User talk:Bduke/archive3

=Archive from January 1st - May 31st, 2007=

Category:Currencies of Australia
Whether this category should be in Category:Currencies of Oceania or in Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific, which is a parent of the first one, should be discussed on Category Talk:Currencies of Australia. Can we avoid an edit war? --Bduke 03:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there. It wasn't my intention to begin an edit war, rather than there should be more clarity about currencies in this particular continent/region of the world. Thus I have created a new template, and category for them. I'm not sure what you mean about Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific being a parent of Category:Currencies of Oceania?? Is that just because it predates it?? I'd intended that Category:Currencies of Oceania would become a category in its own right. (Extra3 13:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC))
 * I now notice that Category:Currencies of Oceania has been moved inside Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific, rather than as an independent category?? Maybe we can talk about that?? If the latter is meant to be the parent category, which isn't the template renamed as, rather than just  (which is where the category derives from)??(Extra3 13:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

Merge or expand
Should this The Wolf Cub's Handbook be merged somewhere or tagged for expanding? I think we have something related to it somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I can not think of anything, but it is not an area I have really worked on. --Bduke 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wood Badge
I've done some work on this lately. Can you look at the Australia and UK parts of it for improvement? I'd like to go for GA soon. I'll be adding too. It definitely needs more wikilinks and refs. Rlevse 11:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

data pages
Hi Brian, Bentiromide (data page) has come up for deletion today, and while it looks like these "(data pages)" are normal, I dont know much about how the norms on displaying chemical data on WP. I was hoping to list it on a deletion sorting page watched by members of WikiProject Chemistry, but I couldnt find the appropriate page so I've listed it on WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science. Could you take a look? Cheers, John. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayvdb (talk • contribs) 09:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Thank you. John Vandenberg 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lancaster University
Hi! Thanks for the message!... In short, no - I'm not an English nationalist, but I can understand your point as this pops up from time to time... I'm unsure of your familiarity with the various naming conventions, guidelines and policies, but it is convention to use the constituent countries of the UK as the primary geographic reference frame, rather than the UK itself. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it satisfies most editors, most of the time (particularly the Scottish!), and is the most common approach on other encyclopedias.

I should add that the UK can certainly be added as an afternote, so long as the c.c. is also mentioned however.

I hope that explains things a little! Kindest regards, Jhamez84 23:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It does exist, somewhere (!). If you can give me a short while, I'll double check where exactly - it'll be archived somewhere. Jhamez84 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cats
It's true, they might rename it, but I figure it's a Wiki, and I didn't think following conventions strictly would be such a good idea for such an unwieldy name. Do you think making that category is a good idea? I just thought it would be a good idea to remove the "listiness" from that page. I'll hold off on adding more to that category for now. I just wanted to do some experiments with it for now.

I'm worried about the article itself though. It seems like a cut and paste of the original site, and I think it would be best to rewrite it completely. --HappyCamper 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

STING
Added refs and removed tag. TimVickers 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wobbling molecules
Please look at the article Molecular Hamiltonian for molecular motions. Maybe you can make some useful additions/changes to this article. --P.wormer 10:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Eugene Guth
Hello Bduke,

You left a message for me on my talk page. Let me respond. I find it arrogant that you would hold yourself up to be judge of what is fit and not fit to be published on Wikipedia. You have no entry on Eugene Guth, despite his significant contributions to several branches of physices, and his pioneering contributions to polymer physics.

Who better to keep track of his scientific achievements than his own son? I find your reasoning here to be specious at best. If you can find one single error in any statement that I put into my father's biogrpahy, then by all means, challenge that point. I would love to match my IQ against yours and debate the content of my own father's biography with you.

It would be trivially easy for me to find a friend who would submit to Wikipedia the exact same article that I wrote verbatim. Would that take care of your perceived "conflict of interest"?

Wikipedia needs to look for the best sources available -- first-hand knowledge is always better than fourth-hand knowledge. If Wikipedia cannot find a way to edit articles without inflaming the contributors, then it is a sorry organization. There is no excuse for the way in which the article on my father was deleted without any notice to me. Some bozo graduate student in Russia has the power to get an article pulled? Shame. That is putting it mildly.

Mikeguth 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hang on my friend. My comment on your talk page was about your edits to List of important publications in physics not about the article on your father. Those additions are still there, in spite of the fact that they do not follow the guidelines for that list since they do not properly give a description and a statement of importance. Nobody has touched them although they should. However these are not the only poor entries. There are many others that do not follow the guidelines. The article on your father was tagged as a copyright violation by User:Conscious. I had nothing to do with it. Did you read that copyright notice. It tells you exactly what you have to do and you did not do it. I have read your remarks to User:Conscious. You are quite wrong. The article does not include fair use quotes. It copies stuff from an outside source. Wikipedia has to be fully open source. Although such violations are quite common (I fixed one only yesterday that has been there for a year so) they are still wrong and unacceptable. In you comments you also breach other Wikipedia guidelines showing a lack of civility (WP:CIVIL). Calling a fellow editor a "bozo" is not acceptable. I am going to revert the changes to Eugene Guth and hope you will start again. Read the various policies, including Policies and guidelines, WP:BIO, Policies and guidelines and so on. Follow the WP guidelines and policies and you will be fine. If you do not, you will get angry as you obviously are and not understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not. --Bduke 05:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My latest revision of the article on my father did not contain one single quotation from an outside source. And yet you, or some other administrator, AGAIN removed it as a copyright infringement. Explain to me how an article without one single quotation from an outside work and merely summarizing scientific knowledge in the public domain (available in many different sources) is a copyright infringement?

User:Conscious is just a user -- he is not tagged or indicated as an "Editor." Frankly, I would be astounded if Wikipedia chose a graduate student in physics to be the Editor of scientific biographies.

I am not wrong about fair use. I am an attorney at law. I know the fair use doctrine far better than a Chemist in Australia. As to civility, when you take down an article without any notice to the original contributor, I believe a reasonable person would expect a sharp reaction. User:Conscious can deal with that, if you are not the person who took down my father's biographical sketch.

06:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (above added by User:Mikeguth)

I did indeed revert back to the version that contained the copyvio tag. I told you I was going to. As I said, you need to read the copyvio tag. It does not say that you can fix the article by reverting back to where it was before. It says:-


 * Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue.


 * To write a new article without infringing material, follow this link to a temporary subpage.

I am not an administrator. You have to convince one. OK, you are an attorney at law. Do you understand the license that all wikipedia articles are released under? Was nothing on your article copied word for word from an outside document such as a university web site on your father? The list of awards and prizes looked exactly like that. You can not copy stuff from elsewhere unless it islicensed under the GNU Free Documentation License or a very similar free license. This is not the same as "public domain".

You say:-
 * "User:Conscious is just a user -- he is not tagged or indicated as an "Editor." Frankly, I would be astounded if Wikipedia chose a graduate student in physics to be the Editor of scientific biographies."

This just shows how profoundly you do not understand wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have editors as opposed to users. You can edit any article, even if you do not register. Wikipedia does not chose anybody to edit scientific biographies, or indeed any article. You seem also to be unclear who did what to the artcile. Click on the history tag at the top of the Eugene Guth page. That shows you who has edited the page and when.

Now I do think that you father should have an article. Will you allow me to advise and mentor you? This is my advice. First calm down and read some of the policies and guidelines. Second, recognise that you do have a conflict of interest. This is obvious. You are his son. Read WP:COI. Third, you can create and edit the article on your father but you have to be particularly careful. Then read WP:BIO, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You have to write from a neutral point of view. You can not do original research. That means you can not add anything to the article that you know only because you are his son. Then click on the history and bring up the last version you wrote. It is the link to "15:08, 13 January 2007" in the second line. Click on edit and highlight the whole lot. Save everything to the clipboard with Contrl:C. Do not save. Cancel the edit and go back to the current version with the copyvio tag. Click on the link it says is a temporary subpage. Put the material you saved in the edit window with Contrl:V. Edit it on the subpage until you are happy. The version you left was a mess. The images did not appear for example. Then let me know. Give me the full URL to the temp subpage. I'll look at it amd then I'll find an administrator to fix it for you. Once in place I and others can help you improve it. Some other advice. Do not include a long list of awards. Just add the most important. Do not add a list of publications. Read some other biographies of scientists and see how they are written. Read WikiProject Academics for some suggestions on this. Above all remember that everything in the article must be referenced to verifiable outside sources. This is where you have to be particularly carefull as his son. Someone else perhaps could get away with no sources for a while, but you can not. I hope this helps. Please consider it carefully. Also please sign you comments on talk page by adding 4 tildas ~. For me it gives what follows here. Bduke 08:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Economics
There is now a separate page for List of social science journals. But since others will probably ask, I just put in a section with the reference. The section seems underpopulated--if you know what should go in, could you add them. DGG 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Title Change
Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Elsevier
Hi. I have explained my reasoning for the little Elsevier/Endeavour edit at Talk:Elsevier/Archives/2014. Cheers Nurg 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the entries on the List of publications in philosopy
I felt so frustrated with being asked to provide an endless number of sources, which were then rejected by people unable to get free of their personal POV, that when all the entries in that list were deleted (at the very moment I was building a requested source's details) that I lost it and let loose with a major rant on the WikiProject Philosophy's talk page. I'd be interested in your take on what I've said. Best Wishes, Steve 09:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your email
Hi Budke,

I got your email. Thank you. I'll try to discuss it in here and not in email since other will be probably interested too. Thanks, APH 08:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC) PS. When I sign with tildas my user name is written but without a link to my page. Do you happen to know why?
 * I have no idea about the tildas. I can not reproduce it. --Bduke 11:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway. I replied to your second email too. APH 12:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks so much for your attempt to help here. A very constructive effort. -- Fyslee 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look at the energy and the last two edits by Hallenrm?
Either I've completely lost my mind, or I'm dealing with an invariably insulting editor who has an advanced degree in chemistry, yet really doesn't understand key parts of the physics of the subject. So, I'm asking for some badly needed RfC on the chem section of this article. I'm leaving an identical message for user:smokefoot and everybody else with a chem degree I can think of. Gracias for the outside view. S B Harris 09:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We all know what a chemical bond is. When the bond is formed, the system loses the bonding energy, which is usually passed on out of the system or molecule. It goes off as heat or radiation or whatever. All bonds take energy to break, if you want to go back to free atoms. What we refer to as "strong bonds" colloquially, are simply those that take more energy to break, than do weak ones. And give off more energy when formed. The strong bond in N2 is a good example: Gives off lots of energy when formed, hard to break afterwards. Total amount of mass/energy in the formed cold molecule is therefore effectively lower than for molecules with weak bonds. Molecule has less mass with a strong bond (a sort of chem packing fraction), just like a nucleus (Ni-62) with maximally stong nuclear bonding (though magnitudes are very different). This is Chem/ Physics 101. Hallanrm says nitrogen is some kind of aberration and has reverted my comments trying to clarify for the student that strong bonds mean low (total) energy systems and molecules. Add his multiple insults to his bad understanding of basic physics (and yes, chem is a subbranch of physics), and I'm about ready to go to ArbCom. And by the way, most chemists don't react to the idea that chemistry is a branch of physics; they just nod. It's only when you say chemistry is JUST a branch of physics... S  B Harris 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

impact factors
The only efficient way to get impact factors is from Journal citation reports: all listings are derived from that, there is no other source. Various universities do various things with off campus access, and it the university has it and you can't get it you should ask. They will say some nonsense about licenses, but in the ISI standard license all authorized users of the library have access in the library, though not necessarily outside. You could copy the chemistry list for example, and use individual numbers from it. (the current ones are for 05; 06 not until next august) I would not post the list, for it is copyright & they enforce it.

The other way is to look on individual journal home pages, most journals with high impact factors advertise them. You can search in google for  "journal name "impact factor ", both in quotes. If you do this make sure you get ones specifically for 2005. There will also be a few pirated lists showing up, for earlier years, but all the pirate versions with 2005 numbers I know of have been taken down.

Once you have verified an impact factor, give the reference as '' Journal Citation Reports" (2005) or else the link to the publishers home page as [http//...html 2005 impact factor from publisher's site] . Anyone challenges that, let me know. Or you can ask a friendly librarian somewhere to send you a list. They should not send the whole thing, but excerpts are probably permissible as fair use response to reference questions. DGG 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

defending notability for journals

 * The publisher is an acceptable source for specific information about the journal.

Notability is of course more difficult. I am trying to establish the position that all peer-reviewed journals listed in standard indexes are notable. The standard index for chem is of course CAS, and this is not available off campus to anyone from anywhere; the journal list is CASSI, and I think ditto. However, almost all organic chem journals & many others are  in PubMed, and the link for their journal list is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=journals. Use the NLM catalog links display for the full information. since PubMed is a selective listing--though a broad one--this is not subject to the criticism of lists giving only unselected directory information. I do not think it would be challenged.

But I do not think it would be a good idea to add Indexed in: ABC routinely to articles, because this will end up with thousands of links to the Chemical Abstracts page, etc. Publishers sites will sometimes list rank, but I am prepared to find this for individual titles if there are problems. I do not think the rank should go in the articles about the journal, but be used only to defend notability. The relevant rank is for the category, such as Chemistry, Organic, and should be stated as no.5 out of 250 or whatever. Let me know if there are any challenges.

I will post this all somewhere, probably on a subpage of my user page.

One thing I would absolutely avoid is putting whatever ISI IF information anywhere except individual pages--putting it in the list of chem journals is almost certainly a copyright violation. DGG 22:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks
Hey, thanks for contributing to GFDL Compliance. I noticed you said you couldn't find contact info. In the future, try looking the site up on whois. There are programs you can get, or you can use sites like http://whois.net. Thanks. Superm401 - Talk 08:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm using cygwin on a laptop at home now and it does not have whois. My linux box is not connected to the internet. I'll try whois on a uni server. --Bduke 08:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I recommend using a web whois form, then, like whois.net or dnsstuff.com . Superm401 - Talk 08:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * whois.net gave 109 results, but none of them seem to be www.justrec.com. However I did better with dnsstuff.com. Thanks. --Bduke 09:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the contact. In the future, sign the action section, please. Superm401 - Talk 13:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the DomainsByProxy emails are really unreliable. The deal with that is, DomainsByProxy registers the domain for you, then forwards email sent to the address (DOMAIN@domainsbyproxy.com)...or not.  It looks like the (hidden) destination address is blocking mail domainsbyproxy forwards to them, which is kind of ridiculous.  I've been trying to complain to domainsbyproxy for a while, but they're not quick about much.  Just mark that you got an error in the action section.  Someone will try to send a message to their ISP later. Superm401 - Talk 05:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, reading the error again it looks like domainsbyproxy is blocking your ISP. You may want to complain to your ISP about this, but still just mark the error in the actions section. Superm401 - Talk 05:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is good to have someone, presumably from the US and not from down under like me, who knows about domainsbyproxy. Thanks. I have sent them a snail mail letter and will record it in the actions section. --Bduke 06:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm in the Atlanta, Georgia right now for college, but from Pennsylvania (adds to user page :) ). I have a bit of experience with Domainsbyproxy, and it's not good.  I don't recall anyone ever replying to email sent to a domainsbyproxy address.  I'm a bit surprised you sent a snail mail letter.  Did you use the mailing address in the whois address. If you go to http://domainsbyproxy.com/LegalAgreement.aspx?prog_id= you'll see that address there.  They say they'll act against people who violate the law; however, you have to send a certified letter to that address.


 * The bad news is that I sent such a letter, and it was undeliverable. Now, that could mean I used the wrong address.  I haven't got the letter back, so there's no way to know for sure.  However, I think I checked it, so I find this a little unlikely. Anyway, there are lots of mirrors to deal with, so I hope you help out.  If so, try not to get bogged down. Superm401 - Talk 11:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, that was the address I got from the whois. We will just have to see how it goes. I'm going to leave it for now. This copyright business is really a mess. They will just get away with it. Give my love to Georgia. I went there to UGA, Athens almost exactly 17 years ago for a 5 month sabbatical until June. Wish I could get back there. --Bduke 12:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your mediation offer

 * I'm now willing to accept you - but I don't think that any mediation would work while somebody's sockpuppet User:English Subtitle continues moving articles; at least one of them againts a former discussion on renaming it Talk:Boy Scouts and Girl Guides of Austria. --jergen 14:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to add myself to the mediation? There are four of us who routinely edit and write the world Scouting articles for content, not procedure-Jergen, BDuke, Wim Van Dorst and me. Chris 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll accept Bduke, but not Kintetsubuffalo --evrik (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, Jergen. I am rather tied up today but should be able to get around to starting things off tomorrow. Remember I am on the other side of the world. It is 10.45 a.m. here. I will however add a brief comment on the translations page. --Bduke 23:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC on SteveWolfer
Message posted on multiple user pages: as you've been a figure to some degree in the multi-article, Rand-related dispute involving SteveWolfer, I thought it would be appropriate to let you know that I've initiated an RFC on him. You are invited to join in the proceedings if you are so inclined. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 22:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations
Hi bduke, I answered to your request on the above page. I agree to mediation continueing, but with 2 side notes (discussion has to be on-wiki and the new user must promise not to move in the mean time). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

email
I sent you a email at the end of last week through the link in your user page. did the attachment come through? reply thru my email if you prefer14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations
I don't know if I am to be included in this, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Translations. I am not a member of the Scouting WikiProject. I guess I'd like to be listed as an observer on Evrik's side. English Subtitle 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as you will agree not to move pages while the mediation is going on and to follow the consensus that is finally reached, you are welcome to join in, but please hold back until Evrik as responded as I suggested on the mediation page. I will not be able to respond for a few hours now. --Bduke 22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will agree not to change any more pages until this is resolved. --English Subtitle 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, once Evrik responds, I will add a few comments or questions myself (not sure what yet) and call for wider debate. Not being a participant in the Scouting WikiProject is not a problem, but if a consensus is reached, I am sure the project will accept it and be less than happy by anyone who is not a participant breaching the agreed view. --Bduke 06:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy about User:English Subtitle last contributions; just some minutes before answering your question he moved Beslidhja Skaut Albania to Besa Scouts Albania and vandalized again the redirects. He must have seen your question since he was logged in. This is clearly a disruption of the mediation attempt. --jergen 07:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was 2 minutes before. It is possible that he had not seen my request. I have asked him to explain. I understand you frustration, but please leave it with me. --Bduke 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my response is tardy. It is on my list of things to do. --evrik (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wood Badge
The training system changed considerably just a few years ago - the preliminary training is done in a couple of modules which last about a day, and you are expected to complete those within the first five months of holding a warrant - the other twenty modules to get Wood Badge are what it is talking about as "appropriate training" in POR. ADC (Training) was replaced with Local Training Managers and Administrators with the rest of the changes. Horus Kol 14:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all roles are awarded with a Wood Badge after completion of training - I guess that's why POR leaves it as "appropriate training"... The week camp is not a part of training at all now. As for the three year limit - this is a slightly thorny issue - the new system has only been around for four years, and it has taken sometime for all of the practicalities to be worked out at the local level... I don't think the three year rule has been instituted in the Districts I am involved in - but warrants are reviewed every five years, and I am aware of some renewals being blocked by the Districts because of lack of participation in training - the reviews have so far not been strict on having completed the "appropriate training" proscribed by POR, because the decision ultimately rests with the District in which the warrant is held. Horus Kol 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

CP Letters
I shall add some comments about relative position. Perhaps we should start challenging the reliability of the sources used for some other subjects. Rather than foolishly pick a incontestably notable one, I will look for a truly dubious example. DGG 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)00:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will add the stuff for J Phys . dont hesitate to ask me put in what is needed here or elsewhere--it is as easy for me to do it as to send it to you for you to do it. I've no objection to small batches of work. DGG 01:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

New Wine Discussion (by Agne) : Input Requested
Dear WikiProject_Wine member:

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine that has become
 * Wikipedia is not a wine guide

Please add your comments/input to the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide.

Thanks! Regards -- Steve.Moulding 20:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Eugene Guth discussion continues
How can I find article in which User:Conscious has contributed content?

Mikeguth 19:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I shortened the article on my father as per your suggestions on my talk page. I tried to include information that would be found in a World Book Encyclopedia article. Believe it or not, encyclopedia articles do talk about awards people receive. Mikeguth 01:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Blnguyen did not move the page, he just copy-pasted content, which could have been done by any editor. Conscious 08:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment to User:Bduke. Get off your high horse! I edited your discussion page that pertained only to me and my article on my father. I deleted the old material to keep the discussion current. Don't pretend that is vandalism. Do you think if you scribble some graffiti on a wall that makes it "art." Your words are not so precious that they should be commemorated for all time. Frankly, you really need to get your ego in check. I am wondering what type of personality is attracted to editing on Wikipedia. This is getting quite bizarre.

Second, I have followed your suggestions with respect to shortening the article on my father. I put in the GNU open source material notice at the bottom of my father's home page. I have really gone out of my way to accommodate your requests.

Mikeguth 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I replied on User talk:Mikeguth since he put the same material there. --Bduke 20:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I now note, merely for the record that he has deleted from his talk page part of what he wrote and part of my reply, as is his right. The original can be found in the history. --Bduke 07:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mathew Chuk AFD
Hi, just thought I'd let you know your AFD seems properly formed. While I'm not an admin, I do frequent WP:AFD and I can see no problems with Articles for deletion/Mathew Chuk. Good work on correcting it. Cheers! The Rambling Man 08:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Ranking
I think I got it fixed. I reverted the redirect, deleted the cut-and-paste page, and then moved the article to the new title. Check it and see if everything's ok and let me know. --DanielCD 22:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WA scouts
Forgive me i seem to forget the earlier threads on this matter - this article has no offshoots at all and remains like that? SatuSuro 09:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Scouting in Western Australia does not have any offshoots, nor do any of the State or Territory articles. The same is true for the County/Area Scouting articles for UK. I think the truth is that these State/Territory articles are pretty poor (except for the ACT one, which received attention from one of the best Oz editors). I think we need to get these up to the mark first. Maybe then we can have articles on Sea Scouts etc. Only the basic sections (Cubs, Scouts, Rovers, etc) have national articles. The article on the individual Sea scout Troop had nothing notable in it at all. I am amazed it had not been put up for deletion. I just decided that the merges should be done. Do you want to revert them? I guess we could, but the articles need a lot of work. --Bduke 10:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I have too many threads of unfinished articles and projects to really devote time for the wa art at the moment - but having spoken casually to the commish just yesterday I think in a month or two I might be closer to doing some work on it... but not in the short term - pity though - as the centenary celebrations on the 22nd of this month and later will see such a motley crew of relatively poor articles. Sorry cannot commit time at the moment....  Cheers SatuSuro 11:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Scouting mediation
Another week is gone by and still no statement by Evrik. Could you please ask him again for his comments? If he does not answer soon (within the next week) I propose to close the mediation. Until then I'll prepare a proposal on naming associations' articles; if we can't discuss it in the mediation. I'll put it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards for discussion. --jergen 16:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He has assured me that he is not stalling but very busy in real life. The last message suggests he will respond on Thursday. I had told him that if he does not respond soon, I will attempt to progress the mediation using what he has said previously, but would much prefer a more recent considered comment for the mediation. You are being very patient. I think we should see progress in the next week. --Bduke 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you ask him again; he had nearly a month for his statement. --jergen 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am expecting something from him this weekend. --Bduke 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Man
Well, there's a simple alternative solution: find an Isle of Man editor to fix up the portal. That should be twenty, thirty minutes of work. It doesn't have to update it regularly or anything, just expand the redlink sections so that it looks like an actual portal instead of a work-in-progress. I've asked around in a few spots.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it looks ok now. Not featured-level, but certainly acceptable. Thanks for the help.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

28th Glasgow Scout Group/Troop
I disagree with the consensus that it is not notable, though I agree that the Troop page could be placed into the Group Page. More information is going to be added by users about the history of the troop and more information about different international events. For example Lord Badden Powel wrote to th troop congratulating it on successful set up. We were invited by the Prime Minister to vist 10 Downing Steet, and was personally given a tour of the area. The Rudolf Hess fact is notable also. We are one of the oldest surving troops in Glasgow (the 1st and 24th being obvously older) and are one of the most internationally active; we have had at least one or more representative of the troop at each of the world jamborees, with a large collection of Neckies and badges from most. We even have four boys heading as part of the Scotland/Glasgow contingent to this years Jamboree. With the wealth of information that I plan to put onto this page, making a Group page is probably the best comprmise, as the Greater Glasgow page would become filled with information about our group.

Also, this is the first Article I have started on Wiki and fully understand the Notability and Verification processes, but I have been editting on here for a very long time. No shooting the messenger from me. :) -- User:sheeldz 10.15 GMT


 * You can disagree with the consensus all you like, but if the article is sent to WP:AFD it will be difficult to defend. You will be asked for several non-Scouting citable sources for the notability of the Group. Much of what you say above is not notable - 3rd oldest in Glasgow does not cut it; I'm not even sure 1st does; 1st in Scotland might. Anyway, I do not like deleting interesting stuff. So merge in the Troop article into the Group one. Remove non-encyclopedic stuff - names of leaders, names of patrols, when sections meet, etc. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. All this information should be on your web pages. Then get as many sources as you can and hope it is not sent to AfD. Good luck. --Bduke 10:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am at present researching and gaining references to certain topics, including the age and the history of the troop as part of the troop's 95th anniversary. Currently awaiting images and sources from older members of the troop.--sheeldz 11.57, 7 February 2007 (GMT)


 * there's been no movement on this article for a week, and I have added the notable information into the Scouting in Greater Glasgow article... could you look at the merge discussion for this at Talk:Scouting in Greater Glasgow? Horus Kol 22:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had looked at it earlier this morning, but I had not realised that I had not made a definite recommendation. I think it should just become a redirect. Note the Troop redirect, which would then become a double redirect. If the author reverts the redirect, then go to AfD, but there is no need to go there now. A pity this one is so much better than the Newcastle Group I have just noticed that also needs to be merged. --Bduke 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point about the redirect - exactly at what point in the discussion do we actually do this? I've always been unclear about what constitutes a reasonable time for discussion before taking action. I'll have a nosy for that Newcastle group as well. Horus Kol 10:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Its 100th Newcastle Scouts. On the Glasgow Group, there was a support response from User:Golden Wattle, an Australian admin, who I greatly respect. I suggest we put a time limit of 5 days on it from now and then we determine consensus. Maybe we ask Randy to determine it. I suggets we close it on the 21st UTC. What do you think? --Bduke 10:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * re: Glasgow - fair enough... i just don't want this thing to drag on - I've found merger request that were months old before.
 * re: Newcastle - I updated the Scouting in Northumberland article with the only thing that is relevant for the 100th Newcastle article - their website... Horus Kol 10:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See Also Gang Show
I see that you have deleted the See also link to the Gang Show article. I can't think what you fellows have against its inclusion in the list. NIH I dare say is the reason. I don't why it is but some people get all proprietary about articles they have contributed to. What is it about the link that has raised your ire? Albatross2147 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not getting proprietary about Scouting or any article. My contributions to it have been minor and the fact that it is now a featured article is entirely due to others. Also I have nothing against the Gang Show. Nohting has raised my ire. As I said elsewhere I come from two of the few countries that have Gang Shows. Do you know how many Scouting articles there are? If I supported a case for having Gang Show where you put it, I would have to support putting a few dozen articles there. That would mean the article was no longer worthy of being featured. "See also" sections should be short and highly relevant. What does NIH stand for? --Bduke 21:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Austin Asche
The image isn't in the public domain, I know that much. I'm unsure if fair use applies either. There appears to be a current push for free images when the subject is a living person. fairusereplace has been appearing on a lot of living person biographies of late. -- Longhair\talk 21:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Almost every image uploaded by that user was incorrectly licenced as being in the public domain. Australian goverment images are not public domain unlike their US equivalents. I'm not overly experienced if fair use image licencing, but if you think they may meet the fair use criteria, I won't dispute their retagging if you can provide a fair use rationale and argue for their inclusion. -- Longhair\talk 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Professor in Aust?
You have added "In Australia, Associate Professors are often addressed as Professor." to the Professor article. That hasn't been my experience. The assertion " the title of "Professor" is reserved in correspondence to full professors only; lecturers and readers are properly addressed by their academic qualification (Dr. for a Ph.D., D.Phil. etc. and Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms otherwise)." seems to cover what I would expect in an Australian context - however, perhaps I have so far missed out yet another Americanisation trend. Just a query - if it is indeed your experience happy to live with it. --Golden Wattle talk 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was an AssPro before I retired and was called Professor. My wife has just been in hospital and the surgeon phoned yesterday. He said "Professor XXX speaking". He is an AssPro. I think it is common. BTW, I found the article on Graeme Clark. An 'e' had been added to his name on that silly list we were discussing. It needs expansion though. --Bduke 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I think Canberra might be different but maybe things have changed - surgeons used to be very proud to call themselves Mr - it was one-upmanship on Dr! :-) --Golden Wattle  talk 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It was a british thing, but around Melbourne and Monash Unis, which I know a bit, is seems to have gone. --Bduke 23:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to thank you for your help with Earl Mindell. I figured the scientific peer review would be best for the subsection, hence I added it, but thanks for putting it on that other board too. Have a good one! SERSeanCrane 05:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I clarified the requested review to avoid confussion. SERSeanCrane 07:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Energy edits
You have sent me the following message on my talk page

"You added the second sentence. The first is talking about internal energy (U). The second is talking about chemical potential which is related to the Gibbs Free Energy (G). There is therefore no "Thus" about it. Your sentence does not follow from the first and is actually talking about something completed different. The sentence after the Gibbs-Duhem equation "However, the change in internal energy can also be construed as the change in chemical potential energy" is true only if chemical potential energy is used in the sense of this article, i.e. as internal energy and not as the chemical potential which is different. Roughly, spontaneous process go with a decrease in chemical potential, but that can be with an increase in internal energy - i.e. an endothermic reaction. The point about the Gibbs-Duhem equation and the chemical potential does need to be mentioned somewhere, but not here and then more as a "do not confuse this use of chemical potential energy with the chemical potential". --Bduke 07:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hallenrm"
 * Here is my response to it. Gibbs Free energy and Internal energy are in fact two related concepts. Internal energy is related to enthalpy which in turn is related to Gibbs Free energy. I suppose you agree with me on this fact. Therefore, considering that the two are closely related, when one is talking loosely about energy, as in this section of the article, I felt while editing that if one introduced such a sentence, it leads one to think, just as it led you to. I do not agree with you when you say "However, the change in internal energy can also be construed as the change in chemical potential energy" is true only if chemical potential energy is used in the sense of this article, i.e. as internal energy and not as the chemical potential which is different."Simply because in this article we are discussing energy per se, which manifests itself as internal energy or Gibbs Free energy in Chemical Thermodynamics. And I see no reason why one should be preferred over the otherCharlie 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article is using energy rather loosely, but we should not confuse people. Gibbs Free energy and internal energy are quite different. Free energy terms are actually a measure of the total entropy change with terms that relate to the entropy change of the system (Delta-S) and the surroundings (Delta-H for Gibbs Free energy and Delta-U for Helmholtz free energy). Potential energy in chemistry is better related to H or U as it is directly related to the heat change in a chemical process - is is going dowmhill or uphill on a energy surface. "Chemical potential" really is something very different. It is talking about the potential for spontaneous change. However, my real objection to this addition is where you placed it. It breaks the flow of a discussion of internal energy changes. I have moved it further down. I also think that the Gibbs-Duhem equation should be either removed or the terms in it explained. The latter would make this section too long and also confusing, so I suggest removing it. --Bduke 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no objection to your last edit. Thank you, for your cooperative attitude.Charlie 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of discoveries in chemistry
Since you seem to be interested in the history of chemistry, I thought you might be interested in this new article. Itub 16:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Invite to participate in Wine Newsletter
Hello! I am curious if you would like to participate in our Wine Newsletter "Wiki Winos" feature which is a get to know you section of the new Wine Newsletter that we are trying to develop to foster more of a community sense within the wine project. The feature is a questionnaire that you are free to answer any or all questions on that is located at WikiProject Wine/Newsletter/Wiki-Winos. Please post any response or feedback on my talk page. Thanks for your time and consideration! AgneCheese/Wine 13:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

An update on WikiProject Abandoned Articles
The project has reached the quarter-way point for the work on the list of the oldest 1000 ("abandoned") articles in Wikipedia: 250 articles have been reviewed and updated!

The project now has 21 members. If you're no longer interested, please take your name off the list; you won't get any further messages like this one. On the other hand, if you're still interested, please consider signing up for a(nother) block of 10 articles to work on - if everyone did this, we'd be almost halfway through those 1000 articles!

Finally, please note that project approach has changed slightly - there is now a section for editors to place articles that need to be "adopted", or to adopt articles that need further work. This means that if you find an article in a block of ten that needs more work than you have time for, it has a place to be put.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

another scouting stub
Hi - I have not much opinion but wondered what you thought of 1st Victoria Police Scottish? - yet another scouting group stub--Golden Wattle talk 23:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not appear to be notable in any way and I see nothing to merge into Scouting in Victoria. I suggest prod to see whether we can delete it. What do you think? --Bduke 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have prodded Regards--Golden Wattle talk 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
 It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Woodend, Victoria
I'm sorry mate but I didn't edit or even visit a page on "Woodend". The town's a hole and I've never been there in my life. Although I did post some new information on Jak PSP and it was removed. {added by User:138.217.105.220, 07:21, (AEDT) 23 February 2007}

Rlevse Rfa
Thanks for the rfa support. Glad you are a part of the Scouting project and look forward to long happy wiki editing with you. PS: Please check out the Wood Badge FAC, it's gotten very little attention. Rlevse 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Science pearls' project category rename
Hi Bduke,

Please take a look here Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 28. By the way, I started contacting computer science experts, those that appear in our list, regarding the list. It receives many compliments as a valuable resource. I also ask them for entry to add (or remove). I received some addition and currently no removals. I'll keep updating you in the process. APH 06:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noted the Category:Scientific literature and its sub categories. It might be the categories that we need instead of the important publications categories. What do you say? APH 07:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not had time to look at this in detail, but I do know that the categories you created do overlap in many areas with other categories. Also I have become increasingly unhappy about the link to the Science pearls project as so few of the entries in those lists actually have articles. Maybe you should just let these categories go or just wait and see what happens and we build on whatever does. I doubt I'll be able to look at this again for at least 15 hours. --Bduke 08:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Scouting Tireless Contributor Barnstar
-for excellent help, input, advice, and editing on a multitude of Scouting project tasks and skillful handling of our own mediation issues.Rlevse 21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Cheers, Pete.Hurd 02:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, it was pretty subtle. rock on, Pete.Hurd 00:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Scouts in Honduras
I hear your letter. My interest is in Honduras. If I find anything relevant I will comment though I am intrigued. We wouldnt write Al-Qaeda in Arabic (to give an example of a different type of organisation) for obvious reasons and I am not at all sure we should be writing scout organisations in their own languages. Presumably we dont for Russian scout groups etc, SqueakBox 15:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Melanesia
The guy who first proposed the project seems to be gone. I took the initiative to activate the project above in his absence, as I personally guess you all have enough members to give it a go. Good luck. John Carter 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of World Heritage Sites in danger - MedCab Case
Hi! I think the case is not yet closed. There has not been any edit to the article List of World Heritage Sites in danger since user FatCatIL will just keep on revising it and insisting on a political overtone of the article (i.e. the user keeps on including the line that the site of Jerusalem now "belongs to Israel"--refer to the user's contribution for details). Although this might be true politically (or might be debatable, depending on the party you're talking to), the article is primarily focused on the World Heritage Site program. And in this program, UNESCO addresses this delicate political situation by not delving into it (i.e. the "State Party" of Jerusalem is itself)--hence, it is akin to its goal of cooperation to save these monuments, instead of dividing countries by such political debates. The user FatCatIL, by including the clause of ownership, clearly does not realize this. And knowing that wikipedia articles should present objective, neutral point-of-views, and that our proposal is based merely on the official stand by UNESCO regarding its own program (refer to its official website: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list), then we might have a problem if FatCatIL will continue to insist on a separate version with a biased point-of-view. I hope you can help resolve this issue. Joey80 01:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi! I just would like to inform you that FatCatIL has taken the initiative to revert the edits made in the article List of World Heritage Sites in danger. Thanks for your help. FYI: even in Israeli media, the property I'm referring to is treated separately as other Israeli World Heritage Sites (see this article for example, second to last paragraph: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173642638965&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). Thanks a lot for your help. Joey80 12:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

To help you with your monobook
The issue is that the names are conflicting. I'm going to add another parameter to the template in a minute, which will make it work. -Amarkov moo! 05:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it's not very easy to do. Anyway, to solve your problem, change all of the "dodeletion"s and "adddeletions" for one of the tabs to something else, and it will work. -Amarkov moo! 06:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Medcab cases
When accepting WP:MEDCAB cases, please don't forget to set the status from "new" to "open". You forgot to change the template for this case. Cheers!! Vassyana 12:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Backpacking
Thank you for your recent contribution to WikiProject Backpacking. In light of your expertice, I'd like to invite you to join the project, if you'd like, click below and add your name to accept!


 * Just wanted to thank you personally for joining the project, It's always nice to have others interested, even if they won't be very active :) Thanks - Leif902 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oz territorial Scouting
Thanks, Brian, I've seen enough stuff deleted to last me a while. I am sorry if I sounded bitter the other day. I always try to back all of you as best I can when it is something near to you, and while I know not everything can be saved, I would never put salt in the wound when something important is deleted. Sometimes I get too attached. That was one of my articles I started before I lost Sheri. Someday someone is going to decide that all of the Wikipedia is in violation of something, and it will all get deleted and we'll lose everything, meanwhile I do what I can. Chris 01:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Howells Department Store
Thankyou for your support for keeping the Howells article alive on Wikipedia. I am trying to find more sources but this is difficult when one is writing about a Welsh store from London with few resources available. I shall do my best to find more sources. Thankyou once again, I am indebted to you. Sheep21 02:50, 18 March 2007

common ducted electrolysis
Hi Brian, recently I have been involved in investigating a bit of pseudo-science relating to "HHO gas", "Aquygen", "Brown's gas", "Magnecular bond" (the list goes on). These articles have had a heck of a time on Afd for a variety of reasons, so I have been trying to work out what is going on here. Two of my articles have stuck (Institute for Basic Research and Ruggero Santilli), and I would like to continue to fill in the picture around this pseudo-science to hopefully nip it in the bud or at least demystify it. A rough overview can be seen on DRV, but I am not so interested in keeping those articles specifically. I went in search of "common ducted electrolysis" as all of the people related to these funky gases take it for granted that "common ducted electrolysis" is a well established process; I was surprised to find there is little information on it. Is it known by another name? Could you point me towards some reading material? Cheers, John Vandenberg 03:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi John. I dipped a toe in those articles myself once, but they are a real mess. I've never heard of "common ducted electrolysis", although I have to admit I probably know less about electrochemistry than any other area of Physical Chemistry. I'll try to search for it, but I'm rather tied up for the next week. I may find a bit of time to look at it. Cheers. --Bduke 05:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just passing by and found this and interesting question. There are no results for "common ducted electrolysis" in Google books. That's not a good sign; I would bet that this is not mainstream, to say the least. --Itub 08:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Reader"
We have been discussing the status of UK readers from time to time, and lets try to figure out how to settle it. (At least for some particular subject, like Chemistry.) Perhaps you can point me to some relevant bios with the successive steps and years? I'm also going to ask about this on what I consider the best of all possible RSs, the CHMINF discussion list. As an example, A. Doyle's record of publications is typical of an Assistant Professor soon ready for tenure as an Associate professor,  at a US Research university, depending on the University--probably not at the top level, like Cornell or Ohio State. I am perfectly willing to be convinced. Let's centralize it here.DGG 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I do not have time to go into this in detail right now. However a quick look suggests a completely new set up is being phased in and the old scheme still applies in many places, so it is very complex. What I described is the scheme I knew 25 years ago. Reader was a high position, just below Professor. Readers were paid same a Senior Lecturers but had more status. Less than 30% of academics in any institution were at these levels (and in some case a max of 40% in any department). Being at the top of the Lecturer scale was waiting for dead men's boots. Many good people were not promoted to Senior Lecturer as the university was at the 30% figure. The lecturer scale had 13 points and many people stayed at the top of that scale until they retired. Appointment at Lecturer was tenured and followed several post docs or a time as Assistant Lecturer. I'll try to get the up to date position. --Bduke 05:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Newbie thinks page should be gone
Hello! I'm very new here. I believe I found a page that should be deleted. It's the page called Tanner Agle. I did what I thought I should based on what I read on the policies. I'm still unsure what I'm doing is right. (The author takes down the notice and adds even more nonsense.) I'm better with correcting comma usage and such, so I'll hand this issue over to you if that's OK. Well, it looks like you know what to do with it anyway! I'm keeping this page on my watch list so I know if you respond. Thank you. --Donignacio 23:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not sure why you picked me out for this. I agree that this article is about someone who is not notable. It now has a "prod" delete notice on it. I will keep an eye on it and if it is deleted again I will propose it at Articles for deletion. --Bduke 00:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tried putting it on that proposal page, and it didn't work. I saw your name above it so ... that's how I came to you. Oh well. Thanks for your help! --Donignacio 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Melbourne meetup
The fifth meetup of Melbourne Wikipedians is being planned as a breakfast meeting in the city with Jimbo Wales (at a venue to be arranged) on Friday, 27 April 2007.

Jimbo has proposed breakfast as the one real window of opportunity during his tightly scheduled stay in Melbourne. Tbe precise time has to be sorted out with Jimbo, but the arrangements for the equivalent Adelaide meetup a few days before may give a good idea.

Feel free to edit the relevant page in any way that might be helpful. I feel like a bit of an interloper, not having attended previous meetups. If there's anything you can do to help, I'll be grateful. Please think about whether you'll be able to make it, assuming the arrangements are similar to those Adelaide is adopting (i.e. a block of time with people being fairly free to arrive when it suits them). Some indication on the page of your possible participation would be really helpful. Metamagician3000 06:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosanna Cubs link
Hi

I'm writing in reference to your removal of my addition of Rosanna Cubs and my removal of Diamond Valley Cubs on the Scout item on Wikipedia.

You commented that removal of other's sites was unfriendly... I would rather you'd asked me first or at least had a look at the sites concerned. Both are my sites... I was the CSL at Diamond Valley and recently moved to start a new Pack - Rosanna. The site went with me. If you look at www.diamondvalleycubs.org, you'll see it's now just one page, with the Cub content referring to Rosanna Cubs.

The link to Diamond Valley Cubs was happily sitting there for a year or so. I'd like to think that I could replace it with the www.rosannacubs.org ( Rosanna Cub Scouts ) link.

Regards

Wayne Renfrew CSL Rosanna Cub Scouts akela@rosannacubs.org

This was on Scouting in Victoria. I may have been a bit hasty. It looked as if you had added a link to one pack but removed somebody else's link. However, the real question is whether there should be any link there to a pack. Adding a link to a single pack or troop is considered by some people to be spam. It does not meet the guidelines for external links. It certainly would not be OK to have a link to every pack, troop, unit, crew etc. in Victoria, so why should there just be a link to your pack? The link may have been there for a year, but I do not think it should be there. --Bduke 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about a single link.... I never envisaged that mine would be the only one... simply a case of you've got to start somewhere. As for guidelines for external links.... the site is "Scouting in Victoria"... and links to Groups/Sections in Vic would seem to me, to be links specifically regarding Scouting in Victoria. You'll never get links to every one... only those who have an interest in being added.... and given that they're still meeting the description of Scouting in Victoria... why is it a problem?

Anyway, for the moment I've added Rosanna Cubs back in and also put in a couple of headings (State and Groups/Sections)... to make it clearer.

If you or your mate decide to delete it again, I'm not going to sit there forever adding as you delete. My view on Scouting AND Wikipedia is accomodation of a variety of views and a breadth of information. This is my first try at getting involved in Wikipedia and I must say a disappointing one, given the arbitray shutdown of views that don't concur, but are nevertheless not necessarily wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:220.237.171.123 (talk • contribs) - I think User:Wrenfrew

I had to go and look at the edit history to see what you meant by "your mate". User:Maelgwn lives in Adelaide and does edit articles on Scouting in Australia. I had not seen your edits or hers(?) when I noticed and corrected the section on the jamboree just before going to bed. The headings in "External links are not acceptable as these links are not necessarily restricted to the ones you have. Such sub heading are not normal. Indeed, they are very rare and I have only seen them when there is a very long list of external links. The guideline you need to read is External links. I think sites for packs come under "Not directly related .." but there are maybe other relevant clauses. I'm sorry your experience of Wikipedia is disappointing. The site is complex. There are 1.7 plus million articles. We have a lot of policies and guidelines to follow. Let me make a few suggestions. It is good you now have an account, although you did not use it for the edit above. When you have an account, someone will welcome you on your user talk page with a formal introduction but it does have some good links. I have just done that adding the welcome to User talk:Wrenfrew. Since you are interested in Scouting, why not look at WikiProject Scouting. That has sub pages that give the collective wisdom of Scout editors about what should be included and what not included. When adding messages to talk pages you should sign your contribution with ~. For me that gives - Bduke 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Roy McWeeny
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Roy McWeeny, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://pubs.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/AwardsAndFunding/CurrentWinners/SpiersMemorialMedal.asp, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Roy McWeeny and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Roy McWeeny with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Roy McWeeny.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Roy McWeeny/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Roy McWeeny saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Whpq 00:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

hi
hi there sir, how was working at lancaster uni? i almost went there.

I would have been inclined to respond to you if you were a registered user. It is not always clear that unregistered users see changes to their IP address talk page. I reverted your edits because they were not encyclopedic material, being about yourself, and they disrupted the flow of the article. You would have enjoyed Lancaster. I did in its early days. I am sorry you did not get into Oxbridge. However I can assure you that my family, while quite bright, were working class and not well educated. I'm sure you will get a good university education somewhere else. I think you could also be a good contributor to Wikipedia. Take care. --Bduke 03:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments given the circumstances. I have just read your userpage and might I say I a have great respect for your academic achievements. Just out of interest what motivated you to go and work at Bayero University? Also, Just out of interest, I was wondering what your greatest achievement as an academic has been. Sorry for all the questions but im soon off to university myself and im quite curious as it’s all a completely new and unfamiliar world to me. I didn’t even know what an academic journal was until recently!

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.70.176 (talk • contribs)

First, please get an account and stop vandalising pages. I see you have got into all kinds of trouble while I took a break. Also sign your contributions on talk pages with ~. I went to Bayero University as I was given the opportunity to start a new department. I much enjoyed it and that was probably my greatest achievement as an academic. OK, I wrote a lot of papers and still write a few, but none are anything to write home about. Which university are you going to? --Bduke 04:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Duhram hopefully but if I dont make the grade then Leicester. It was a toss up between lancaster and leicester as to my second choice. In the end leicester was a better safety net as lancaster's offer was only marginally lower than that of Duhram.88.105.20.10 08:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Thanks. I think we also owe you thanks for working on that page. --Bduke 09:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Altona Gate Shopping Centre
Lol. Sorry. It looked like the back of the shopping centre on the left but I must've been mistaken. I'll change it. Chicken7 00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

3rd Padiham Scouts
There's actual nothing to merge in that article - when I get to Lancashire article, it will be listed like all the other groups. I say, let it go. -- Horus Kol Talk 06:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I used "merge" as a polite way of "let it go". I agree there is nothing substantial to actually add to a County article. It is however not under threat. If we could just make a redirect it would be easier than AfD or prod or speedy. Should we prod it for a start? BTW, I like your changes to the Cumbria article which I expanded when it was tagged for speedy delete. I have however added back the mention of the Oxford University link to Ennerdale Camp. Having had a large number of students working on the site twice a year for over 50 years is, I think, notable. I was part of it in the 1960s and am amazed it has lasted. The Cumbria page, like pretty well all the county articles, still has the defect of having no sources from outside Scouting. --Bduke 08:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to go about getting the external sources... As for the link with the Oxford Uni group - i must have missed that in the previous version of the article... it wasn't too easy to read through, I'm afraid - thanks for catching it. -- Horus Kol Talk 12:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've speedy tagged this, so I can't be the one to delete it. If you want any info, copy off somewhere.Rlevse 12:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Computational chemistry
There is no history section for this article, could you write a short one or simply tell me what the start date is for this branch of chemistry? Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 02:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Sadi, I will have a go, but it will have to wait for about 12 days or so. I'm really busy in real life and that will force me to take a wikibreak next week. The question is a complex one. The term is later than the practice. When I started doing calculations in quantum chemistry, I thought of myself as a theoretical chemist or a quantum chemist. The term "computational chemistry" is much later, but it brought into the fold people who called themselves other things such as molecular modellers and so on. It needs to be handled carefully. --Bduke 06:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. Based on the history section of the computer article, I'm guessing that computational chemistry started developing in the 1970s (slowly) and then gained momentum in the 1980s?  I plan to buy a basic computational chemistry textbook soon; maybe then I'll be able to contribute to the history section a bit.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As you know theoretical calculations in Chemistry go back to Heitler and London in 1927. The first calculations carried out on digital computers was much earlier than you think. It was in the early 1950s, when what we now call semiempirical calculations were carried out. The first ab initio calculations on diatomic molecules were in 1956 at MIT. The first polyatomic calculation using Gaussian orbitals was in the late 1950s at Cambridge. Huckel calculations, generated by computer in Berkeley and Oxford were published in 1964. The first version of GAUSSIAN (Pople's program) was 1970, but other codes - ATMOL, POLYAYTOM, IBMOL, and others - all predate GAUSSIAN. The first bibliography (200+ pages) on ab initio molecular calculations was published in 1971. The 1960s were extremely active. I myself first used a computer in 1961. Molecular mechanics started in the 60s or at least the 70s. However, none of this was called computational chemistry. That term was I think first used in the late 1980s. The series "Reviews in Computational Chemistry" going back to around 1990 have had a number of articles outlining the history of computational chemistry in different countries - USA, UK, France, Canada and Germany at least. They contain stuff about hardware and the organisation of computer centres to facilitate large numerical calculations that could well be used in some of the history of computer articles that are linked from the place you mention. Those articles are pretty poor. Geeks have no sense of history. --Bduke 21:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice information. It would be interesting to find out who first coined or used the term "computational chemistry" in its current sense?  We'll have to keep our eyes open.  Let me know when you start putting some of the above information into the article.  Also, yes I agree writing computer code and writing articles are two different things.  Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 23:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. I just want to add that the Journal of Computational Chemistry was first published in 1980, so the term goes at least as early as that. I would guess that it came into use in the mid to late 1970s (but I'm too young to remember ;-). Another milestone worth mentioning is the paper of Metropolis et al in 1953 which introduced the Metropolis Monte Carlo method also widely used in computational chemistry for fluid simulations among other things. Of course, they didn't call it computational chemistry at the time. --Itub 06:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to: Talk:Computational chemistry

Thank you
For your interest and support of the new NT project - hopefully it will prosper with the level of enthusiasm shown so far SatuSuro 10:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Blues
I agree that Category:Old Blues could be improved on. I should prefer Category:Christ's Hospital Old Blues, as that includes the name used, without any ambiguity. Your Category:Christ's Hospital alumni would not be in line with the pattern for English School alumni - almost all of those subcategories are named on the pattern of Old Northpolians. Xn4 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is certainly better. Suggest it on the CfD page. --Bduke 23:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest
Hi Bduke.

Yes, I am the developer of STR3DI32, which is freely available to all academics, students, and other users of molecular modeling methods.

There is no financial gain for me here, and the papers that I cite as references show that I have been a researcher in theoretical chemistry for quite a number of years. I don't need to promote myself since my academic research and papers speak for themselves.

I am sure that you are well aware that it easy to create the illusion of unanimity on a subject by using one artifice, or another, to exclude conflicting views on that subject (censoring?).

I happen to have strong experimental evidence, and strong theoretical evidence, that contradict the validity and efficacy of the delocalization (hyperconjugation) theory of the anomeric effect. The supporters of the hyperconjugation theory, of course, do not like the criticism, but it is my duty, as a chemist and researcher to put my views out there for the entire scientific community to read and judge for themselves. The phlogiston theory was only upset because ALL scientists with an interest in that area were free to think about it, and to publish their works and thoughts.

Our job, as authors, is to create awareness in the minds of the scientific community at large. No single one of us knows enough to be able to exclude other people's ideas, but we can certainly expose the community to ALL of the ideas so that discussion, and scientific thought will eventually lead us in the right direction.

I do hope that we can continue to work together for the benefit of all. best wishes. Vgsbox 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I do not really disagree with anything you say and I am sure we can work together. I had not even read your article on the anomeric effect until just now. I fixed your references. You have to have "author=X" for the first author and "coathors=YZ" for the other authors. Otherwise no names appear in the reference section. My only concern is your comment above that "it is my duty, as a chemist and researcher to put my views out there for the entire scientific community to read and judge for themselves". Of course, in the scientific literature, but most wikipedians would say "not on Wikipedia". It is too close to original research and a possible conflict of interest. However, I have to say that you have done a good job at presenting the different views and have, by and large, reached a neutral point of view. I think the very last sentence needs a reference to an independent source, that has reviewed your work and the earlier theory. Could you have a look at Computational chemistry and in particular at the section on "Molecular mechanics"? That section needs expanding and it needs an example like the one on ab initio methods. I'd like to see that article confirmed as a good article (it was proposed years ago when standards were lower, and has been extensively chnaged since then) and possibly become a featured article. --Bduke 23:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Need ref
Hi. Do you have a ref for the cite needed tag here in the last para: Influences? I found one for Canada, but not Britain, though the Canada one could use one saying it doesn't prohibit atheists. Rlevse 12:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm lost. What does this refer to? --Bduke 12:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, the Influences section of Scouting. Rlevse 12:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Might find one tomorrow. I've just got in from a meeting and need to do a few things before sleep. --Bduke 12:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)