User talk:Bduke/Archive 9

Come on you wrote the article you can not upgrade him now..
What did you mean by this edit message? Of course someone can upgrade an article if they find new or additional information. When I check the sources I will change this. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course if you find a citation you can add it, you didn't add it though, User:Haiduc added it and he changed it without a supporting citation, personally I don't think he himself is actually notable, I prodded it as my searching returned very poor results and DGG removed it claiming, " Kenneth McLaren is notable for being one of the founders of the scouts." But he wasn't one of the founders of the scouts was he, he also does not even warrant a word of mention on the Scouting article? That leaves me asking myself well how notable is he as regards scouting, his article what there is of it, a couple of lines only, appears basically to be there to propagate the comment that BP said he looked young and nicknamed him boy, also that comment in the McLaren stub needs to be attributed correctly, thanks. if I remove the boy add ons, I have this left. All of it is cited to one book, jeal, Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth McLaren (1860–1924) was a British Army officer in India. He was a good friend of Baden Powell. In 1907 McLaren was involved in the growing Scout movement and served the staff at the Brownsea Island Scout camp. Later, Baden-Powell invited him to be the Boy Scouts' first manager.McLaren was married twice, remarrying  after divorcing hisfirst  wife of thirty years. McLaren had schooled at Harrow and studied at Sandhurst before joining his regiment in 1880.

Question on the speedy deletion of Talk:Sequoiafarm Kaldenkirchen
The original author of the article and its talkpage User:Sverrir Mirdsson asked me on advice why the talkpage was speedied. Since I'm not an admin I could only guess why. Could you please check the content of the page and the reason of the deletion and leave a notice on both his and my talkpage - his English is not as good as mine. Thank you for your help. --jergen (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Neda Agha-Soltan Graduate Scholarship
This article may interest you as a former student at Queen's. I've listed it at GAN, so any improvements you can make or suggest would be welcome. Regards, BencherliteTalk 16:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Scouting in Jersey‎
Please take a look-expand like others or no? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry's knowledge base includes metallurgy, particulary as regards analysis of metals ...doesn't it?
Hello,

I'm new here and have a uncertainty that you could be more definitive about relieving than someone else. On the page about Marcel Vogel, in the sixth paragraph which reads in its entirety: "Vogel examined a metal sample which was allegedly given to Billy Meier by extraterrestrials and marveled (sic) at its unusual properties (Vogel stated it contained the element thulium) however it is worthwhile to note that Vogel was a chemist rather than a metallurgist." it seems to me that the observation that Vogel was a chemist rather than a metallurgist is not particularly worthwhile and is misleading as it suggests that a chemist would not know about metals. The phrase doesn't seem to reflect a grasp of chemistry or metallurgy further than knowing one starts with "C" and the other with "M"; would you agree?. I don't mean to be sarcastic - I trust you can see the issue. I've considered simply truncating the final sentence before the "however it is worthwhile..." and having done with it. Would you mind rendering an opinion about the chemist/metallurgist edit issue? That the paragraph likely should also read "was given to Billy Meier by alleged extraterrestrials" is another discussion entirely. Raja Djinn (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mulliken/Orbital
Hi, I hope it is appropriate to ask you to have a look at the discussion page of the "Molecular orbital" article.

[]

Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.176.250.16 (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fast answer. I had to add some more questions around the problem... It would be nice if you could look into it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.202.140.142 (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize article
Hi Bduke, I've left a reply to your message on the Nobel Prize talk page -- User:Marek69. 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

NT ministries
In a word, yes. We have articles on all the federal ministries, and we're slowly getting articles on the major portfolios at state levels. We've already got Attorney-General articles for at least a couple of states.

As for Shane Stone, I've had the article on my watchlist for a while, and I've seen the snowjob edits. It's frustrating, because it's hard to clean up without doing some serious research, and I'm a bit low on time and energy at the moment. I can at least pipe in on the talk page if you want, though. Rebecca (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to share witn us what you think the snow job is because we would be fascinated to know since we have done the research or as per usual with Wikipedai is it essentailly that he is the wrong political colour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirectifier (talk • contribs) 00:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page, as this was a different discussion really. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - look forward to it. (Wikirectifier (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC))

I don't really think you or Headbomb are disrupting
It's just what people say on speed of light whenever anyone brings up the 1983 meter definition which made the speed of light a defined constant. It was a jokey reference--- I hope you don't think I am threatening any sort of frivolous administrative action--- I would never do that.Likebox (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not think anything of the sort. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok nevermind--- I just jokily accused you and headbomb of disrupting Schrodinger equation, and I was worried you would take it seriously.Likebox (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln College library
Hi Bduke, I see you reverted an IP's removal of the image from University of Oxford today. Just FYI, there are now two images of the same building in that article—one in the Colleges section, the other in Libraries—so it wasn't entirely unreasonable for the anon editor to cull one of them. Personally I don't think either of them really cuts the mustard. A twilight shot would be best: the building looks fantastic then. - Pointillist (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I just get suspicious when folks delete material with no reason. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've now removed the partial (i.e. right-hand) image from the article, and I've edited the remaining (left-hand) image to correct the perspective and improve the balance between the sunlit upper half and shadowed lower hand of the picture. - Pointillist (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Right Honourable Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare
Quite a funny situation, I must say. I admire your patience in putting up with the IP for so long :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting
You were so kind as to leave me a note (for which I thank you):


 * You are invited to participate in, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Scouting and Guiding. You may sign up at the project members page.

"members page" is a link, but I can see no sign-up there ? RobinClay (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just add your name to the list here. There is nothing formal about it. You just participate where you can. Regards, -- Bduke   (Discussion)  06:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you ! RobinClay (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a note to the top of that page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To: Brian Salter-Duke I've put an article on my Talk page
Brian,

The article took me a while to write. But it has correct mechanisms, references and a bit of history about the Birch Reduction. It starts with Arthur Birch's original publications and covers his changing views and evidence and references for the correct reaction mechanism.

The current article is woefully incomplete and misleading. It does not note that the correct radical anion protonation is ortho and not meta as suggested by A. J. Birch. It does give up-to-date referencing and the evidence for the reaction course. The present article does not give the factors leading to the unconjugated cyclohexadiene product; this is given in my article along with references.

The one thing I could not do was to paste in two drawngs (Figures). I have .gif drawings but could not paste them in. I also have ChemDraw .cdx drawings and can get whatever format is needed. I've made a note where the Figures would go.

I put this my Discussion (Talk?) page so as not to cause consternaton.

I can check Wikipedia only periodically as I have a course to tend and my research group as well.

Best wishes,

Howard (Zimmerman)

P.S. The file which had my Paradigms covered different material. But it had a series of things now in Wikipedia but without valid referencing or reasonable discussion. Thus that file would have been of use to anyone writing on those subjects. It also included parallel presentations on subject of equal chemical interest. Thus it was too bad if it was permanently removed by people not recognizing the content. It was not biographical and only related in that it involved chemical topics of interest to me.

Howard E. Zimmerman 19:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)

Brian, I read your offer to help when logged into User:hezimmerman\Birch Reduction But I already had uploaded the two drawings and have been going through the article to catch typos.

The main remaining problem is how to use the Table ICON to have my Table 1 formatted reasonably.

But please do look at the article. It should be of interest for a number of reasons. One is the complete chronology including Arthur Birch's changing views. Another is Leo Radom's contributions with Birch. And there are computational results. As I mentioned once before, should you have interest in any articles referenced, I have PDF files which I can send.

Thanks for you help in any case. Howard Howard E. Zimmerman 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nicola Roxon
i've added atheism into the body of text like all the other entries i made. realize you are personally involved and there is some controversy on this page but decided that we should follow the same format as other similar entries. have to move on and keep rel. info up to date. 202.174.225.208 (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It adds nothing to what is already in the infobox, but OK let us leave it in, but source it and get it correct. She is not one of 3 members of the parliament who are atheists. We just do not know how many and there have been plenty in the past included the Prime Minister. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Hezimmerman
Hi there.

I notice on the talk page of that, some considerable time ago, you offered to help them.

Recently, I have given the user lots of assistance - and thought you may be able to help too. My latest response is in User talk:Hezimmerman. It looks to me like they could potentially add valuable contributions to Wikipedia, but need considerable guidance in the 'layout' etc. I am offering as much help as I can; perhaps you could help more in the specific subject area. I do what I can, but I'm not a scientist. Best,  Chzz  ►  14:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Re. 'house rules' - I'd appreciate a quick or something on my talk; I'm terrible at watching pages.   Chzz  ►  14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been planning to help but have just been flat out on other things. I hope to look at it over this long Easter weekend and I have told Howard that by email. Thanks for helping him. He seems to need quite a bit of help, but as you say he could be useful. It is quite an old academic but has never retired and is still teaching and leading a research group, so I think he has little time for wikipedia but wants to help. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. I have been helping lots; I do see potential. I think we have made some progress. Ongoing. Keep in touch.  Chzz  ►  22:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Chzz, I've done some work incorporating your suggestions
Tol Chzz From: Howard Z

Chzz,I've done some work incorporating your suggestions.

Thus I devised a new title (but temporarily left the old one in parentheses.) The new title has the form you suggested. Birch Reduction Regioselectivity

I put in a "Lead". It is quite brief (Perhaps for the moment). I labeled it as lead.

I put in some ==Headers== and ===Subheaders===.

This will take some thinking since the sections are brief.

Chzz, a point I had not empasized in assuring you that there was no original research (i.e. nothing not directly given in the References), and that every item in the Article is taken directly from the references (of course not verbatim) and given in the language of an article.

Thus, the references describe extensive and pretty useful and interestng stuff and had to be expanded to make each item understandable.

Howard E. Zimmerman 00:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)

User:218.185.54.44
The content is pretty harmless, but it is becoming somewhat disruptive. I'd probably go for a block of months if there is a recurrence, given that we try to avoid indef blocks for IPs. Melburnian (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds good. Melburnian (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Richard Dawkins
Hi, regarding this edit of yours, this source asserts that Dawkins was referring to Benedict not Pius, on the grounds that the Pope Nazi comment was made in the context of remarks about the canonisation of Mary MacKillop. Do you have a source that says otherwise? The reporting of the conference does seem to be a little haphazard... Hadrian89 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Additional links to other survival types
Please link in Lofty Wiseman, British Survival Expert. The list is essentially incomplete without him :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemarvell (talk • contribs)
 * What list. I have no idea what this is about. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got it covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemarvell (talk • contribs)
 * Got what covered? I still have no idea what you are talking about. If you are not prepared to be clear, why did you come here? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To Brian
Brian, in proofreading I found an error in my Figure 3. It may seem minor but the text refers to three resonance structures B, C and D. These arranged vertically but the bottom one is not labeled and the structure on the far right is labeled D in error.

The corrected drawing has the structure on the right labeled E now and the bottom of the three vertical structures is properly labeled D.

I have uploaded the corrected structure which is in Commons. The Birch file has the old Figure 3 but it has the same label. Ordinarily I think that would bring ..gif figure into the article. But I don't know how to get the corrected drawing in to replace the old one. Both the old one and the new one have the same designations,namely Fig 3 Cyclohexadienyl Anion.gif

I afraid of spoiling what is almost perfect. Thus can you help. I'll send the same request via E-mail. I wouuld ask Chzz to do this but I believe that you were the one who helped with drawings originally and asking two persons to help with the same drawing might lead to a problem.

Best, Howard Howard E. Zimmerman 22:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC) --Howard E. Zimmerman 22:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)

Deletion nomination of File:(2) Birch-Benzoic.gif
Hi Bduke, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot  (msg) 05:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday?
71? You don't seem it! I would have guessed 50something. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

CC/QC wiki
Hello,

I am contacting you to ask your advice on an effort toward collecting and reorganizing material from Wikipedia and the web, to create a wiki aimed at computational/quantum chemistry. Differently from wikipedia, this wiki will include original research and more obscure arguments, and will present the arguments with a more aimed focus. I would kindly ask your opinion on this, since I am sure you probably are aware of previous or current attempts on this regard. I tried to look for something similar, but without success. My feeling is that the quantum chemists/computational chemistry community is still very fragmented, in particular when it comes to training and dissemination. The website is here. A friend of mine is the author and in charge for p4VASP, hosted on the site, so we have traffic. We were also thinking about a Q/A or forum, and the wiki, as said. In addition, some software is developed under the same name. A bazaar launchpad is available. Everything has just started, and we are trying to make it scale up, even if it stays a spare time activity, we want to give something useful. Thanks, Stefano Borini (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting idea, but wikipedia is not the place to discuss it. Please email me from my user page. I have email enabled from there. It appears that you do not. I may take a while to reply as I have just got back from one trip in Australia and I go overseas in a few day. I will however reply when I can. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

New layout issues
See Village_pump_(technical)  — Rlevse • Talk  • 15:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Classic
Its the best I have seen http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Schneider_(writer)_(3rd_nomination)&action=edit&section=T-1 - socks with no edits for keep - someone needs to frame it! SatuSuro 14:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobel of X
Please take a look at the proposal I made in Talk:List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field to ensure the future quality of the list. Your comments would be much appreciated :) Cheers, Waldir talk 06:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion from AfD
I have reinstated the edit I made to the AfD for Don Martin which you deleted, as an individual moved the contents of his talkpage to the AfD discussion. Not only is it an inappropriate addition to the AfD and obscuring the actual discussion, but one of my comments was moved out of context and placed on the AfD page. An AfD isn't the place for warnings of policy violations directed at individual users. The editor responsible is clearly attempting to obscure the discussion, as he has already made borderline personal attacks within the AfD and attempted to obscure the justified points made by myself and other editors.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  12:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

James G. Howes will be DYK lead
James G. Howes is scheduled to be the lead DYK article, with photo, at 8pm Eastern US time, 1am 22 Jun UTC. Let's give it lots of views! Way to go User:JGHowes!! See current version of Template:Did_you_know/Queue and Template:Did you know/Queue/3 for more info. — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Somare
Hi. Just a heads up, since you've intervened before in response to controversial editing of the article on Michael Somare. It seems as though our tireless anti-Somare anonymous editor is back. I've left a comment on the article's talk page. Aridd (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll keep an eye on it and protect it if needed. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  12:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Aridd (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Historic Trails Award
New article and DYK if you care to help improve. I wanted to get it up on July 4th!  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Catherine Pollard (Scouting)
New article and DYK if you care to help improve. Up on July 6th, anniversary of the court ruling!  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)