'll not argue whether that is correct or not, but must say that if it is it makes the idea of using the categories to find related entries a bit of a farce. I apologise that I misread your edit earlier! Personally I would argue that both associations, and the BBS, should be listed in the parent category for the benefit of users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedCoat (talk • contribs) 11:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I got this wrong myself earlier in my wiki life. It has been discussed many times and the consensus is as I say. If you use the youth organisation category you will see that Scouting in UK is part of it so you go and look there. --Bduke (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Scout Association and Scouting Ireland names
I would like to finish up the renames for The Scout Association and Scouting Ireland when you get a chance. They are listed at WP:SCOUT and we have left off discussion at Talk:Sea Scout (UK). You were the only one with any comments about the SA names and I will go with your decision on this. YIS --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WOSM
The thing is, it already has a disambig page, clearly marked thus, so the acronym should be the redirect, just as it says at the top of the article itself. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well just take out that top comment. If the primacy of one disambiguation is challenged as it is here, I think we move back to a simple disambiguation page. That is what I reverted to. I know that when there is only two, a disambiguation at the top of the article on one of them is possible, but that has been challenged. We simplify it for all concerned. Anyway, mate, I may be wrong. I have just had a lovely family Sunday lunch with several bottles of good Australian Pinot Noir and was only here because the others were taking a break. --Bduke (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again
I hope the incorporation is going well. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. I believe we think alike on many issues, but not in relation to the debate on the Oldest person page. I wanted to add something here rather than on the actual page if that is OK. It is a little off point so I did not want to put it there, but I wanted to explain it. I am writing completely in the spirit of friendly communication - which has been our approach in the past. On an issue also on the oldest people site; I found the GRC to be wrong on some entries regarding age. This is because of leap years and the introduction of the Gregorian calendar (you can see the discussion in the archives). After some discussion I made corrections on the actual page. None one disputed the accuracy of my information and simple calculation (by using a calendar). But, I was in fact editing the source. It was reverted and the incorrect information continues to appear. It was explained to me that as an encyclopedia we use sources - we do not include Original Research, POV or censorship. Many of the points made on the discussion page are fine. But just as I can show that my edit were completely correct, I agree they cannot be included as we rely on the agreed source. This was somewhat frustrating for me at the time - which is partly correctly by footnotes. - I suppose my point is, even though my edits corrected errors and were entirely accurate - they cannot be included. The source is paramount, even if it is wrong.Alan Davidson (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Alan, I am more than happy to discuss sources etc here. I just thought I was swamping that discussion page and did not want to carry on doing that for another 3 weeks. I did suggest the consensus seeking !vote would be for a month. Anyway first, the incorporation. Only this morning our attention was drawn to this that shows our entry has been upgraded to "Pending WMF Approval". This means that the ChapCom has approved our rules and has recommended to the Foundation to approve the Australian Chapter. We should get final conformation soon. I suggest you subscribe to our mailing list. The traffic is not heavy. We are about (I think) to appoint an interim committee and will call a Special Meeting when the Foundation approves. Have you, by the way, had anything to do with the Brisbane bid for Wikimania 2009? I suspect they could do with your wise advice. Now to sources. I do not really disagree with what you say, but I do think it is not quite the mainstream WP view of sources. However this list is complex wrt sources. First, I do not think it matters what columns GRC has in its tables. We should only included a column, if, once it has been challenged, there are sources that says it is important to have it in the article. I do not see such sources. That is crucial. You have not addressed this, You are talking about sources for individual entries. I am talking here about independent sources that say knowing race is important and notable for a list of oldest people. Second, GRC uses a particular set of categories, "W", "B", "O" and "M". This is POV. British sources would split "O". We can not, as you say, pick and choose, but the list currently has. It has picked the GRC categories. Since we have to be NPOV, we either remove the column completely or we have several columns giving the race categories from several different POVs. If we just have one POV, we are giving it undue weight. Given the first point, I think we just delete it. Note I am not saying that there are other sources that say Mrs XX, from India, should be included. GRC is fine for that. To label her race as "O" is just one POV. The Brits would label it "I" for Indian. We can not chose any one so we should choose none of them. BTW, Neal twice removed your retention vote to below the next header because you had not bolded the word "retain" or something. He has not added his vote, but I am taking it that both you and him are voting to retain race. There are 4 editors who want it removing. It has another 25 days to run, but it is running in the direction of consensus to delete. Cheers, Brian. --Bduke (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Greetings. Not that, the GRG's usage of W B and O does not mean we need to use it literally. I would actually rather prefer we use White, Black, etc., then the letters. The GRG did not object to Wikipedia using the term Asian instead of oriental. Neal (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Neal, Greetings. This does not make much sense, in that I do not know what "Not that" refers to. Whether we use "W" or "White" does not matter. It is still the GRC way of defining race categories and hence just one POV. Your last sentence however disturbs me. It really is none of GRC's business to object ot not object to what WP does, and this is just another example of a relationship between GRC and the editors of this list that may be too close for saying GRC is an independent source. The first example was you saying that you were going to ask them to change "H" to "M". We have to be "hands off" with our sources. If not we have a conflict of interest, and the source is not deemed to be independent. --Bduke (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Woops, sorry I meant "Note that." So I guess the real conflict is how we define the Japanese on Wikipedia? They are the only Asians listed. Neal (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

WMA
Many thanks, mate. I saw Sarah dobbed me in!. I am particularly pleased that you gave one to User:Pfctdayelise. She has been driving the intellectual reasons why we need the chapter. --Bduke (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VI (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! &mdash; Delivered on 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Peers who were also baronets
Your views are sought at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baronetcies - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Makeoutclub 2nd AfD
By George, you're right! You can tell I don't venture into DRV land very often — I have used it once in nearly three years at WP, and then only to a restore a long-ago deleted page. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll withdraw this AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A new Oxbridge user box
Bduke...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 17:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Monash University
My apologies for deleting Profb21's comments. My own comments had been deleted by Profb21 prior to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickcoop (talk • contribs) 07:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions about ANI discussion about list of oldest people/race?
Hi Bduke - I see at Talk:List of the verified oldest people that you had some questions about some of the points made in the WP:ANI thread about the race issue. Can I be of assistance in answering these questions? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NT Electorates
You don't own these pages, but you are free to change them yourself. They look like lists to me.--Grahame (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I do not own them, but they are certainly not lists. They are articles about an electorate for the NT Legislative Assembly and because of that they contain a list of members. That does not make them a list. Lists almost always (if not always) have titles like "List of ...". These articles could develop to become featured articles and hence have to start as class=start. They would never become featured lists. --Bduke (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

badge
Thanks, Brian, I missed that, sometimes I tag more quickly than I should so the bots don't get them. Sorry and good catch. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision history of List of countries by formation dates
Would you consider locking an article due to constant edit-warring? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You wrote that just after I took a break from WP. The edit war has calmed down as they are on 3RR and both know the rules. I'm inclined to leave it for a while. --Bduke (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gang Show Scarf
>>Hi, why do you think an image of the scarf of one Gang Show should replace what I think is an image of a more general badge? Could not both be in the article?

I left the other image in the article I just moved it. The scarf is meant to illustrate the concept of a scarf generically not a specific production. I revised the caption a bit. Albatross2147 (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I missed your last edit putting the badge back. I think a photo of the London scarf might be better though, but maybe can not be obtained. --Bduke (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about the LGS scarf but I don't have access to one. In this case I got our grub to turn around as she was on her way to rehearsal and snapped a shot. Why did he do that I hear you say. Well since I started having anything to do with scouts I have realised that we know and understand something of cosa nostra  but outsiders don't. At all. It seems to me that Wp is a good place to start to remedy that. A casual reader would wonder what this scarf thing is all about - the photo is intended to try to explicate that. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobility
Why don't you consider it a valid category?CharltonTillIDie (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there is already a tree of categories under Category:Peers of the United Kingdom. See the CfD discussion. I am still completing that. --Bduke (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

the sydney Journal
Hi there, Just thought I'd drop you, and others from the recent meetup, a line and mention that the first edition of the Dictionary of Sydney's online, peer-reviewed journal is now live.

The Sydney Journal is the first (and most academically rigorous) "product" of the Dictionary. It will be a quarterly publication with a variety of texts from upcoming Dictionary articles and is hosted by UTS E-press. This edition features 4 thematic articles, 6 ethnicities and 5 suburbs - all specifically related to Sydney.

I hope you find it useful and interesting - If nothing else it's essays are eminently referenceable for their corresponding articles here on WP.

Best, Witty Lama 12:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles revisited
Hello, since you commented in Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles, I thought you might like to know that it is again up for discussion at Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles (2nd nomination). Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO
There is an ongoing discussion of a proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO at Wikipedia talk: Notability (academics). Since you have commented in AfD discussions for articles about academics, you may want to participate in the discussion of this merge proposal. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had a look yesterday and agreed almost entirely with your comments. I'll go there today sometime. --Bduke (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Anglo-Catholic Churches
Hi, and thanks for closing the AfD as requrested. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Council roll call
Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30 2008.

Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! )  22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Oxbridge
Hi, I nominated the Oxbridge article for deletion since it reads entirely as WP:OR. The discussion is available here Coldmachine Talk 22:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

John Gilruth
Hi there, I am about to get on a plane for a 5 week OS holiday so I am unable to re-write at this late stage. You can place this article on AfD list. Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lancaster University
Sorry, got confused, I thought I was reverting that sentence myself. Didn't mean to reinstate it. oops.Keymou (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Bduke on Chinese Wikipedia
That user has no contribution in record. However, the usurpation rule has not be finalized there, so you may not be able to get that account, if that's what you want. --Mongol (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is fine. I do not want an account there. --Bduke (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * L...O...L..! Neal (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VII (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! &mdash; Delivered on 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Robert Young
I noticed some edits you made at the WOP WikiProject. I was wondering if you are fully aware of the history here. My post here might help. Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drawing my attention to that talk page. I am aware of some of the history. --Bduke (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Just wanted to make sure of that. My view, as it has been from the beginning, is that the initial block was harsh, and that Young should, at some point, be allowed a second chance. It seems that any appeal will have to wait until the summer, as he is busy with other stuff. Until then, though, I don't want to see people turning him into a byword for original research. It is entirely possible that he has learnt a lesson from all this, and I've too often seen the pattern of a block followed by people feeling that the block means they can say what they like about the person who is blocked, safe in the knowledge that the person who has been blocked cannot defend themselves. My ultimate aim is to see the people knowledgeable about old people and longevity research and tracking, to be able to edit Wikipedia productively. I know some people think Young can't edit Wikipedia productively, but I disagree that this conclusion can be reached until he is given another chance. And there we are. Impasse. I'd be interested to hear what you think. Carcharoth (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

IP 200.222.237.108 pushing fringe quantum topics, geolocates to Brazil. All four edits today have been junk, and been caught and reverted by various people.
Worth keeping an eye on this IP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/200.222.237.108 S B Harris 03:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Maybe you can help me. Long story really, basically I made a few test edits and User:Barneca deemed them vandalism and gave me warnings. I then went to ask him/her directly why exactly I had been given warnings. I said nothing offensive, though I did question his heavy handedness with the warning botton and suggested that a more reasonable admin might have greated a newbie in a somewhat nicer way. I was stunned when my comments resulted in a 24hr block. Now the block is over I have been trying to talk to User:Barneca about the way he deals with people in general on here, and more specificly his ostensible heavy handedness with new editors when he adjudges them to have commited a minor act of vandalism. Unforunately User:Barneca refuses to talk about this with me. I get the impression that he is an admin whose power has gone slightly to his head and it makes me concerned that he/she may scare away new editors, albeit perhaps unitentionally. As such I was wondering what you might suggest I do about this. I just wish User:Barneca would give people the benefit of the doubt more often and be a bit more pleasant in his dealings with non-admins. 79.69.199.112 (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed my mind on a deletion request
Deletion review for Category:User Follyglot

Hi, Bduke, I have asked for a deletion review of Category:User Follyglot. You participated in the original discussion here. So, here's your courtesy pointer.

Thanks!

Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Could you please take a look at this Articles_for_deletion/Ultrafast_shape_recognition Shyamal (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have something against British English?
Please don't revert such edits. You will be blocked. Wwwwwwhatsup (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Duke Brian Salters III
 * It was vandalism and you know it. I note also that you are claiming to be an administrator. That is taken very seriously on wikipedia. I suggest you remove that claim from both you user page and your talk page immediately. --Bduke (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Castle Doctrine. Wwwwwwhatsup (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Franklin Duke SaltBrians

Wwwwwwhatsup
I know you probably would rather another admin handle it since you made the last block, but I'd like to put in a personal request for a block of User:Wwwwwwhatsup for disruption. He's been copying Jayron32's page as his own and marking himself as an admin, when I tried to get him to stop doing so he copied my talk page. No constructive edits since he was unblocked. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, already done after this personal attack . Thanks anyway! Redrocket (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked for being an account used solely for vandalism. -- Longhair\talk 09:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was about to block him myslef and saw you had done so. --Bduke (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. That'll teach me to try & get some sleep- I missed all the excitement! -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Fellows of the Royal Society
Hi, I see you removed "Judith Ann Katherine Howard, crystallographer 2002" that someone added recently, with the edit summary "evidence". I'm not sure where you expected the hapless IP to put this evidence as the article has no visible reference section, and no evidence is provided for any other entry, but here are a couple of refs which took me a couple of milliseconds to find: Aren't we supposed to have a "don't bite the newbies" policy or something? Pterre (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Royal Society
 * Durham University
 * In almost every case, the entry is a link to an article on the Fellow. Redlinks by IPs on this kind of article are more likely to be vandalism than genuine. I was wrong in this case. It was late and I was tired. I should not have bitten the newbie. Individual items on lists of this kind should be referenced if there is no link to an article that references the Fellowship. --Bduke (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, cheers - it's clearer now there is a visible list of references. Pterre (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin Rebellion
Hi Brian, I have started a new article called the Darwin Rebellion. Thought you may be interested, given your Territory background and I would appreciate a second set of eyes to proof read. Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great start. I have just done a little copy editing, mainly spelling. It draw my attention to the fact that we need articles on Darwin High School and Jack Nelson (who has different redlink titles in different places. --Bduke (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian, I would really like to get this article to GA status, so any future help would be appreciated. Having worked on this article for 5 days straight, I'm going to have a break for a few days, but will start an article on 'Darwin High School shortly'. Thanks again and regards, Spy007au (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2008
Delivered May 2008 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 10:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VIII (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! &mdash; Delivered on 21:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Judy Moran
Hi Bduke. I must admit I am a little surprised by your decision at this AfD. Reading your rationale, I'm not sure if you are deleting based on the subject's lack of notability or based on the current state of the article, admittedly poor. If it is because the article is lacking in context, then this is a content issue not a deletion issue. Given that the article contained links to multiple reliable sources independent of the source and each other, I'm not sure how you could come to a decision that the subject does not meet WP:N.

Regardless of my comments at the AfD, I have no strong feelings about the article, which is why, as well as being busy elsewhere, I did not rush to improve it to save it from deletion. Therefore, I have no intention of rescuing it or taking the issue to DRV. It's just that I am genuinely surprised by the decision to delete. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 12:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are sources, but they say that she had two husbands and two sons who were gangsters and were killed. That is all that was in the article when it was created and was all that was in the article when I deleted it. There does not appear to be any encyclopedic material on Judy Moran herself. If someone wants to take it to DRV or recreate it with real content then fine, but nobody has added real content to it yet and I do not see any. --Bduke (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually considering taking it to DRV, but like the above busy with real life situations. Just surprised at what you did? See WP:CONSENSUS as it was pretty plain the community was saying keep. Sure the article needed expanding. I found heaps on her television appearances etc. The article needed work but no reason to delete. I think this one should go to DRV as I see that as a pretty poor admin decision. Is there a chance you may restore the article to save us all the hassle of the process. I'm sure this would be a WP:SNOW at DRV.--Sting au  Buzz Me...   22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there were people saying it should be kept, but I still do not see what the content is that could be added. Nothing new has been added in 9 months. It was nominated for deletion by a longstanding admin who I respect. His reasons for deletion were in no way countered in the discussion. If someone can say what encyclopedic content should be added, I would certainly reconsider. What notable information could be added from her TV appearances? --Bduke (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The nominating admins reasons were clearly countered. She is a part of the whole crime family scenario as was made apparent from the TV interviews with her and the other mother. As a part of the crime family she is clearly notable i.e. "worthy of notice" notability is distinct from fame, importance or popularity per WP:N. Why delete this anyhow? What's an article on Judy Moran going to hurt in the grand wikipedia scheme of things? Is it encyclopedic? Well for wikipedia it is as if someone does a search for Judy Moran, what are they going to find? I believe in the concept of free information and wikipedia gives that to me. I'm more of an inclusionist than a deletionist. I'm thinking (and I tend to speak my mind a bit too much) that you might be being a tad stubborn on this? I guess at sixty eight you are pretty set in your ways? I've just turned fifty and starting to get a bit more like that myself. So I'm probably stubbornly trying to get my point across too? I still think it was a bad call to delete after an AfD that was a clear keep whether you respect the nominator or not. It was true that nothing much had been added to the article during the AfD but that could be due to people seeing all the "keeps" and thinking well I don't need to go to the trouble now do I? I'll tell you what. How about we make a deal? You restore the article as a keep and I'll get to work on it as I find time and try to improve it. If you (or anyone) thinks it not worthy it can always be Afd again?--Sting au  Buzz Me...   23:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, I do not think either of us are being stubborn and age does not come into it. I'm more of an inclusionist than a deletionist too. I am too busy for a while now, but will consider this later. --Bduke (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I hope you restore it. Just to go of on a different tangent. Are you aware that red text box at the bottom of your talk page covers up the replies? Makes it very hard to read the reply unless you go into edit mode.--Sting au  Buzz Me...   00:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just been bold and restored the article per the section of Deletion policy which states that "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately. In such a case, the admin who deleted the page should be informed. However, such undeletions without gaining consensus may be viewed as disruptive, so they should be undertaken with care.". There was a consensus to keep the article at the AfD and I don't think that this deletion was in line with any of the deletion guidelines, as there were no BLP concerns raised. The article was bad and needs a lot of work, but the consensus to keep and existance of reliable sources means that it shouldn't have been deleted. I should add that I voted 'keep' in the AfD, so I perhaps shouldn't have been the admin to overturn this... --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, fair enough, but are you going to ensure that something notable is added to the article, because as far as I can see there is not anything to add. Nothing substantive has been added since the article was created. That is since July 2007, not just while the debate was going on. As you say, the current article is not satisfactory. If it is just a content issue, then add content, but nobody is telling me what content should be added. You say there are reliable sources, but what content is going to be added from those sources? I just do not see there is anything in the sources. This is a problem with WP:N. Yes, she has been noticed, but do these "sources" give us anything to add to the article. So far, this whole process, nomination for AfD, discussion at AfD, my closure, and your recreation, has not done a damn thing to alter anything about the article. There certainly is not a consensus that the article is satisfactory, even as a small stub. I am happy to wash my hands of it all, but I have to say that I think you should have taken it to DRV rather than being bold. --Bduke (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for you to start another AFD or a open a DRV, but lack of content or poor content isn't a reason to delete articles on subjects which have been found to be notable during AfD discussions, and further formal discussions of this seem certain to lead to a keep per WP:SNOW. The challenge is for the editors who voted keep to expand the article. There's nothing wrong per-se with stubs on notable topics and a 9 month old article isn't that old these days. This article needs to be tagged for expansion and brought to the attention of the relevant Wikiprojects. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't thought of the Moran family article either, and I agree that there's a very strong case for the Judy Moran article to be merged into it and then split out later if it gets expanded. regards, Nick Dowling (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes DRV would have been better. Because you (Bduke) as far as I can see have still not admitted you did the wrong thing closing the AfD as a delete. You probably can't see that you have done the wrong thing? If so then we do have a problem. Because I no longer trust you to use the tools you have been granted as an admin. Sorry, but that's just how I feel about it. I thought you might have restored the article (as you hinted) but you never got around to it? Just your whole attitude in this matter seems strange to me. Certainly not how I believe an admin should have acted.--<b style="color:green; font-family:Vladimir Script;">Sting au</b>  Buzz Me...   11:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sting au, please AGF. I said I was busy with other stuff and by the time I had time to think about it all, Nick had restored the article. As I thought about I realized that the content was essentially the same as the Moran family so I suggested a merge. If you think there is good material to add to the article, please do so, but currently it is all about her husbands/partners and sons. Whether it is merged or not, good material, if it exists, can be added. If enough is added it could be forked off, if it does get merged. I would like see opinion from a wider group of editors. --Bduke (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that one bad call, which seems to have been motivated by an intention to enforce WP:BIO rather than any personal agenda, justifies starting the process to remove admin privilages. It's worth noting that admins can over-rule the outcomes of AfD discussions if they believe that keeping the article is a clear breach of policy, though this isn't recomended. Incidently Sting au, if you're concerned about Bduke's actions I don't think that a DRV would have been the appropriate forum to discuss them as these discussions are meant to be focused on whether to restore the article or not - it was my judgement that there was no way that a DRV wouldn't end with the article being restored, so going down this path would be a waste of time. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

TSA articles
Re Talk:The Scout Association. I would like to close this out. I believe the plan was to rename the articles to "xxx Scout County (The Scout Association)". Let me know where we are going here. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  21:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, I have already started this with the only article so far on the new regions in Scotland - South West Scotland Region (The Scout Association). I was hoping to get these done first, but I am having problems finding enough time and nobody in the UK is assisting with anything really. I suggest we go ahead with "xxx Scout County (The Scout Association)" for England and "xxx Scout Area (The Scout Association)" for Wales. I'm inclined to leave the ones for Scotland as they will be replaced by the Region articles. Northern Ireland is different again. Take a look at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 013. All the articles have been flagged for notability. I am inclined to agree with the idea of a single article for Northern Ireland but only on the Scout Association part of it, and merging all the area articles there. Scouts Ireland in NI can have another article. What do you think of that? If you agree, where do we seek consensus or do we just do it? --Bduke (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * England and Wales are done. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  15:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As I have said, and you seem to agree, pages that simply list TSA Groups end up as nothing other than advertising pages. This is, of course, against Wikipedia policy and would result in their deletion. "The problem with widening the UK Scout Association Counties is that these counties and areas are not equivalent to any other county definition in their boundaries, at least in many cases. Doing what you suggest would force SA boundaries on the traditional scout associations."

This shows the problem of using TSA internal counties on an open encyclopedia. It would not be a problem were accepted regional boundaries to be employed. These are valid outside of TSA, and where a regional county is served by two or more TSA counties, they could be listed - along with those divisions of Independent Scout Associations that also serve the regional county.

I have, outside of the Scout Project, recreated a Scouting in Norfolk encyclopedia page which lists all Scouting in the regional county. It contains web links to the regional districts, where they have web pages, so that those interested in Groups can obtain extra information. I plan to add additional information relating to Scout activity in the County of Norfolk as I find evidence for it on the internet (as per Wikipedia policy against first-hand research). Once I have this, I then plan add additional reference material about specific Groups, such as 1st Dereham who were the first Group to open in Norfolk. This would seem to be a valid way to progress county pages if it is decided to retain them.

I am slowly trying to add material to the independent Group pages, but this will take time, especially as all information needs to be properly sourced via web links. I'm avoiding the ScoutWiki at the moment, as I seem to be being kept a bit busy here! :) -- DiverScout (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the place to discuss this is on the Scout Project talk page (note I have not looked there yet this morning - this is my first edit). There Ed is trying to get a consensus on all this that is not specific to one or two countries. I have some sympathy for your view but more for Australia than the UK as everything is organised by States and Territories in Australia. I think some SA Counties in UK cut across administrative counties as those boundaries of course have changed several times in the last few decades, so I do not think your option is viable. Norfolk is one of the few with an exact correspondence between the aministrative County and the SA Scout County (and the traditional County also). The real problem is that there are too many SA Counties. If England followed Scotland and had a fewer number of regions all would be better. I am sure we can make the 11 Scottish Regions into good articles but 31 Areas would not work and has not worked, although only one on the Orkneys has been deleted. Ed has got some good arguments for the changes we have just made, particularly about treating the different Scout organisations fairly in a NPOV manner. --Bduke (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire - June 2008 Newsletter
Delivered June 2008 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add two *'s by your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 11:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Südtiroler Pfadfinderschaft
We need your skills as project mediator here. See "attempted a fix" thread on its talk page and the "jergen" thread on my talk page, not to mention the article's edit war history. 12:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

Semi-Instrumentals
Thanks for straightening me out there. The processes for stuff like this have become amazingly convoluted and difficult to follow. Not signing was just an oversight. Jgm (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sit Back Relax Page
Hello, I created the Sit Back Relax page today, but it was nominated for deletion and has been deleted. Would you be able to send me an e-mail with the contents? Also, would you mind giving me tips on what I can do so that it won't be deleted if I add it again? I feel that it does not display grounds for deletion, and that it is of interest to the community as a whole. Maybe I could put it under the Massage Chair article? What do you think? Thanks a lot for the help! Mike MAP91 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have e-mailed you the contents as requested. The problem with the article is that it makes no attempt to even argue that this company is notable, yet alone giving reliable sources that show it is notable. As it stands, I see no reason to even add information to Massage Chair. Why is one leasing company more important than any other. I also note that Massage Chair has no sources either. If I am wrong, you have to demonstrate importance by finding independent reliable sources. --Bduke (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Thanks for the information. Maybe you are right.  At the time, I thought that this might have been the only company who leased such chairs, but it seems that there are some more.  I guess it isn't that widespread as to be of relevance to the community at large.  Do you have any article suggestions that would be easy for a beginner to write?  I really can't tell which one could be manageable for a beginner from the requested articles page.  My main interest is in the sciences, with meteorology as the front-runner of the category.  I am also very interested in geography.  Thanks for the help!


 * Mike MAP91 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Savanti Romero
This is an article you deleted Jan 9 this year. This is a major character in the TMNT comics. Just deleting the article was not the proper course of action. A summary of th character belongs here and the name should redirect to that spot. Currently, that description is blank. Right above, you can see that his wife Juliet even has a description, which is ridiculous since she is a minor character compared to her. I can understand if the article cannot be moved in its entirety, but some aspect of it should exist on Wikipedia. Outright deleting it is not right. Is there a way to retrieve an archive of what this article was prior to its deletion? This needs to be referenced to add information about Romero to that stub. Tyciol (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted it as an administrator closing a discussion at Articles for deletion/Savanti Romero. While few editors participated it seemed a clear decision. I note that you did not participate. If you want to restore it you should raise it at deletion review. If you want me to e-mail you the content so that you can use part of it on another article, I can do so, if you have e-mail enabled from your account. You should not however just restore the whole article. --Bduke (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't object to the deletion actually, if Simultaneous doesn't get his own article then Romero shouldn't either. It's moreso just that it was deleted without checking to make sure his description back on the list was okay. I'm not going to restore it at all, just redirect the name to where he's listed on the 'list of tmnt chars' article. I'd like to create a description about him but I don't know enough about him to create one. I only have a short description on him from the rpg 'transdimensional tmnt' which is outdated and doesn't include a lot of information about him from mirage comics or the new cartoon series. If you could e-mail me the content that'd be awesome, because then I could read through it and (if it's too big) summarize it a bit and enter it on the list page. It's true I didn't participate in the deletion review, I only just went to look him up now and found no data on him, which was the main issue. Tyciol (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Last version, minus the AfD notice, emailed to you. If you need help to make it a redirect, let me know, but note, I do not have a single clue what this is all about. I have heard of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but that is all. --Bduke (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA review
Hi - just letting you know I really liked your answers in the review so I borrowed heavily! --Matilda talk 01:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. You must have liked it as your response is very like mine. Do you think anything usefull will come of this review? --Bduke (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * :-) Definitely your response said almost all I wanted to say - I was very pleased when I stumbled across it. Not sure if anything will necessarily come of the review but even a pause while people take time out and reflect on the process can't be a bad thing - even if just the individuals who participate reflect. I worry RFA is too stressful.  I recall feeling stressed and I had no hassles - not a single opppose, lots of support,  and one very mild question about a muck-up in the nomination format.  I think your point about admins need to be calm is very important. I could also add in maurity as a criterion but that would be ageist and unpopular I suspect.  Maturity is of course not always a matter of age and calmness expresses the qualities needed better. --Matilda talk 06:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)