This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bduke. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive from June 1st - December 31st, 2006

thanks

thanks for the heads up, I didn't realise that. Sorry for any inconvenience if I caused it. (Added by User:Codingmasters June 1, 2006, Bduke 22:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

TfD nomination of Template:Physics Series

Template:Physics Series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Srleffler 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Scouts

Yes I agree with you although I do not intend to write detailed articles for every county/area. However I feel if a basic page with the structure of the areas is there then local people involved can edit it themselves. Lists are better than nothing. (Added by User:EnglishScout in response to my comment on User talk:EnglishScout. June 7, 2006.Bduke 22:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

Baden-Powell Scouts

Hi Bduke. Type in BPSA in the search box and see what happens. :) (Although I should have been more clear in the edit summary. Sorry for the confusion.) Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 09:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Chinese periodic table AfD

That is a fantastic idea, replacing the symbols with images. Viridae 03:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Stole your House Rules message box - thanks - didnt know how to do that myself. Viridae 03:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I see you are also in Melbourne. --Bduke 03:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, La Trobe uni. Viridae 05:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Organization/Organisation

I thought you might be interested to know that, historically, the British spelling is actually 'organization' (and is preferred by the OED, if I remember correctly). In any case, both are acceptable in the UK. I won't change it back on the Oxford article, as it's really not worth getting into an edit war about :-) Nomist 23:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You could be right. I only have access right now to two Australian dictionaries. One has 'organisation' and one has 'organization'. However, as an Oxford man, I think the consensus there is to use 'organisation' and that was in the article. I thought it should not be chnaged without debate. --Bduke 00:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA offer

Hello Brian. I think you are definitely capable and ready to become an admin. I would be happy to write a nomination for you. Are you interested? Regards, Blnguyen | rant-line 06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

I am going to be travelling overseas for the second half of the next 3 months, so I going to postpone thinking about this until I return in October. --Bduke 09:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia awards committee

Check out my comments here, Wikipedia awards committee. Thanks! --evrik 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

regarding your comments on the Philosopy Publications Discussion page...

Your point about our behavior being out of line was well taken (the edit war). I take no joy in conflict of that sort. I'm very new to Wikipedia and one of the things that does give me joy is see what an extraordinary structure is emerging from the cooperation of complete strangers. I'm a psychologist but have long enjoyed epistemology. Unlike your field of expertise, both philosopy and psychology have yet to find a common ground and remain divided into different schools of thought. Most of the time its not a problem. But sometimes people get irrational in their passions for or against a point of view. There are proponents of Objectivism that behave in a cult-like fashion and there are individuals who feel compelled to attack anything associated with Ayn Rand. All that I did was include her work on epistemology in the epistemology category. After a few 'reverts' I might have given up, but I kept thinking that it is so wrong for people to do that. Honest disagreements are different. They are healthy for the culture and for Wikipedia because each side makes their points, everyone can read both sides and be that much more informed. The alternative is to let those whose edits are born of a dislike for an idea or a person carry out what is really a kind of censorship. Sorry about this lengthy diatribe. But there ought to be a way to stop that kind of thing. Otherwise all of the areas susceptible to any controversy will be vulnerable and Wikipedia will fall short of what it could have been. You obviously care about Wikipedia, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. SteveWolfer 08:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Steve, thank you for your considered views. I watch the lists of publications in X because I appear to have become the organiser of the chemistry one. There we subject each new entry such as yours to a 10 day debate on the talk page. I organise that at the moment. After 10 days I leave the new entry or I delete it, depending on the debate. All recent ones have been kept, although when we started the process back in January we did debate most of the then present entries and deleted some. The problem is that it is very easy for these articles to just become a selection of different people's POV views on what books are important. Philosophy is sort of a hobby with me, but really only philosophy of science, although my wife has a MA in philosophy and a BA in Philosophy/English. We discuss philosophy quite a bit, although her interests have moved elsewhere. On Rand I have no real opinion. I tend to think she is not mainstream enough, but I could be wrong. I'm not going to get into your debate. I think you should allow it to be deleted, argue your case carefully on the talk page, go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy talk page and argue your case there, asking for people to go and comment on the debate on the list of pubs talk page. Then you may have to accept that there is no consensus to include it or you may be successfull. But you will have followed the Wikipedia way. You win some and you lose some. --Bduke 11:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Brian, I will follow your advice. But, sadly, I predict that remedy will be inadequate for the underlying problem. Some people place their personal likes and dislikes above the guiding purpose of Wikipedia. By itself that's not a problem if they are open, honest and transparent in their actions. The problem is that some people believe a degree of deception is acceptable if it is in pursuit of their values. I predict that under current policies and practices a vocal and slightly deceptive minority will effectively censor views in all areas of controvery. Those people who attempted to represent opposing views, honestly, will lose and leave the community. Over time Wikipedia will become know as a valuable resource, but only in non-controversial areas - in those areas it will be seen as biased and less than honest.

Ayn Rand is not main stream in the sense of being accepted by most of philosophy's academic crowd. She had a very sharp tongue, disagreed with main stream academics' approach and was very vocal in her disagreements. If academic philosophy sets the standards for inclusion, then her work will be marginalized. And that would be a shame because all serious thoughts and serious thinkers need to be represented inorder to build a stronger knowledge base in the future. Thank you for time and the suggestions. SteveWolfer 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I know there are difficulties but I not accept that the mainstream of wikipedia is suppressing the "truth". The reality is that there are a lot of single issue POV pushers with an agenda to include complete nonsense into Wikipedia. I am not including you in their number. Where people disagree we have difficulty reaching the correct consensus or indeed know what is correct.

If Rand is not main stream then I do not think her book should be listed in the list of publications in philosophy. These articles in the Science pearls project are intended for books that are really non-controversal and have an importance throughout the field. However, there should be NPOV articles on Rand and there should be proper NPOV references to her work in many articles on philosophy. I have no idea whether there are. As I said it is not my area. --Bduke 23:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The mainstream of Wikipedia isn't suppressing the truth. A small number of editors are stating that Rand isn't mainstream and therfore shouldn't be included. Rand is mainstream in the sense that she is philosopher whose views are in contention in many different areas of philosophy and is recognized as such (take a look at my addition to the discussion page - List of Philosophy Publications).

But there is no mainstream for philosophy in the same sense as Chemistry or math where being outside of the mainstream would have serious impact. There are too many issues in philosophy that are still in contention - including the most basic of principles. For example, "Is there a reality apart from consciousness or not?" Some of the philosophy academics have emotional reactions to her, others see her as another major philosopher even if they don't agree with her.

All that I was trying to do was have a link from the epistemology section to her book on epistemology. Her book is not controversial (apart from her name on it) - you'll find some language and some approaches to Universals almost identical to Bertrand Russell's. She has contributed refinements and advances within a framework started by Aristotle.

I followed your advise but there is no consensus forming or even comments (apart from yours). I provided the fellow who kept deleting the link with a lengthy set of cites but he just blew them off. I've put out appeals on the List of Publications discussion page and in the Wikipedia Philosophy discussion page to start a dialog on better methods for handling controversy (I have some ideas). But no response. My choices and everyone elses that experiences something like this: play that stupid edit-war or withdraw and leave the articles to those who are happy to use edit-wars to support their POV. SteveWolfer 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

HELP! The 'Entropy' article and I need you!

For two weeks now, I have arduously worked to make the introduction (at least) of the WK 'Entropy'

(1) reflect that thermo entropy has something to do with chemistry (!),

(2) that 'disorder' is indeed dead in modern US general chemistry texts (and in most physical chemistry texts back to at least 2002, now that Oxonian Atkins has come over to my side) PLEASE just glance at the December 2005 list of changed texts in http://www.entropysite.com/#whatsnew,

(3) that information 'entropy' is clearly distinguished from thermodynamic entropy (I think I have almost won that old old argument. (My essence: http://www.entropysite.com/calpoly_talk.html)

(4) to write the first page(s) of Entropy in a beginner or layperson accessible language rather than tossing elegantly concise thermo summaries at the innocent reader immediately.

My latest struggles are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Entropy of course. Some 25 pages of earlier back and forth are at the end of Archive 2 of that Talk/Entropy site.

I desperately wish that you, with your skill, experience and background, plus 5 or 6 from the Chemistry ?Group? or some interested chemists would curb the control of these 2 or 3 information 'entropy' guys! Is there no editorial supervision? (Guess that's a dumb question...!) No authority who can evaluate...? Thermodynamic entropy is FAR more a topic of intense concern to beginning chemistry students -- whether or not they go on in chem -- than it is to physics majors. Why aren't chemists participating in restraining those who so insistently focus on 'disorder'.?!!

I know that you are terribly busy, but is there any more central concept to chem than entropy??!!

THANKS for any aid!! I'm exhausted after 60 or more hours just on this...:-) My email is flambert@att.net . My CV is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ FrankLambert 21:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"P.S."

I discovered the Chemistry group and also saw your 9 July message re phys chem and the entropy article. You're ahead of me :-)

I left a long message there for chemists about the sad state of affairs on Entropy -- no word of chemistry at the outset and little thereafter, but plenty of 'disorder' and information "entropy"!

Hope that they will bestir themselves just a bit -- at least to express their discontent, unhappiness about their youthful introduction to entroy via such an unscientific term as 'disorder'. This strangely simple request (that a number of chemists, and not just I, SAY 'disorder' did not help them -- or maybe confused them) may well be news to the info guys running the Entropy article. They are absolutely fixed and adamant about saying how essential it is not to discredit 'disorder', (After all the confusion it has caused in the past 100 years among hundreds of thousands of chemists and millions of students!!)

Hope I am not diverting people from your goals! Frank FrankLambert 21:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir Alan Budd

Sir Alan - provost of my old college, Queen's, Oxford - is a Knight Bachelor, not a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. As such, he is correctly styled simply "Sir Alan (Peter) Budd" with no post-nominal letters. Although senior civil servants are commonly given KCBs, Sir Alan's position as one of the "seven wise men" was semi-official and for this reason he got an ordinary knighthood (also, the number of KCBs are limited, so they restrict recipients).

With your agreement, can we delete the KCB ? Added by User:Dcrossle.

My old College also (57 - 63). It seems you are correct. I did find a non-WP reference that called him KCB but a reference to the Oxford Gazzette does not, so I am convinced. If you had explained this in an edit summary, all would have been well. Also I noticed that you had not taken him out of the KCB category so I was suspicious of the removal. I have removed the cat and the reference. Sorry, I made a mistake and mentioned Baronet in my edit summary. Do you know when he was made a Knight Bachelor? Could you add that to the article? --Bduke 23:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir Alan Budd

I see you have/someone has found the year of his knighthood. I had asked my friend who is still at Queen's to find out - he pointed out that he has in fact met you. His name is Chris Ballinger. Just thought I'd mention it - hope you don't mind.

RfA thanks

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Spectroscopy, etc.

I started this project quite possibly too hastly. However, I also feel that I will continue to be involved in many levels with this technology for many years. On a different note, I am interested in educating myself more in computational chemistry. So if you would like to talk off wiki, my email is thomas.robison@gmail. --Tjr9898 03:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Chemical bond/Temp

I would welcome any input/comments/criticisms you could make on this article, especially as it was mostly writeen from memory without being checked against secondary sources! Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Scouting in Ontario

There was a merge tag on this and the vote was 2:1, to do the merge. Ardenn closed it and removed the merge tag claiming "no consensus" and Chris wants to still merge it. That's what the debate is about. My guess is Ardenn was in this group or at least supports their cause. Rlevse 16:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

RAOU

Birds to RAOU or RAOU to Birds? SatuSuro 03:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The latter as is suggested with the merge tags. RAOU should be a redirect, in part because it is linked from German and Spanish WP articles on RAOU. --Bduke 04:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

One problems seems to be a lack of historical importance of the RAOU in its day if it gets absorbed, headings and other things should not let the current identity swamp the earlier stages of the organisation IMHO :) SatuSuro 07:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns but think they can be addressed in the way the introduction is written and then perhaps by a paragraph about the RAOU days. Are there any Australians birders who might have an opinion? Would it help if we copy this to the talk page the merge tags point ot and continue the discussion there? It might draw more people in. --Bduke 08:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do so SatuSuro 09:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Scouting Australia

Glad to see all that work has been done on the Australia articles, that you're keeping an eye on it, and updated the Todo page. YIS, Randy Rlevse 16:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Gaudy Night

I replied on my talk page and posted an explanation on Talk:University of Oxford#Oxford in literature and other media where I also raised a more general question which I would be pleased to have a discussion on. Is the book good? I have only read Five Red Herrings in the series and that was a long time ago. Stefán Ingi 00:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

14th Dublin

I've rewritten the articles 13th Dublin, 14th Dublin and Scouting in Rathfarnham in a way that (I hope) all of us can live with.Jorgenpfhartogs 06:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You have done a good job, but I have doubts that all are viable. The 13th has a good history and may be viable. The 14th is no different from 100s of Troops and I doubt it is viable. There are very few individual Troop/Group articles from the whole world. Rathfarnham has, as far as I can see, a rather odd scope. It is between a Group and a County, but I do understand that parts of it are in different counties. I'd prefer to see this deleted and articles for the whole of the two Counties written, but I'm happy to be guided by Irish Scouting Wikipedians. --Bduke 07:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Wikiproject Award

Would you be so kind as to go to the discussion about the Islamic Wikiproject Award? This has been a proposal that has lingered for donkey's yonks. I think the image is acceptable as a WP:PUA, but don't think the image is in line with most of the images at Wikipedia:Wikiproject awards. The design is not well supported, and right before I was going to archive the debate for lack of support, someone else moved it to the Wikiproject awards page.

The current discussion is going on here: Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#Another_image. Your input is appreciated. --evrik 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Thanks for the note. I am the guy who wrote the article on pi-electron theory, When you get back you can drop me a line at charlesmartin14@hotmail.com or here. I am kind-of new to this... Charles.

Above was by anon User:24.6.185.169.

Hi, Charles. I have not actually gone yet, but the planning is largely keeping me off WP so I thought I would put the wikibreak tags up. I have cleaned up you comments. Please add ~~~~ at the end to sign your comments. I never did get around to doing anything about your additions to Semi-empirical quantum chemistry methods. They are valuable additions. My concern was that this article is fairly general and your comments are rather specific. I would prefer your discussion on PPP to be in the Pariser-Parr-Pople method (PPP) article and your comments on ZINDO to be in the ZINDO article. I think that is where they belong. What do you think? --Bduke 23:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Deville's RfA

Hello, Bduke, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 72/1/0, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I'll be tentative with the new buttons for a while, and certainly welcome any and all feedback on how I might be able to use them to help the project. All the best, and thanks again! — Deville (Talk) 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Would you please comment?

--evrik 15:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Brian

Hey Brian, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It passed with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. It was fantastic having the support of so many awesome Aussie editors. I hope you have a safe and enjoyable holiday. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mass-to-charge ratio

Hi, just wanted to stop by and invite you to contribute to the Mass-to-charge ratio page that you previously showed interest in now that Kehrli has been banned from the article.--Nick Y. 00:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Image talk:--MongoliaScoutsuniform.jpg

Hi Brian, would you weigh in on this discussion? Chris 22:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied to your question

Hello. Just letting you know that I've replied to your question on User talk:Mike Peel my talk page, as per your request at the top of this page. Thanks. Mike Peel 07:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Check

Since you commented freely before, I thought you may want to check out Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Boy_Scout. Rlevse 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

comment on Template talk:Infobox Journal

Hi Bduke,

Just letting you know that I replied to your comment on Template talk:Infobox Journal#Problem with ISSN part with a suggestion. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin 13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Fresh set of eyes on Explorer Scouts

I've been working on Explorer Scouts, trying to clear the points on a peer review I made last week and get the article past its "start" status. I was just wondering if you could pass over and see what you think, cheers, Horus Kol 11:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at it next week. I'm running a conference this weekend! Not much time for WP. --Bduke 22:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine - no real hurry. Horus Kol 08:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello again - are you less busy now? I've seen the mediator thing you're undertaking, so if you're not I can always ask someone else to give me a hand. Horus Kol 10:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments about the article - yeah, we camp near Hathersage every May to climb Stanage Edge and some of the local millstone quarries. About the peer review - I have already run the review script and posted the results on the article's Talk:Explorer_Scouts#Peer_Review discussion page. I've checked off most of it - just need someone else to check if the last three comments are satisfied and help upgrade the class of the article. Cheers, Horus Kol 11:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Message

Hi Brian - there's a message for you on Wikiversity. Cheers, --HappyCamper 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Petrochemistry; Journal of the American Chemical Society; Fiji Scouts Association; Be Prepared; The Chemical History of a Candle; Associação dos Escuteiros de Timor Lorosae; Templeborough; Chemical species; Chi-tang ho; Journal of Physical Chemistry A; Friends Committee on Scouting; Chemical Society of Peru; Journal of Physical Chemistry B; Journal of Medicinal Chemistry; Marshall Fixman; Ontogeny; Chemical composition; Luxembourg Boy Scouts Association; Journal of Organic Chemistry

Cleanup: Walter Heitler; Neuroscience; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Merge: Organometallic chemistry; Geodesy; Statistical thermodynamics
Add Sources: Phytochemistry; Polyethylene; Bailrigg FM
Wikify: List of open problems in computer science; Ty the Tasmanian Tiger; Everett Silvertips
Expand: Diethyl azodicarboxylate; Haber process; Industrial sociology

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Entropy

Thanks for coming in on the current Talk:Entropy discussions. I too have been trying to think of improvements to the article, and have added my ideas for the introduction to Introduction to entropy – hope that's of some assistance! .. dave souza, talk 12:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal Scouting

Do you have ideas for next month's portal features? I'm having trouble coming up with good articles, etc to feature. Happy Thanksgiving! Do you do that in Oz? I know they have it in Canada, but in Oct not Nov. Rlevse 12:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal. I'm trying to think. Thanksgiving. No, its a North American thing. I'm working on our Victoria State election tomorrow so that is the big deal right now. --Bduke 09:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you come up with something, just drop it in the "Candidates" fields. Rlevse 12:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Chemistry

Many thanks for the welcome! I see you have put a lot of time into Chemistry on wikipedia - thank you very much for that! Monaco10 20:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on chem bonding. Go for it.

Here I'm lecturing you on how wikipedia works, and looking at your user page, you're fully aware of how the place works. SOFIXIT on the main chem bond page. Just leave out the math for this general article, is all I personally ask as a fellow editor for this page. Ruthlessly fix and replace any qualitative judgements you don't like and think are unjustified. Don't delete unless it's just plain WRONG, as we need the material and can't get people to write it (yeah that includes you). Replace POV opinions you don't like with you consider a more balanced set of view. It's impossible of course to avoid some POV in any article, as we all know. See other comments I left on the TALK page there, before I came here. S B H arris 05:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I plead guilty

I am - or was - the one pushing the MO thing, but you seem to know more, so indeed please make the required corrections to get the dispute tag off. Readers need to find an undisputed article on bonding! Or a relatively undisputed one.

Part of the issue may lie in the distinction between describing bonding for those that make compounds and use them vs. describing bonding from the perspective of computational methods that rely on a VB or MO approach, where I am completely out of my depth.
Another part of the issue that divides some of us may lie in the distinction between VB and hybridization, which the current article implies are the same thing.

Thanks and best wishes, --Smokefoot 06:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

To both Sbharris and Smokefoot, I will try to fix this tomorrow. I happen to one of those who think that the way people think about MO and VB theory to make compounds, i.e. qualitative theory, should be by using theories, however simple, that are in accordance with conclusions from calculations. Feel free to improve my grammer etc., when I do enter the fray here. --Bduke 07:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Steven Boone

Hi Brian, could you take a look at (living chemist) Steven Boone and the recent discussion on Talk:Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search#Boone and Cooper AfD regarding an old AfD, and cast your eye over the Google Scholar search results for author:sr-boone to double check that this biography article isnt notable. Cheers, John Vandenberg 09:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What an odd case. It does seem that Cooper is the mathematician amd probably the leader of the project. As such Boone seems not notable. The Google Scholar publications have massive gaps. If he deserves an article then I do!! (not really). It does not seem that he meets the criteria for notability of academics. I think a merge seems the best solution. You get into interesting areas of WP. --Bduke 10:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. I have seen a few cases of AfD's for academics result in the biography being deleted, or the person requesting their WP account being deleted (such as Eduardo Reck Miranda/Afd) and each time I've been unhappy with the result. However this is the first time when I have felt that the person really doesnt warrant a mention, but its hard to swallow that a scholar who isnt notable would sink so low as to re-create a deleted biographical entry ~ "only in america" ? Probably not. Anyway, much appreciated. p.s. is there a melb meet on the horizon? John Vandenberg 12:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you a "definite maybe" on that one. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne. Cheers, --Bduke 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Project mediator offer

Bduke has offered to be the Scouting WikiProject mediator and accept this as his first case on these conditions: 1. All parties must agree to his mediating. 2. All parties must not move any articles until the mediation is completed. 3. If consensus is not reached they must let User:Rlevse as the project coordinator decide whether to implement my final conclusions.

(3) means that Bduke will make a final recommendation if there is no consensus and User:Rlevse can accept it or reject it. Either way, the decision is final and all parties are bound by Scout's honor to follow it.

I am posting this on everyone's (Evrik, Jergen, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)) talk page so they will not miss the offer. Failure to respond with a 'accept' or 'not accept' on the Translations talk page will be taken as an 'accept'. This offer will last until 2400 UTC Dec 2, 2006. Keep in mind that we live all over the world and users need time to respond---specifically, Bduke lives in Australia. DO NOT make any moves until at least 24 hours have passed since his last posting on an issue. Rlevse 01:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bduke, I just accepted your offer to mediate in our dispute. Since I do not know how you will proceed, I would like to ask the opportunity to present my view on this matter in a small statement (rather than you having to extract my view from the cluttered talk page). Naturally, I welcome similar statements by the other parties. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and have a good night! (Its morning here in Europe :) ). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Double categorization?

As far as I can see, Category:Guiding is a parental category to Category:WAGGGS member organizations. Do we really need this double categorization? To me this seems quite unnecessary. --jergen 23:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had nothing to do with these. I think that Category:Guiding should exist to collect together all guiding articles, but it should not be a parent to Category:WAGGGS member organizations. The latter groups together just the articles on WAGGGS member organisations and the former covers everything. I think it is good for now at least for the Guides to find everything Guiding in one place. Should I remove the parent relationship? --Bduke 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't move Category:WAGGGS member organizations out of Category:Guiding since these associations are clearly a part of the Guide movement (if we consent there is something like this...). Concerning "parental categories" pls see WP:CAT#Some general guidelines #3.

I think we should discuss the existence of Guiding (and related matters like Category:Guiding) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting#Scout/Guide or Boy Scout/Girl Scout equality. The category and its use is surely part of this larger problem. --jergen 07:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

On reflection I think you were right. WAGGGS should be under Guiding category, as it indeed is and has been for some time. I put several articles into Category:Guiding without realising that it was parent to the WAGGGS category, and really to encourage the Guiding folk that we are taking them seriously. In fact I think I saw one article with both categories listed and just followed but I can not recollect which one. I'm happy to discuss it on the Project talk page, but I am not sure what we have to discuss. --Bduke 07:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at this to see what your guys are talking about. What's odd is that WAGGGS is both on the same level as Guiding (both as a sub of Scouting, as is WOSM) and also a sub of Guiding. If we make WAGGGS only a sub of Guiding, some GG/GS may say why isn't WAGGGS at the same level as WOSM? I have a suggestion that I think will meet both your concerns and also follow wiki policy on categories: Put WAGGGS, WOSM, and the non-aligned cat all under "Scouting related associations" and put WAGGGS under Guiding also. Thoughts? I've put this on both your talk pages. Rlevse 12:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup in planning

Hello, you've indicated that you're interested in future Meetups in Melbourne on this list, so I'm giving you this message to remind you that Melbounre meetup number four is currently in planning. If you haven't already, please go to Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne to suggest possible dates, times and locations. Thanks --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Just thought I'd drop you a note to tell you you've both supported and opposed this user for the arbcom on the same page (probably) by mistake. Cheers Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It was indeed an error. --Bduke 11:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Schaeffer

Can you determine which part is copyvio and remove it? (I doubt that was the concern given the edit summaries and other issues). Incidentally, the new account was a sockpuppet as confirmed by checkuser. I'm therefore blocking it and asking him to return to the main account. JoshuaZ 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not there right now. It was the mass of career stuff, awards etc that was reverted. I have just heard from him by e-mail and was replying when I noticed this. I hope my advice to him will sort it all out. --Bduke 22:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll unblock that account. I have no issue with you editing the article- you seem to be a responsible editor who I am sure will be able to judge when you have a COI. I think it may be good however to point them to a few other biographies to explain what exactly is the normal level of detail that a biography should have as well as point out the general unacceptability of whitewashing. (Also, if you can get either Schaeffer and or this assistant of his to understand the importance of discussing things on the talk pages that would be very good). JoshuaZ 00:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, you should consider running for adminship. I'd be happy to nominate you. JoshuaZ 00:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to get her to put their concerns on the talk page or at least tell me and I'll do it, but they appear now to have decided to let it go. I may get more from them in the morning here. As for Admin, I am really not impressed by the RfA process and appear to have very little need of it. Unbanning Fritz's admin was one of very few and because I worked with him, I should at least consult another admin. I'll think about it over Christmas and let you know. Thanks for offering. --Bduke 07:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Three things- first I've sent you an email- feel free to respond or not. Second, I would point out that even a not very active user who is well trusted can benefit from the admin tools. The rollback tool especially is useful for dealing with the occasional vandalism edit. Third, I agree that the current RfA process is not in good shape but I'm confident you would pass if you ran. JoshuaZ 07:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also when you have a minute if you could talk to user mathchem. He seems to be rather put out that the article discusses Schaefer's religious position much more than his chemical research. I've asked the user to help out improving the chemical matter but other than his earlier attempt to revert to the copyvio version he seems to be unwilling. Maybe since your in the same field you can talk to him? I dunno. JoshuaZ 07:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Molecular modelling

Your recent edit to Molecular modelling (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

{{primarysources}} tag on Scouts Australia

Hi Bduke. A lot of articles (and not just Australian content) exists at Wikipedia containing only a primary source, or no sources at all. The Scouts Australia article would benefit from external sources to bring the article from a showpiece for the Scouts, to a well balanced article presenting all views. Articles on the various Scouting organisations in Australia are likely to have made local newspapers in times gone by.

As SatuSuro notes on my talk page, "absolutely no one writes about scouts outside of the organisation these days - between the 1930's and 1950's there were always plenty of stories in the australian media - anybody would be really struggling to find anything for current media", and I somewhat accept this as being true. The Scouts aren't just what they used to be and the number of kids particpating these days is a lot lower than was the norm during the first half of the century. Why? Does anybody apart from the Scouting organisations themselves care, and has anybody bothered to write about it that we can use as another source? We may need to do our searching offline for some external sources on this topic to bring the article to a fine balance representing all views. -- Longhair\^talk 08:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree. I added something today about the decline in numbers from the Scouts Australia's own annual reports. Note the number of Groups has declined as well as number of members. This goes along with a view that people no longer have the time to volunteer for such tasks as running Scout Troops. I lot of other organisations, including political parties, have the same problem. Just a couple of points further at this stage. First, I have no connection with Scouts Australia. I have not been a Scout Leader since 1970 and that was in UK. I have a soft spot for them however, and work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting with Scout articles on UK, PNG and many other places, as well as Australia. Second, I doubt that the Australian Scout editors will be active for now as I'm sure that they are all going to the Jamboree in January - the first in the world to celebrate 100 years of Scouting. Also all the various State Scout Heritage centres are being moved to be all together at the Jamboree and these are a good source of information. Back to the article, there are now some non-Scout links and the collaborative international projects are supported by links to Scout links in the other countries involved. The Jamboree BTW is at Elmore, Victoria from 2 - 13 Jan. If you see any press reports please let me know. It might encourage the press to ask the questions you raise. --Bduke 08:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Melbourne meetup

Greetings, person who is listed as being interested in future meetups in Melbourne. The fourth meetup will be held on 18 December, at Lower House in Fed Square (in the Alfred Deaking building, Flinders Street end near the Atrium: map), starting from 7pm. We don't currently have a separate location for discussion beforehand, but there'll be plenty of time to talk wiki over dinner. --bainer (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ambassador

So...Bduke, can we nominate you to be our ambassador to Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? Not sure what the other WikiChemists think, but I'm sure they won't mind at all... --HappyCamper 18:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi HC, if you mean go and put something on various pages that we have voted overwhelmingly for the new regime (guidelines), I was going to do that, but I thought I would wait to see if anyone else voted. We would then have had a larger vote that the Maths and Physics projects, which says something - not sure what, but something. --Bduke 21:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah - let's wait for the something then. --HappyCamper 00:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Valence bond theory

Hi Sadi, please see what I am about to put on the talk page for this article. --Bduke 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just give me a minute or two, I am about to put in Edward Frankland's theories, in the the valence (chemistry) article, as he was the one that introduced the concept of "valence". --Sadi Carnot 00:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have written somethign on the Talk:Valence bond theory for you. I was delayed by sorting out a confusion of the disamb pages Valence and Valency. The latter listed three uses, while the former listed many more but including those three, so I made the former a redirect to the latter. My point is that valence bond theory is not the same as valence (chemistry). --Bduke 00:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to Talk:Valence bond theory. --Sadi Carnot 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a message about the email on Talk:Valence bond theory, but in case you didn't get that here's my crude table thus far (I'm only up to about the 1920s presently): table. --Sadi Carnot 19:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I saw it, but have been busy. I'll add to it. --Bduke 21:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WA Sea scouts

Hi, long time no speak (aka vcxlor) just snooping and saw this - does this proposal mean you disencourage individual troop articles? The parent article looks like all current wa articles minimalist and poorly done. I would think that if youre going to merge that nonone wil even know - there seem to be so many articles written and not maintaind these days - they just drop and run it seems. BUT I would be concerned that such a merge happens if the parent article remains as poorly. For the main scouting article here in wa - it reflects what I pickup about the organisation in general - however I keep my counsel here on wikipedia- anyway have a good christmas - please dont reply on my talk till I'm back thanks SatuSuro 00:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a good Christmas. I did not add the merge tags. I just started the discussion. It is indeed widely established that individual troops, groups etc are not notable. The Scouting Project accepts this and AfD over many months have supported it. --Bduke 01:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Having been involved in the time my children were either in cubs or scouts I find it hard to see where the centre holds - things seem so transient in parts of the organisation - I suppose bit like an unstable compound (have no fear I failed high school chemistry) - but somehow things keep going. The thing is that the wa entry looks poor - is there an exemplary state article worth holding up as an example to improve to? SatuSuro 02:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ACT one is pretty good. I have no connection with Scouts Australia by the way, so I'm not sure where it is all going. I was on a Group committee when my kids were in a Group in the NT and my daughter is now a leader in cubs herein Melbourne. --Bduke 02:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible libel

The National and the Papua New Guinea Post-Courier, Tuesday, 30 January 1996: front page stories in both national newspapers. The Somares at no time disputed the reports, nor did they threaten libel. The stories were not followed up and no editorial commentary or letters to the editor were published; however, this was due to private threats made against the owners and management of the papers by members of the Somare family rather than any threat of legal action to vindicate the integrity of Sir Michael. Masalai 05:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your disquiet is somewhat nervous-nelly-ish. Truth is always an absolute defence in a libel suit, and in any event the bar is considerably higher in the USA than in English common law jurisdictions: in US law one must prove actual malice. Masalai 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"...a Fijian skirt, known in Papua New Guinea as a laplap." Nogat tru ia. Turangu, dispela kainkain samting i no laplap; em i sulu bilong ol man bilong Fiji. Masalai 01:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It might originate in Fiji (I do not know), but it is still called a laplap in PNG. Perhaps you would care to source your edits on this topic also. Is it notable that Somare wears one? --Bduke 01:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Physical Chemistry

Yeah, i was reading around it and it's pretty bad as is.. as i see it, the Physical Chemistry article should be a similar kind of article as the Thermodynamics article is; an overview of the key principles included in the actual thing itself as well as the foundation of it. I've not got too many books on physical chemistry -- on the article itself, i've only got about 4 of those mentioned.

The majority of the books i have featuring physical chemistry tell me also that chemical physics seem to be some forms of misprints, or so -- there was a story on how someone published the name incorrectly due to the fact they thought it was mostly based in chemistry, so therefore it was chemistry with physics in it; chemical physics. Not too sure about it though.. chemical physics could be a pseudonym for thermodynamics of activation or something similar; who knows? The books, i guess! :-) James S 22:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Vanuatu branch of The Scout Association

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Vanuatu branch of The Scout Association, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Vanuatu branch of The Scout Association. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Oo7565 19:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)