User talk:Bduke/Archive 8

Beer style
As I think I've explained in the past, the waves of reversions are not edit warring; they are instead reversions of a serial sockpuppeteer. --Killing Vector (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it is protected in the version you want, so let us leave it like that and maybe they will either explain what they on about or go away. They may be socks, but they are putting the BJCP point of view what ever that is, so maybe they will explain it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been going on for months and months now. No meaningful communication, just an outbreak of linkspamming every few weeks. --Killing Vector (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read the LTA entry relevant to this article. --Killing Vector (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

IAMC
Dear Bduke,

as president of the Academy I have the full rights to publish the letter of presentation of the Academy. I'm fully responsible for this. What do you mean with "The list of officers would be easily acceptable if laid out differently."

all the best RTode —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTode (talk • contribs) 09:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You may the full rights to publish the letter, but read what it says below the edit box:
 * "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and the Text of the GNU Free Documentation License."

Are you agreeing to release the material under one of those licenses? This means that any other editor can alter the information. Note that small quotes are acceptable, but yours was far too long. The list - just lay it out so it is not a copy of your web pages. Copyright is complicated. You need to understand our licensing. I do think you can do what you did and moreover if you do understand our licenses, I do not think you will want to. Must rush. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  09:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. RTode (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Motto of the Day
Hi there, Bduke! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –p joe f (talk • contribs) 12:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviving a long dead little project
Dear Bduke...Last October you stopped by Lady Aleena/User Oxbridge and left some encouragement though you thought it abandoned, which it mostly was. However, if you think that it is still worthwhile, I will start in on it again and hopefully get it up and running for all Oxford and Cambridge students to use. What do you think? LA If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 03:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Beer style
Hi Bduke. An admin has removed the content that was agreed on during the discussions on the talk page. Since you protected the page can you either lift the protection or reverse the edit please. Admins shouldn't be allowed to just barge in and enforce the own agenda when other editors can't edit the page. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Link is blacklisted, due to Widespread disruption, abuse of multiple accounts, spam and much more to numerous to mention. See - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam / MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist / Sockpuppet investigations/Bjcplinkstays/Archive / Sockpuppet_investigations/Jojojohnson2/Archive. My edit was cleanup, wasn't even aware the page was locked. Feel free to unlock page Bduke, as any discussions for inclusion are now void per BLOCK, and WP:ELNEVER #2. MediaWiki's code will automatically block any edits that contain such links. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems this is just one admin that has decided to blacklist the link. Links should only be classified as spam if they are invalid in all contexts on Wikipedia, and this clearly isn't the case with an authoritative beer organisation.  I've asked for the decision to be reviewed because this is a decision made solely by one admin and is being enforced by the same admin. Looks agenda driven to me. Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the Admin Noticeboard and have changed the protection to semi-protection. I do not see any admin abuse here. I do see a mass of socks and other inappropriate behaviour. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you so much, Bduke, for the kindness and consideration of making me a part of the dialogue on History of quantum mechanics. Please see my comments in that discussion. Lottamiata (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

deletion of update to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic_Proceedings
We noticed that our entry on Wikipedia was merely a stub. Ann Sullivan, Executive Editor, and Dr. Kimberly McGhee, Managing Editor, of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, expanded the entry based on verifiable facts, many of which are available on our Web site. The Web site is copyrighted by Mayo Foundation for Education and Research, which our journal is a part of. We're not sure why all the information was deleted and why incorrect information was added. For example, our impact factor is 4.811, not 3.811, whihc you added during wikifying. We have since tried to correct this error and a few grammatical errors. The date of publication is 1926 but you added 1929. All these were correct on our Web site and on the update we provided, and we really need accurate information on Wikipedia.

We did copy the About the Journal information from our Web site, which we thought was appropriate since we wrote that section. However, we can reword the information but would rather not take the time if it will be deleted again. As the journal in question, are we allowed to provide an introduction to the journal or will that automatically be deleted as COI? Is it acceptable to link to other journals published by our publisher? Is it OK to add the affiliations of our Editorial Board?

Because we discovered through Google Analytics that 250 readers are accessing our site through Wikipedia, having information on this site is important to us. We understand that anyone can edit the page, but do not understand why we cannot provide verifiable facts about the journal, especially to correct errors.

Can you give us some parameters? There is so much information regarding why a page could be deleted, that it is difficult to find what is relevant to our deletion.

Regards, Ann Sullivan, Executive Editor, and Dr. Kimberly McGhee, Managing Editor, Mayo Clinc Proceedings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayoclinicproceedings (talk • contribs) 15:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

deletion of update to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic_Proceedings
We noticed that our entry on Wikipedia was merely a stub. Ann Sullivan, Executive Editor, and Dr. Kimberly McGhee, Managing Editor, of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, expanded the entry based on verifiable facts, many of which are available on our Web site. The Web site is copyrighted by Mayo Foundation for Education and Research, which our journal is a part of. We're not sure why all the information was deleted and why incorrect information was added. For example, our impact factor is 4.811, not 3.811, whihc you added during wikifying. We have since tried to correct this error and a few grammatical errors. The date of publication is 1926 but you added 1929. All these were correct on our Web site and on the update we provided, and we really need accurate information on Wikipedia.

We did copy the About the Journal information from our Web site, which we thought was appropriate since we wrote that section. However, we can reword the information but would rather not take the time if it will be deleted again. As the journal in question, are we allowed to provide an introduction to the journal or will that automatically be deleted as COI? Is it acceptable to link to other journals published by our publisher? Is it OK to add the affiliations of our Editorial Board?

Because we discovered through Google Analytics that 250 readers are accessing our site through Wikipedia, having information on this site is important to us. We understand that anyone can edit the page, but do not understand why we cannot provide verifiable facts about the journal, especially to correct errors.

Can you give us some parameters? There is so much information regarding why a page could be deleted, that it is difficult to find what is relevant to our deletion.

Regards, Ann Sullivan,129.176.151.10 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Executive Editor, and Dr. Kimberly McGhee, Managing Editor, Mayo Clinc Proceedings == Please read this version RE Mayoclinicproceedings (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)deletion of update to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic_Proceedings ==

We noticed that our entry on Wikipedia was merely a stub. Ann Sullivan, Executive Editor, and Dr. Kimberly McGhee, Managing Editor, of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, expanded the entry based on verifiable facts, many of which are available on our Web site. The Web site is copyrighted by Mayo Foundation for Education and Research, which our journal is a part of. We're not sure why all the information was deleted and why incorrect information was added. For example, our impact factor is 4.811, not 3.811, whihc you added during wikifying. We have since tried to correct this error and a few grammatical errors. The date of publication is 1926 but you added 1929. All these were correct on our Web site and on the update we provided, and we really need accurate information on Wikipedia.

We did copy the About the Journal information from our Web site, which we thought was appropriate since we wrote that section. However, we can reword the information but would rather not take the time if it will be deleted again. As the journal in question, are we allowed to provide an introduction to the journal or will that automatically be deleted as COI? Is it acceptable to link to other journals published by our publisher? Is it OK to add the affiliations of our Editorial Board?

Because we discovered through Google Analytics that 250 readers are accessing our site through Wikipedia, having information on this site is important to us. We understand that anyone can edit the page, but do not understand why we cannot provide verifiable facts about the journal, especially to correct errors.

Can you give us some parameters? There is so much information regarding why a page could be deleted, that it is difficult to find what is relevant to our deletion.

Regards, Ann Sullivan, Executive Editor, and Dr. Kimberly McGhee, Managing Editor, Mayo Clinc Proceedings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayoclinicproceedings (talk • contribs)
 * I will reply on your talk page. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Interview
Hi. I'm doing a study about Wikipedia (particularly about sysops) for my Masters in Communications and Media Studies at Monash Uni, and was wondering if you would be so kind as to take some time from your wikibreak to talk to me. I'm mostly interested in what your day-to-day activities are and your relationship with other sysops and editors. It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes.

Please let me know if you're interested/willing. It would be immensely appreciated :) Cheers, In continente (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Brian, Thank you so much for your reply and your interest. October is a bit too late for me, but I'm in the process of asking ethics committee if it would be possible to carry it out over the phone (or skype). I'll let you know as soon as I have an answer. Best regards, In continente (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian. Thanks for your message. Unfortunately October might be a little too late. Getting ethics clearance from Uni took a bit longer than I estimated and I'm nearing my deadline. Anyway, I'm super grateful for your interest. Best of luck :) --In continente (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

London 25
Hi Brian, welcome to London. I just spotted your note at Meetup/London 25, and hope to see you on Sunday. So far we have one Wikimedia UK person coming, plus two or three people who were at Wikimania, including one who was at the chapters meeting. But I'll drop a note on the UK mailing list and see if your presence tempts more of the chapter members to come down to London.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'll be there. I'm not in London now, but will be by Saturday afternoon, so see you Sunday. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Brownsea Island Scout camp
Hi Bduke. At the moment I'm just reverting changes by User:Enabling others as a probable sockpuppet of User:Jojojohnson2. I have no opinion as to the content of the article. --Killing Vector (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Guiding_and_Girl_Scouting
Thankyou for you quick responce. I'm the one that asked help about the above photo, i would be pleased if you could help me to have more information about that girl. thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.191.243.247 (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you not read what I said? It would be quite improper for me, or ANY OTHER EDITOR, to give you any information about that girl. Please stop asking. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ThankYou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.115.16.110 (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Arctic Monkeys fight it out with Dracula
The addition of the popular pages facility to the Yorkshire sidebar last month has thrown light on which of our articles Wikipedia readers actually access most. The first month for which there is complete data is September when Arctic Monkeys were in pole position with an average 6,869 hits daily. In second place with 5,781 was Wuthering Heights followed by Dracula with 4,996. The table is sortable on a number of attributes but the sort takes a while to complete.

As the page has a link to current data it is possible to see and compare current raw data for daily hits. So far the October statistics (up to October 20th) reveal that Dracula with 5,474 daily hits is well ahead of seasonal favourite Guy Fawkes with 4,411, and last month's favourite, Arctic Monkeys, are pushed into third position with a daily hit score of 4,259.

Three football clubs Leeds United A.F.C., Hull City A.F.C. and Middlesbrough F.C.get into the top 25 along with several pages about literary topics such as the Brontë family and their works. Television personalities are well represented, Jeremy Clarkson (4,559) is 4th overall in the list and Judi Dench is 23rd with a hit score of 1,577. Do the history topics in the top 25 suggest homework assignments?

It will be interesting to monitor the rise and fall of pages on the list which will also suggest where our efforts as a project might best be directed for maximum impact.


 * Please remember...

The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis. The latest listing was created on September 4th.

Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible. Many of our articles would benefit from the addition of an appropriate infobox.
 * Monitor
 * Infoboxes

Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion is always in need of attention. Please take a look and see if you can help. One small edit, such as adding a reference section and reference, to an article each session would make a big difference.
 * References

Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR.
 * Moves


 * Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...



Written by Keith D and Harkey• Template by Jza84 | Single-Page View

'''Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS?? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!'''

Delivered November 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 01:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * }
 * }

Polymer vandalism
Hi. I was wondering if you as a chemistry-oriented administrator could fix the Polymer article. Just very crude vandalism by Urbanliving3 at 14:12 today, but on attempting to revert it in the usual way, I got a message saying my edit (i.e. revert) was not saved because it attempted to link to a forbidden site! So how can the article be restored to its proper state? Can you provide some help? Dirac66 (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, never mind. Someone else solved the problem. Dirac66 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. It must have happened while I was asleep down under. Things usually do. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin insight needed
Hey Bduke, over at the Wine Project we are having a discussion (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine) about some POV pushing we are seeing in some wine articles. I've floated the idea about taking the issues to AN/I but I'm really not certain what could be accomplished over there. If you could take a look and share some of your admin insight that would be very much appreciated. Thanks! AgneCheese/Wine 23:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to have a think about this over the weekend. Sorry, I'm a bit busy right now. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do your monitoring, overseeing thing
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting elections
You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Allow me to quote s.125 of the Constitution of Australia:

From Howard Zimmerman
Brian,

I read your message on the HEZimmerman Discussion page and went to your User page.

But I could not find the Email address on the left that you had mentioned. Thus, I'm writing you here and will see if I can find an Email for you under Brian Salter Duke in Melbourne.

I'm flattered that you were aware of my 1975 book.

I'm an organic chemist who combines organic with photochemistry with theoretical and computational chemistry. Right now I have a Gaussian 03 computation going on a 59 atom molecule with CAS(12,12)/6-31g* and geometry optimization. It is quite slow, even on a 16gb machine.

Brian, I do have a real problem in moving around on Wikipedia. One example is finding your Email.

Some organic people suggested that I put myself into Wikipedia. I seem to be one of the few (U.S.) NAS people who were not on Wikipedia. The suggestion was that I also should get my original work on Wikipedia since so much was put on both other people, some of whom did not give referencing and certain did not give complete or proper referencing.

Brian, I think I neglected to mention that I am still non-Emeritus thanks to U.S. Federal law. I work with two postdocs and a group of undergrads. Thus I am kept busy. Also that means that I can dol things on Wikipedia only occasionally and that is a problem. And I'm still unfamiliar with some of the procedures. At present I'm a bit wary of putting in more of the references and links to sources. I did put some in as a suggestion but not real editing.

I'll end and try to find your email address.

Hezimmerman (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rover Scouts International
Hi Bduke,

My apologies, I wasnt able to get down my talk page to see your messages. Until just now.

I will try to edit my submissions as you advised, please give me ample time, as I am still grappling how I will be able to do what exactly you wanted me to do. I am Henry Hutalle (hshutalle) one of the founders of Rover Scouts International and Administrator of Rover Scouts International, a web-based network of Rover Leaders and Scouts.

I will be uploading the necessary references/manuals/materials to RSI.

Thank you for the patience.

Henry Hutalle hshutalle@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hshutalle (talk • contribs) 11:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your involvement with RSI gives you a conflict of interest and you need to look at that link. I too was a keen Rover Scout and Rover Leader, but a long time ago. I try to not let that influence what I do on wikipedia. You then need to ask the question "How important is RSI in the whole international framework of Rover Scouts and Scouting in general?". Are you not giving undue weight to just one part of Rover Scouting? Your edits need reliable independent sources as references that indicate that RSI is notable in wikipedia terms. Until you demonstrate that people outside RSI have noticed RSI, you have not demonstrated that RSI is notable. Also wikipedia is not the place for manuals and materials. I plan to find time to look at your web sites and comment in more detail, but I am rather busy. When I comment I will do so on Talk:Rover Scout. Regards. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Stephen Hatton
Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policywill be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  fetch  comms  ☛ 20:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with me. The article on a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory was replaced by an article on a different Steve Hatton. That article was deleted, but the proper article has been, quite rightly, restored. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Important Wine Project discussion needs input!
Hello, the Wine Project is currently in the process of hammering out a proposed policy relating to Notability (wine topics). As Wikipedia and its wine coverage continues to grow, the need for a clear, concise guideline on how Wikipedia's notability policies such as WP:CORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTE relate to wine articles has emerged. Please review the proposed policy and take part in the talk page discussion Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(wine_topics). All input and view points are welcomed. AgneCheese/Wine 21:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Bduke! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current  article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Stephen Hatton -

RfD nomination of COMSATS Insitute of Information Technology
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Message left on Article Deletion
Thanks for the message. I think that the "controversies" article should exist, albeit with much rework so that it covers it's stated subject. I also think that coverage of noteworthy (= in controversial areas)BSA policies needs to exist somewhere, and not primarily or solely in a "criticism of" type article. Since most documented enforcement activities are documented because there was a controversy) (e.g. a court case) I guess that the latter could have a home in the "controversies" article. However I don't think that the folks behind the "controversies" article would allow such coverage to exist, identified as such. Using the Colbert line, I think thaey would say that the facts have a BSA bias.

I really don't know the motivation of the folks that beat this out of existence. Whether they purely want Wikipedia standards enforced, whether they sincerely think that such an article would inherently be badly biased, whether they knowingly want to confine coverage to articles with an anti-BSA bias or... My first guess is that they are mostly people who sincerely arrived at a very negative mis-impression of BSA in these areas, and sincerely, feel that it is "right" to make sure that the only type of coverage that occurs of this topic is of the type in a "criticism of" type article.

I was brought into this and it appears that it was a total waste of time. I'm not sure, but I think that I will drop out of any further effort in Wikipedia in this area.

Thanks again for the note. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oceania
Hi Brian, you're right, but I don't know the answer on this one. Both are dependencies of NZ, so if they still do have Scouting, it is most certainly a branch of the parent orgs. The problem is, as you say, these are small islands, small populations, probably people still have that weird habit of talking to each other instead of blogging... ;) so source material is scarce to nonexistent, as it has been for those islands associated with the US, there's just not a lot of chatter. The badges prove there has been activity there, but like stamps, don't lock the fact down concretely. If I have overstepped, I would say a merge back into S&G in NZ, instead of one or the other parent articles where it would get lost, maybe with a note that historically they did, now unknown. What other ones are making you itchy? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BP's sexuality - An orchestrated campaign? Is it possible?
Brian - I have been thinking about the impressively large number of posters who have contributed to the deletion discussion on the Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell. The thought crossed my mind that it could be an orchestrated campaign; perhaps something triggered by an appeal to all the editors on American Scouting or something similar. I really doubt if it is the case, but I was wondering if there was any way of picking up if it was. Is it even possible? HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it's just people trying in their own small way to curtial the agenda driven creation of bullshit masquereding as encyclopedic content?Bali ultimate (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To address HiLo48-I'm one of the top 5 editors at the Scouting WP, I can assure you there was no mass memo, as this is the first I heard about it, because I watch Brian's page. However, Erwin85Bot is notifying contributors of the AfD, and this is one folks get passionate about. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is Erwin85Bot? Surely even I bot should not be telling people about a AfD. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a standard automated "An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not")..." type of message. Since a lot have edited it, probably a lot got it. I get these for articles I barely touched. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since writing above, I saw it on Ed's page. I have not got one myself, and I thought I had contributed before the recent contributions I made. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you about "no mass memo", and thanks for the reassurance. But we clearly do have a lot of contributors on this issue, far more than I am used to seeing. An interest in BSA is likely to be a fairly common attribute. (While obviously not universal.) I'll leave it to wiser and more experienced heads to take such factors into account in judging the proposal for deletion. Meanwhile, I will still respond to bigotry when I see it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have only just heard this because of watching a respected colleague's talk page. Please note that we are on the opposite sides of the fence this time.  Perhaps just a lot of people agree that this article is inappropriate for Wikipedia? DiverScout (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DiverScout - I have no problems with people on the opposite side of the fence. I love a good debate. Learnt a lot that way. The important thing is that the discussion remain civilised. You don't reckon that a fair few of those "people" you mention might be BSA members? They have every right to express an opinion, of course, but it is bound to be a biased demographic. HiLo48 (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a quick read through all the tread you'll see that I have mentioned that I feel there are two opposed camps of agenda-driven people (pro-BSA and gay activist) involved in the debate - but I do not see either as being a majority or their input having any valid effect on the debate. I have said that I have no problems with Jeal's work being on Wikipedia (on the page about Jeal's book, ideally) - but I do have a problem where his opinion is being presented as fact.  The only actual physical evidence for Baden-Powell's sexuality is that he married and had kids.  All else is smoke and mirrors and I've not yet seen anyone show me an argument that explains why this requires the attention it is being given. DiverScout (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not treated as fact, or least it should not be. It should be treated as notable speculation that as far as I can see has been mentioned by every biographical book or essay since 1979. In fact I doubt any new biographer could avoid it. I have respect for those who say the material in the main article is enough, and they may well be right. However it is not a POV fork, as that is an article that forks off to give a different POV from the main article. For 4 years editors have been using it to expand the section on the main article, with the latter being a summary of the former and both being NPOV. I also find troublesome the many arguments that, unlike you, seem to have no idea of the status of Jeal's book. Jeal's book, above all other sources, is the one we should treat most seriously about B-P because it is an independent reliable (yes, reliable as they come, because it was extensively researched) source. Biographies by Scouts who knew him can add detail, but they can also miss detail they do want to be said. Jeal, for example, shows how Olave burnt a lot of B-P's correspondence before she allowed Hillcourt to have access. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list