Jump to content

User talk:Bduke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JamboQueen (talk | contribs) at 08:18, 19 March 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page was last edited by JamboQueen (talk | contribs) 11 years ago. (Update timer)

Home   Talk   Articles   Barnstars   eMail   Contributions   Workshop   Images  


Welcome to my talk page.
Click here to leave a new message at the end.
You will be asked for a subject also. Alternatively, you can add your message at the end of the appropriate section listed in the index below.
House Rules
  1. I will respond to a post you make here on this page.
  2. If I post on your talk page please respond there to make coherent discussions in one spot.
  3. Reply to comments using a colon(:) before the post.
Archives


Move page

Can you help me with redirecting Kition (ancient state) to Kition? There is only one notable Kiteon. (The first title was previously an incorrect redirect to the city of Larnaka.) --The long road homw (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. you copied the content to Kition which you should not have done. I deleted it make way for move and then moved Kition (ancient state) to Kition. You now need to look at "What links here" and do some cleaning up. Good luck. I'm off to bed here in Australia. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
  2. London Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
  3. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Alaska Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by British Empire The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2013

Delivered March 2013 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 08:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital hybridisation of hypervalent molecules

I've read from the orbital hybridisation talk page, after I overhauled it, that you intended to re-write the orbital hybridisation section on hypervalent molecules, so I thought you could give some input. I didn't personally read the 1994 paper by Cooper (although Dirac66 did and gave a short explanation on them in the article) but from another paper published on Elsevier's Computational and Theoretical Chemistry Cooper used a general notation describing hybrids on such compounds as A(spx-like)+X(p) where A is the central atom and X is the ligand atom. I've tried to interpret that (could be very very erroneous, I'm not sure. Original Research probably) to get a systematic notation where the "missing" hybrid orbitals are "topped up" by the ligand orbitals and hence resulting in nonbonding character, which seems like what Cooper has been trying to say when the central atom's hybrids are delocalized over the ligand atoms to form more linearly independent hybrids than can be afforded by the central atom's orbitals alone. However, I think we need more knowledge on the matter as we are still somewhat confused now on what Cooper was trying to refer to and hence cannot come up with a sure systematic notation to describe hybrids on such molecules as Cooper didn't come up with a systematic notation. Could you help? Thank you very much.--Officer781 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I did not reply to this earlier and even now I really do not have the time to deal with it in a way that it deserves. First, I want to stress that the spin coupled method that Cooper uses always has VB orbitals that are not restricted to basis functions (which you might call atomic orbitals, although Cooper and I might take issue with that) on a single atom, so "ligand" functions always mix with functions on the "central atom". This is the case as much in methane as it is in SFn. Second, I want to stress that this is still contentious in that some VB people think that only basis functions/atomic orbitals on one centre should be used for each VB orbital. However, it is certainly not new, and it should be dealt with on wikipedia. This is not easy. I guess I have a conflict of interest as I agree with Cooper and not with what I (and he) consider to be an old-fashioned belief in "local" orbitals. If I find time, I will take a really good look at the articles you are working on, but it may be a while. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationalisation

Bduke: I'm curious about why the use of the Scouts Australia logo on Glossary_of_Australian_Scouting_terms cannot claim a fair use rationalisation; isn't it simply using a corporate logo for identification purposes, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCI ? Is this because the logo incorporates a trademark symbol? Or for some other reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldshield (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I admit that I am not an expert on licenses for images, but the copyright for this image clearly is held by Scouts Australia. If you look at the image file itself, you will see that there is a justification of fair use for the article on Scouts Australia. It is obviously reasonable to illustrate an article on Scouts Australia with the log for Scouts Australia. Anything else is pushing it and I note that the image is not used on any other article including Joey Scouts (Australia), Scouts (Australia), Venturer Scouts (Australia) and Rovers (Australia). I think the people who really know about images will object to its use on anything other than Scouts Australia. I suggest you accept that. Could you please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~? --Bduke (Discussion) 03:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

Nomination of The Women's College, University of Sydney for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Women's College, University of Sydney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Women's College, University of Sydney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A Dad Oyster Utters (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wesley College, University of Sydney for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wesley College, University of Sydney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley College, University of Sydney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A Dad Oyster Utters (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

question about spin-coupled theory

Because wikipedia doesn't have this information about spin-coupled theory, and out of curiosity, I thought maybe I'd like to ask this. If spin-coupled theory is based on a single orbital configuration, how does it model the three-electron bond (oxygen, nitric oxide, etc) and aromatic rings such as furan (Eg. for Benzene it consists of six singly-occupied orbitals, so that one is fine)?--Officer781 (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SC is based on a single orbital product, but that is multiplied by a sum of different spin terms, which for example for benzene are the spin terms for the two Kekule and three Dewar structures, so it is not a single configuration. SC theory always uses n orbitals for n electrons, so furan probably has two orbitals that are mostly on the nitrogen. I think it has been studied but I can not recall whether those two orbitals are either side of the O atom or both symmetric on the O atom with one more diffuse than the other. I can look it up for you if you want. Problems however really arise for something like the symmetric ring cyclopendiadienyl anion (C5H5-) and here I have a conflict of interest as I am one of 4 authors of a paper that develops an extension of SC that uses 5 orbitals here for the 6 electrons. See Peter B. Karadakov, David L. Cooper, Brian J. Duke, and Jiabo Li, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 116, 7238 - 7244, 2012. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. I am also now curious, how does spin-coupled theory model excited states? For molecular orbital theory, this is straightforward with an excitation of an electron to an unoccupied orbital, say, an antibonding one. For spin-coupled theory, how would it say, model a hydrogen molecule excited state (1 antibonding electron) and the excited states of say, methane (1 antibonding electron in either an s-orbital or a p-orbital)?--Officer781 (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With difficulty is I think the answer. SC is mainly about ground states where it does a much better job than MO. Sorry, I can not say more. I am a bit unwell and exhausted. I fly overseas in less than 2 days. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you very much. Take care and all the best for whatever you're doing. Bon Voyage.--Officer781 (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013


Nomination of List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- --JamboQueen (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bduke&oldid=545384806"