I appreciate the comment. --evrik ^(talk) 14:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey bduke, What do you think of the changes to the template? Do you think we should move this template to Template:Scouts Australia, do you know if a template move would work like a page move? Would a redirect be created at Scouts Australia states to Scouts Australia and would this then show the template if i wrote {{Scouts Australia States}} ? :: maelgwn :: talk 07:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know, I'm afraid. I suppose you could always try it. It is always reversible. If it needs an admin, there are now several in the Project. --Bduke 08:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are very correct. I must have been smoking something. Thanks for letting me know. I will correct them. --YUL89YYZ 10:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I just checked (look at the history: "moved Order of Merit (United Kingdom) to Order of Merit: almost every link to the OM refers to the British one, so it makes sense to have this as the default") and it wasn't this way yesterday. It got changed. I will stop the changes for now and see what happens. --YUL89YYZ 10:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bduke, please cast your vote at our straw poll. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 22:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brian, this article gives Fano as the originator of LCAO-MO. Do you agree with this? (I thought it was Mulliken, but I never looked deeply into it). Cheers, --P.wormer 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The article on LCAO has this to say, "It was introduced in 1929 by Sir John Lennard-Jones and extended by Ugo Fano.". It has always been my understanding that Lennard-Jones dreamed LCAO up, but that may be my bias as a Brit. Fano certainly added things but I think a lot later. He was only 17 in 1929. In fact I think his contribution was when he went to Chicago in the 196Os. Note Mulliken was there. I also think that both Mulliken and Hund had a hand in it and of course Huckel theory is one of the early applications of LCAO. As to your link, I'm not sure how that article sees LCAO as perturbation theory, given the modern separation of methods into variational and perturbational. I have Mulliken's collected papers. It is early Sunday here and I have only just logged on to WP. I'll have a look at it after trawling through my watchlist. --Bduke 00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The most interesting article I found was Mulliken's Nobel Prize Speech. It is reprinted in my source from Science, 157, No. 3784, 13 - 24, (1967). It clearly credits Lennard-Jones with the LCAO idea and does mention Fano. My recollection is that Fano's contribution was in the way of extensions to the Roothaan-Hall equations for Hartree-Fock theory. I have also come across something about the wave function of the ejected electron in photelectron spectroscopy following the LCAO wave function. This I think is the Cohen-Fano effect, but I have yet to track down the reference. I'm going to comment on the talk pages of the LCAO and perturbation articles. --Bduke 07:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I own a copy of Slater's book (Vol I of Quantum theory of molecules and solids). Slater is of course a very good source because he was scientifically active in the 1920s. He writes (p. 60):

[...] another method of treatment, which has come to be called the method of molecular orbitals, was originated by Hund^[1] and carried further in a series of papers by Mulliken.^[2]

Note that the Lennard-Jones paper appeared in 1929—sorry for your British bias!

(If you wish you can use these references in the LCAO article).--P.wormer 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that the idea of molecular orbitals was first put forward by Hund and Mulliken, but we are talking specifically about the LCAO approximation to the molecular orbitals. We forget how qualitative these early papers were. While the first VB calculation was done in 1927 by Heitler and London, the first LCAO MO calculation for H2 was not done until a decade later by Coulson. Surprisingly those early papers manage to talk about quantum numbers for MOs without, at least explicitly, bringing in LCAO even under another name. The Mulliken papers are in the book of selected papers of Mulliken that I have and I looked briefly at the first of them. I also have Salter and will look in more detail at both of them later. Mulliken in 1967 in his Nobel speech quite clearly credits Lennard-Jones with the idea of LCAO. I do not think it is my Brit bias.

Hi Brian, I was kidding about your bias, no offense intended. Your point that MO is not necessarily the same as LCAO is well taken. I own another classic book: Pauling: The Nature of the Chemical Bond. In this book Pauling describes an H₂ calculation by E. U. Condon, [Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S. 13, p. 466 (1927)] that Pauling calls an MO calculation. It seems to be based on two hydrogen AOs, so it looks to me as a very early LCAO-MO calculation. For me it is hard to check the original reference. BTW Slater nor Pauling mention Fano in their index.--P.wormer 09:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My bias. I was kidding too. No offense. No worries, mate. My copy of Pauling is the 1945 2nd edition. I can not find the Condon reference. Can you pin it down more for me? The Condon reference looks interesting, but I do not know whether I can find it here. "Atoms and Molecules" by Karplus and Porter (a book I really like) on page 311 gives a table of H2 energies. The earliest MO is Coulson, Trans Farad Soc, 33, 1479, (1937). I think Fano is not in the picture. Did you see I got a response on the perturbation theory talk page - not very helpful. --Bduke 11:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My copy of Pauling's book is from 1960 (3rd edition). On p. 23 starts a section entitled: "Condon's treatment of the hydrogen molecule." I have another old (1958) book by a Dutchman named Ketelaar. He writes "the LCAO method of Lennard-Jones". So your bias is not too far off the mark. I agree that LCAO should go from the perturbation theory article. Maybe we could add a word about Epstein-Nesbet PT in chemistry.--P.wormer 14:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd. The 2nd Ed does not have that section. I'll see if I can look it up. --Bduke 06:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The 3rd edition is available on google books: [1]. --Itub 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this very useful piece of info. Unfortunately thhe pages around p. 23 haven't been given :-( . --P.wormer 09:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Google books is tricky; the pages it chooses to show for its "limited previews" depend on the query string used in the search. Using a different search, I can see at least pages 22-26, which is a bit more useful.[2] --Itub 09:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was able to check a number of things in the Melbourne University Chemistry Library yesterday:-

1. From Pauling's book (3rd Ed) and his Chem. Rev, (1928), 5, 173, it seems to me that the Condon paper of 1927 is using the exact wavefunction for H2+ as the MO for each electron in H2 and estimating the electron repulsion in a way that Pauling calls "semi-empirical". Thus it is interesting but not LCAO. I have not read the Condon paper itself.
2. The 100 birthday celebration of Hund by Werner Kutzelnigg (Angew Che, Int. Ed. Engl. (1996), 35, 573, 5686) has this to say "The proposal to represent molecular orbitals as linear combinations of atomic orbitals (LCAO) goes back to Lennard-Jones. Such an approach had previously been used by Pauling for the H2+ ion". Thus I think it is pretty clear that Hund and the German school are prepared to credit Lennard-Jones. My reference to Mulliken's Nobel lecture shows Mulliken does likewise. The Pauling reference is the Chem. Rev. in 1927 mentioned just above. The Lennard-jones paper gives the now familiar description of bonding in the diatomic molecules Li2 - F2. I think that description of several molecules does give him the credit, but the Pauling reference is interesting and should be mentioned.

I will edit the LCAO article to reflect this. --Bduke 05:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, nice homework! Will you remove the LCAO paragraph from the PT article?--P.wormer 09:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Another editor there agreed with me a few days ago, but suggested leaving it to see if others editors wanted to comment. I thought today that the wait was long enough and removed it. --Bduke 12:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One final finicky remark: p. 31 of IUPAC green book suggests Greek symbols for AOs and MOs. Should Wikipedia not follow this?--P.wormer 15:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I have just altered the LCAO article to agree with IUPAC using lower case phi and chi for MOs and AOs that leaves upper case Psi for the total wave function. Is there anything else we should alter? --Bduke 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article with references. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 06:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You did a great job and I see it has been kept. --Bduke 22:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As you are an editor involved with the the previous discussion, I am notifying you that I have relisted it for mfd. Thank you. --Flamgirlant 12:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned that you would like to set up an expert request on the Palfrey article, but it didn't seem to be in place yet. Went ahead and did it, but the relevant WP doesn't seem to be monitoring this cat: Category:Shakespeare articles needing expert attention, so you might want to actively hit them up to see if third party sources can be found to defend a case for note for Palfrey. MrZaius^talk 14:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This might be a good idea, but you misunderstood me. I was hoping that putting it in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators might get people to look at it as it usually does. I see that Myke Cuthbert has come along and added a very positive note to the debate and that you withdrew your nomination for AfD. It just looked to me to be a bad article that needed improving, rather than deletion, so I had a go. All's well that ends well! --Bduke 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a WikiProject Melanesia participant from Tabubil, living in Melbourne. I am currently working on expanding and creating PNG geographic articles, documenting Provinces, LLGs and Districts and reconstructing PNG provincial flags, and maps (among other things).

I have access to maps of Papua New Guinea that expand to the LLG areas, allowing me to reconstruct very detailed PNG provincial and district maps for Wikipedia. I also have census data for some areas that is very detailled, and a fairly good knowledge of the geography of PNG.

If there is a province or district that is of particular interest to you in PNG, I would be happy to prioritise my work to assist you in documenting your interests. Aliasd 09:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I am aware of the (slight) difference in conventions in defining the MP perturbation. As you may guess, I have a (small) preference for the convention that I have chosen. This is because I like the first-order energy to be zero. But indeed, you pay the price with a slightly more complicated expression for the perturbation. I had in mind to add later today also the explicit zeroth-order energy, which, as you rightly remarked, is the HF energy. If you feel that the "Jensen convention" is more didactic, please feel free to change it (or perhaps both can be mentioned?).

With regard to nth-order correction versus n-th-order energy: I have always been sloppy in that usage, but you're right, one must carefully distinguish the two. --P.wormer 05:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you name a common text that does use your convention? My impression is that all the common books use the other convention. I prefer the "Jensen" convention because the zero order energy is the eigenvalues of the Fock operators. I see no virtue in have the first order correction zero. However I am distracted by an error in some CASSCF calculations so my mind is on that method. I'll return to MP sometime. --Bduke 07:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, "my" convention is the first-quantized equivalent of the second-quantized approaches where normal products with respect to the Fermi vacuum are introduced. See, for instance, Paldus and Cizek, AQC (1976). In the meantime I adapted the text somewhat, see if you still don't like it. I admit that the perturbation is slightly awkward, but I feel that the elegant zeroth- and first-order contributions make up for it. But again, in my view differences are minor as you can see in the note I added to the text. --P.wormer 08:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brian, please go ahead and copy our MP discussion to the MP talk page (it occurred to me too, that this would be useful). I reread the original MP paper and noticed that they have the same partitioning as I have (in a difficult notation). Hence the MP theorem.--P.wormer 07:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion has been copied to Talk:Møller-Plesset perturbation theory. --Bduke 08:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

How easy is it do you think to obtain/create a graph which illustrates how CCSD, CCSDT, CCSDTQ approach the full CI result? --HappyCamper 13:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A good question. What exactly do you mean by a graph? Do CC methods always approach full CI from above (energy wise)? I suspect they do not as they are related to perturbation theory. If I am clear about what you want, I'll ask a real expert on CC. --Bduke 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the convergence is necessarily monotonic because the method isn't variational, but I'm not sure. I was thinking of some sort of system (perhaps N2?) where we could plot the potential energy surfaces as a function of the bond length. Then, we can compare the full CI surfaces and the ones for say, CCSD and CCSD(T). I think this should be good enough to show how CCSD gives qualitative results, CCSD(T) gives "quantitative" results, but also might have some trouble near the dissociation limit. Could be a nice diagram which can point to where current research is taking the field. --HappyCamper 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems a good idea, but where do we get the data? If one of us does the calculations, is it not original research? Do you know of a paper that does what you suggest? Even one that talks about all this would be good, because making a diagram might not then be original research. I'll have a look but I'm a bit tied up this week. I'll also try some calculations sometime. --Bduke 00:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the article was already categorized under Category:Chemistry journals, I thought that would be sufficient for its connection with chemistry. I didn't feel the chem-stub tag was doing any harm; I just try to keep sub tags to a minimum, for ease of sorting and to keep load on the server down a bit. Feel free to restore the tag. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He's removed the AfD tag again ... I reverted it and level 3-warned him. Just wondering ... am I right that this club is on the lowest level of the Aussie rules football ladder? I've seen AFL games here in the States on occasion ... not sure where this club would be, but it seems they're not on a level high enough to merit an article. Blueboy96 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the level. I have somewhat of an understanding of the AFL in Victoria, but Queensland is another matter. AFL Queensland and List of Australian rules football leagues in Australia indicates it is a regional league. Not high enough as you say. --Bduke 11:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was reading Levine's Quantum Chemistry and on page 383 (5th edition) it says that the first to use a trial function that was a LCAO were Finkelstein and Horowitz in 1928. I haven't been able to find the paper, but I think it is Finkelstein, BN, Horowitz, GE 1928 Z. Phys. 48, 118. I don't know if this can count as "inventing LCAO" or not, especially since I haven't read it, but I thought you might be interested. --Itub 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting. I have something in the back of my mind about that paper, but I can not recover it. I have the 4th edition and can not find the mention. I do not know where to find the 5th edition. Can you give me the section it is in? It is probably on another page in the 4th edition. --Bduke 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is the third page of section 13.5--"Approximate treatments of the H2+ ground electronic state"; the chapter title is "Electronic structure of diatomic molecules". I found it by looking for LCAO in the index. --Itub 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Got it, the very bottom of the 2nd page of that section. It is page 357 in 4th Ed. I have found the article. My German is not good, but it does not look as if they call what they are doing LCAO. --Bduke 08:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You did beautifully! I'm going to snag your text for the original article, which was written poorly and which I attempted to clean myself. Chris 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it not usual to wait for citation before deleting and waiting for concensus on talk page. Toload1

If you are from newi then Cambridge won hehe and wiki pedia definatly states that when conflict occurs it is best to post on talk page to gain consensus. Toload1

Thank you for your contributions to my talk page. They have been taken on bord. I guess u will get tired off it eventually. Unless you have any requests I suppose I ort to put a stop to project university then, we'll leave it at a draw although with the amount of editors these sorts of pages have I am not exactly worried about genuine info hunters actually catching a glimpse of anything. What I want to know is how these users manage to get stars and I do not get none and I reckon I deserve some. My contributions to pages such as salad marmalade and toast have been magnificent along with my disscuions about what to do with wanker and big head. It would be a great loss to the wikipedian public if i was not there then I seriously expect that one stub I know of would not survive. The other one beat u yesterday although not by this long if they dont notice by the time students get out of bed I promise to put it back, this is purely due to the fact that ur entry made me laf u understand and not for any other reason. If you want to reinstate my warning and actually say it is one then u can and I will leave it alone. Would you reccomend the adoption list? salad gets boring after a bit as does sex is their any thing you think i would be good at like deleting things where do I do that. You have to be nice to me u r an administrator there fore u have to help me if not u might get stuck with me Toload1 10:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I do wish you would write in English. I find it difficult to understand you. However, I am not an administrator. --Bduke 11:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case i suppose i might have to pee Cambridge off a bit more or just annoy you until such a time as you become one or you die of old age. One or the other and so far u av not answered my question about adoption Toload1 (shortly after)

What has "pee Cambridge off a bit more" got to do with me or indeed anything? If I was to become an administrator, how would that alter anything? I do not understand what you are saying about adoption. Could you explain what you mean? --Bduke 11:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not speak Australian. I have however, reverted back a page that went unnoticed and had in fact been edited to look better so i have put it back exactly the way i found it. Am also tempted to take out a lot of unsourced stuff. You appear to wish to get involved as your actions appear to be speaking louder than anything you actually write rather than delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toload1 (talk • contribs)

I would also like to point you towards this page which clearly explains user etiquette and i hope you are able to read it shortly. Wikipedia:Etiquette if this link has not worked this page is easily accessable through the help button. It clearly states disscuss and not to assume that information is wrong simply because you have no knowledge of it. Toload1 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re your first unsigned comment above. You do not seem to talk English very well either. Having been born in England I speak the English version of English as well as the Australian! I am merely keeping an eye on you to ensure that you do not vandalise pages as you have in the past. What is your source for your change to the Trinity College, Cambridge article? It is not supported by the 2nd reference which gives 620 pounds as the endowment, but the 3rd reference link seems to no longer work. Removing unsourced stuff does not fit well with adding material that is not sourced. Which page were you talking about above? Please sign your comments with ~~~~.

Re your 2nd comment above. Could you state exactly where I assumed information was wrong because I had no knowledge of it? Please state which of my edits you are talking about. --Bduke 23:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, over all I never got around to a template, so go ahead and delete it. Lesser Shadow 23:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I should have been prepared, really. Lesser Shadow 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd like a copy of what the page was like when that vandel messed with it, and on a side note I'm not familiar with advanced terms, I know a few but not much. Lesser Shadow 08:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He added a user category. See this diff. Her comments on your talk page are of course nonsense. All I removed was Category:Wikipedians in Victoria, which was clearly inappropriate. What advanced terms are you concerned about. Bduke 08:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brian, this article excited state has something wrong with a picture. I don't know how to solve that (never used pictures). Do you? Best regards, Paul.--P.wormer 14:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism. In adding it the user also removed the "See also" section. He was trying to add an image by URL not by uploading it. It was about a power station and was probably not free content anyway. It is all fixed. Cheers. --Bduke 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

THe change you made works because the # sign makes it go directly to the thread section on the talk page and you got the title correct. We must have changed it somewhere along the way.Rlevse 12:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but I thought it worked with #first_part_of_heading. I just made the heading part complete. The first part in place was correct. I'd been irritated that this did not work for some time. Oh well, bed time. --Bduke 12:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not know it wasn't working. If something on the templates doesn't work, let me know. NThurston is good at them too, and Wim.Rlevse 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 07:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here we are.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Woo boy, this is sure to pass. Good luck! Giggy ^Talk 05:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! Dfrg.msc 08:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never asked for a peer review so whichever way you think is best I'll do. Jmm6f488 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Think I fixed the problem? If you could check over it real quick I would appreciate it. Jmm6f488 20:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool thanks. Feel free to comment on these subjects also. Personally I will understand if you don't. Trying to research these subjects is a enough to make anyone feel sick to there stomach. Jmm6f488 22:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Brian Duke! I am RS2007. I joined Wikipedia on 15 July, 2007. I noticed that you have been nominated for adminship. I read your profile and I think you have done a great job. I supported you. After you become administrator, please don't forget new users like me who may require some help. Thank you. RS2007 08:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem. One advantage of creating an account is the ability to upload images. What kind of image can I upload? How to upload an image? Can you help me? Thank you. RS2007 08:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! And, I think you are a brilliant guy. Best of luck! RS2007 12:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I almost got into a fight about this part of an article on the inertia moment. If you are interested you can read most of it here. Anyhow, the net effect is that here is now a useless equation, because I cannot convince the guy that (all numbers are real)

${\displaystyle \left(\mathbf {I} \mathbf {n} \right)\cdot \mathbf {n} =\mathbf {n} \cdot \left(\mathbf {I} \mathbf {n} \right)=\mathbf {n} ^{T}\mathbf {I} \mathbf {n} }$ 

and that computing an inner product does not require taking a transpose of a vector (transposing a linear array lacks meaning anyway in most computer languages). If I would scratch that equation, I'm sure to get into an edit war. So, could you do me a favor and delete it? (Unless you disagree with me and find the equation useful).Thanks, Paul. --P.wormer 08:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I will look at this tomorrow. I'm breaking off for a the evening. --Bduke 09:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got tied up and did not have enough time to trawl through all that maths. Is it now OK. It seems like an over use of jargon. Why use a maths library for something of dimension 3. The coding is not complex. I would just leave the first equation - I = a double sum and remove the rest as not needed. --Bduke 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, your RfA was successful and you are now a sysop! Please add yourself to WP:LA. If you need any help, feel free to ask me. Good luck! --Deskana (banana) 06:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done Bduke. That's a very large turnout given recent participation trends in RfA....especially as you don't use IRC or any other mass communication techniques. Well done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! All the very best with the tools :) ~ Riana ⁂ 07:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done! The Rambling Man 07:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to all who supported me and to those above who have come to congratulate me. I have a very special thank you to User:Blnguyen for his splendid nomination, which I am sure helped to make the process so smooth. I was asked no additional questions and had no need to make a single edit to the discussion after it was opened. I hope to be reasonably active as an administrator and will do my best to use the tools wisely. To all, thanks again. --Bduke 08:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well DONE!! One of the most deserving new admins I've seen in awhile.!Rlevse 10:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you commented in the debate, I thought you might want to know about the "sequel". Best. --Childhood's End 18:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting your clean mop dirty with this one! Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United Kingdom/University of Oxford has various redlinks, which I assume might be all part of the same approach of category emptying by Pizza1512 - can you take a look and undelete as necessary? Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 23:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored three categories that had been emptied and then deleted, and created one. There is still a problem with the St Hugh's userbox, but I have asked the user to remove the image which is fair use. --Bduke 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 00:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The AfD discussion was improperly listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 21 resulting in two separate discussions being started, one on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 21 and one on the article own AfD page. The discussion has now been properly listed. Please add your comment again. Dbromage [Talk] 01:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how a plot summary with no sources can be closed as no consensus. Doesn't the failure of the keepers to address the policy violations kind of mandate a deletion? Otto4711 22:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is fruitful to discuss the criteria used to close AfD discussions. I noticed this one last night and thought about it carefully. Since it has now quite old and was not closed by this morning, I decided to close it. I will however note that while you tried hard to convince people of your case, others found sources (which were added to the article and I note removed by you) and were not convinced by your arguments. There was a difference of opinion about whether these sources demonstrated notability. I thought this was real and different editors could come to different opinions. There really was no consensus. I have drawn attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Monty Python to this and hope they improve the article, or if they decide it needs merging, to do so. However, I note that the project may be inactive. I noted from the Protect talk page, that there are five other Monty Python articles that you have proposed for deletion. I see three are looking good for deletion, while two are disputed. I suggest you see how those five go. --Bduke 22:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:N again. It states pretty clearly that notability requires sources that are substantially about the subject. None of the sources in the article are even remotely about the subject, let alone substantially. If you can explain how a source that merely includes the words "Architect sketch" or one that's about the death of Princess Diana establish notability, I'd be interested in hearing it. A "difference of opinion" about the sources really shouldn't matter when the plain text of the sources demonstrates they are not about tyhe sketch. Otto4711 22:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It really is not appropriate to discuss this here, so this is my last response. Personally I do not find the references 2 and 3 that were added to be that great. The first appears to need a subscription. However, other editors take the second reference as indicating that one architect considers the sketch notable enough to illustrate a point in an argument that he is making. In the third reference, a quote from the sketch is used to illustrate an argument. The sources do not merely include the words "Architect sketch". The term "substantial" is one where opinions can differ, although I recognise that some people when discussing WP:N do not think so. One guideline is "When in doubt, don't delete". There was doubt. --Bduke 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I won't respond in detail since you won't answer, so I'll just note that in fact your talk page is the appropriate place to discuss this. Otto4711 23:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is, so respond if you want. However, I do not think I have anything more to say, and I think you should accept "When in doubt, don't delete. There was doubt". Also, real life is catching up and I have to move on to non-WP things for most of the rest of the day here (Note Oz time is just before 10.00 a.m.). --Bduke 23:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bduke. I'm sure you'd've seen it, but your question at WT:CFD/W has been answered. What I really came here to let you know is that the cfd helper bots don't do so well with template-fed categories. When you want to rename or delete a category like Category:Long pages, it's best to just edit the templates yourself, wait for the articles to work their way through the job queue, and then delete the cat. Category:Long pages had hundreds of articles, but it only took three template edits and about 3 minutes of waiting for the cat to empty. Congratulations and condolences on your new adminship, by the way. Best ×Meegs 11:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brian, due to a spat of recent discussions relating to journals, and a fifth name added to my old proposal, I have moved the proposal page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals to kick off a more central discussion. Cheers, John Vandenberg 15:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your RFA. I know you will make a good admin for Wikipedia. Politics rule 18:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done! -- Samir 23:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice you were up for a RfA, you would have had my support for sure! aliasd·U·T 06:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone for this notification being sent out so late, events in real life prevented me from distributing it at the time, and the Wine Project's had a bit of a lull during the Northern Hemsiphere summer. But as the nights draw in, activity should pick up again, and hopefully the next Newsletter will arrive a little more quickly....

The next few weeks are the perfect time to take photos of grapes in the Northern Hemisphere - get your cameras out! FlagSteward 16:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

... on User:Analogdemon's MFD. I agree that I would not like to see it come back to MFD, because, well, blech. KP Botany 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The MfD on all these pages has been closed as keep. --Bduke 11:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -MrFizyx 19:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Copied by 199.125.109.47 from his/her talk page.

Thank you for your edit to WP:SPR where you removed two articles for review. Scientific peer review is not just for Physics as you seem to suppose from your edit comment. I have reverted your edit. --Bduke 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that after I deleted them. The page I deleted them from was on the physics portal, and the items had nothing to do with physics. However, there is no separate list for physics. 199.125.109.47 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The WP:SPR reviews are transcluded automatically to all science related project pages (not, I think, portals). No separate lists for anything are kept. --Bduke 01:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's on the physics project page. It just seemed odd to be asking for comments on completely non-physics related subjects. 199.125.109.58 15:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How else could it be done? As I said it is done automatically. I do not see people bothering to put them by hand on to the appropriate Project pages(s) and then remove them. I'll think about adding something that draws peoples attention to it. --Bduke 21:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - havent done one for a while - forgot how to put it into the OZ list - cheers SatuSuro 03:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OOps just noticed that as well - need to get more in practice i think SatuSuro 03:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I forget all the time and have to look it up. --Bduke 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We could always blame past residence in darwin for that - the tropical effects :) SatuSuro 03:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a good thought. Blame "another shitty day in paradise". BTW. I use John Vandenbergs tool for deletion sorting. It gives you a drop down window and you click on "Australia" and it just happens. Magic. --Bduke 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for everything - much appreciated - cheers SatuSuro 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I even get a reminder call in the middle of the afd from something called Dumbot - great! I blame it on the casuarina square airconditioning bugs of decades ago :) SatuSuro 02:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note...I'm gonna try and not make the same fuss about this one that I made about the last one (it might still pass...yeah...it could! :P), and I'll just keep on editing, and see what happens. Thanks for your support :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the work this user was doing, asked him about being an admin because I was impressed, and he made it. His main objectors were some editcountitis guys (which I'd predicted because he had 2900 or so edits), but he did well.Rlevse 12:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject welcomes two new members in the past three months:

• Java7837
• Nearly Human

The WikiProject is now halfway done, numerically, with the 1000 articles identified in December 2006. The first (oldest) 500 articles have been claimed, reviewed, and (when needed, which was almost all cases) improved. Moreover, given the passage of time, many of articles 501 through 1000 have been worked on by other editors (it's ten months since that list was generated). So reviewing the second half of the 1000 articles should be easier.

Section 6 (articles 501 through 600 on the list) has been organized differently than the previous five sections. First, blocks are (roughly) five articles each, rather than 10, making it easier for you to claim and finish a block. Second, perhaps more importantly, each block consists of similar pages; if you're interested in fixing disambiguation pages, there are blocks of those; if you're interested in articles (which is what the project originally started out being), there are blocks of those; and there is one block of lists and one of redirects (mostly redirects to articles). So, fewer surprises this time when you claim a block.

In addition, since the project now has 25 active members (though some are likely inactive), having more blocks will make it easier to spread the editing around.

If you received this newsletter on your user talk page and don't want to receive such postings in the future, please move your name, in the participants section of the WikiProject, to the "Inactive" subsection.

This newsletter is being delivered by Anibot; it was written by John Broughton. Please post any comments about it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Articles, in a section separate from the newsletter itself.
Delivered by Anibot 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i am username Mistre85 and I am a new wikipedia user. I recently posted a new article about Steady State Systems in Thermodynamics. I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and possibly make suggestions for improvements or edits. I would greatly appreciate any feedback as I am trying to learn as much as I can about how to use wikipedia and would like to get some experience right away. Than you for your time.

Sincerely, Mistre85

here is the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_%28Thermodynamics%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistre85 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bduke--I helped him some. New user-- sign your talk entries with four tile's and it'll convert to a sig when you save. You can link to articles by doing this: Steady State (Thermodynamics) Rlevse 15:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

I think you are a scout :) Me too I am from Poland, and I have a task from my scout group I have to find a scout from USA or England, and talk with him about somethink:)

I hope you help me :)

My e-mail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omiec (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

thats ok :) i found another scout, and now i'm a ćwik Omiec 10:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, welcome back from your trip. Your input would be appreciated on a preferred date for the next Melbourne meetup. cheers, pfctdayelise (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, welcome back! I hope your trip was well. :) I'd like to personally request your review of the wine fermentation article, especially with your background in chemistry. I created the article to try and focus in on the winemaking aspects of fermentation that I felt the other fermentation related articles were lacking. I thought it would be out of place or overwhelming if I added all the wine related specifics in any of those articles. In the wine fermentation article, I didn't want to get too indepth with the chemical process, since I think it is well covered in the Ethanol fermentation and Glycolysis but I did want to include a summary of it in the winemaking application. I would greatly appreciate an expert set of eyes since, admittedly, I know far more about drinking wine then I will ever know about the chemistry behind it. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, will do, but I'm a theoretical chemist not a biochemist! --Bduke 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

True but your general knowledge in this area will still be considerable more then mine. Thank you. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then there should be a Manx WikiProject, I am surprised there is not one yet. Weirdos. No wonder Monty Python are so cracked. Alms for a poor ex-leper? :) Chris 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Britannics weird? Too right, sport. It makes everyone think they are a few roos short in the top paddock. There are too few Manx editors to have a Manx WikiProject. I had a struggle to stop the Isle of Man Portal from being deleted a few months ago for "inactivity. It may be that the UK project might keep an eye on Manx matters but the key Manx articles are not in the UK Project. Nobody helped me to keep the Portal. I had to write new stuff for it. I guess I had better still keep an eye on it. Actually I have never been there although I have seen it many a time while fell walking in the English Lake District. My parents had their honeymoon there. --Bduke 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the RfA about Sadi Carnot has started at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. --Itub 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going though the merge backlog and came across the Proctor and Oxford University Police. Back in January you expressed interest that they should be merged. Do you think that this is still the case? If so if you're able to could you maybe lend a hand helping out? Thanks! Radagast83 07:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Brian,

Meetup is looking like it will have to be a Sunday, given I don't know of a venue we could use for a Saturday. What timeframe would be the best for you on a Sunday? cheers --pfctdayelise (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost any time between say 11.00 a.m. and evening will be OK, but I would like to know which of the two Sundays pretty soon. --Bduke 04:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Given the date I'm shooting for the 18th. pfctdayelise (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm ten years old... My name is also Brian Duke. Isn't that amazing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianD1996 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

SPR is not inactive. The reviews are added to a transcluded page. There has been one added only yesterday. It certainly be more active, but you were wrong that the last review was added in September. I try to keep an eye on it and also transclude the review to WP:PR to get more discussion, but I have been overseas and then rather busy and not well since my return. --Bduke 11:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bduke,

SPR is certainly inactive. I'm quite aware that the reviewes are added to a transcluded page, and mentioned that in my edit summary. The "review" that was added just yesterday was redlinked and added by an IP; you created the peer review page. The last commented-on review was added in September. If you want to keep the page active, you will have to make sure it really is active: someone has to be doing the reviews. They can't be sitting there for four months, unreviewed. It is not fair for editors to think they will receive a scientific review if they put an article up for review, only to have the page archived without comment, and there is no point in having a scientific peer review on Wikipedia for articles which receive no scientific peer review. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Rgds, `'Míkka>t 03:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, he's vandal only, should be blocked indef [3], — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This guy got indef blocked by Edgar181 10 minutes after I warned him on his page with a blatant vandal tag. Hahastupidliberals got it all wrong anyway, I'm not exactly a liberal-;) — Rlevse • Talk • 12:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Rebecca (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would you do this? Sorting the comments does not make the business any more or less of a poll. It merely organizes the opinions in a way that makes them easier to to weigh. To my mind, this makes good sense, and it was the standard format for such discussions earlier this year. Perhaps that's been abandoned as the standard, but unless its use has been forbidden, why would you undo the sorting? Perhaps you don't see the use, but where's the harm? It might not be required, or what you're used to, but why should it be "unacceptable", and what says that it is? I'd sure like a better explanation. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already told you. AfD is not a poll and you added a heading that said it was. You are also wrong that your usage was used earlier in the year. I have just check January 23 and last February 23. It is not used. I would also add that the extra headings really mess up the table of contents on the days AfD page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD also tells you start each comment with a bullet point (*). That is why I reverted your use of numbers (#).

I think the cause of the confusion may be that the headings/poll format is used in some other places, such as Requests for Adminship. However, I have never seen it used at AfD. Besides giving the mistaken appearance of a poll, sorting the comments could cause confusion when people refer to other's comments by position (as in "keep per above comment"). --Itub (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, you put it better than I did. It certainly has not been used at AfD. --Bduke (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(I've moved this back to here, because the below refers most particularly to your comments above, here. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

This is academic now, at least as regards the particular instance, because the article was speedy-redirected. However, do you have any idea how rude you sound? There was no need for such a short, censorious and authoritarian tone, and its use was liable to be counter-productive. Please think about that.
Given that a sorted format is used in other, similar discussions, the notion that it creates the impression of the discussion being a mere poll is not generally (or at least not universally) accepted, so it seems. The format has legitimacy. I was mistaken -- misrecollection -- in saying that it was formerly used in AfD discussions, but it is not a personal invention. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if you think I was rude. I was not impressed by your complaint that I was lecturing you. AfD has never used the format you want to my knowledge. There is a very strong view that AFD really is a discussion not a vote. The instructions do not explicitly rule out your method, although they rule out numbering the comments, which you did and I reverted. However, implicitly they do rule it out. Why do I think it gives the impression that it is a poll? Because you had a section header called "Poll". It is as simple as that. You were indeed mistaken. --Bduke (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you sound rudely peremptory. That is partly a matter of word-choice and phrasing, and partly of the choppy sentences. It might merely be that writing is not your strongest suite; I don't know, and don't assume that you intend the tone. I hope you'll think about it, though, because it's liable to create bad feelings in your dealings with other editors, especially in your role as an admin. One could say substantially the same things without such a lack of tact and diplomacy. I'm telling you this mostly for your own sake, and for the sake of other editors; I'm not all that much bothered about it, myself. In any case, this isn't worth pursing any further. No hard feelings. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Brian Duke.

I live in Colorado USA. Currently I'm a BlackOps developer for one of the largest networks in the world. I was working on a security system when one of our search functions ran astray and returned your wiki page and my name! :)

Nice to see another bduke also making a difference in the world.

bduke2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke2 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely understand that. Let me scribble up a little documentation and perhaps we can avoid crossed messages. I probably don't need to be reading your adminitrative mail as well. I'll have my page update by the end of this weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke2 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bduke, Am I correct that Davorin Dolar did not have any connection to Georg Ludwig Carius? I found the latter's name inserted in Davorin's article. Regards, ChemGardener 04:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Bang on, I confess. I must have copied part of one to start the other. I started to fill the gaps of redlinks on the list of chemists. They both need much more work. It shows how few people ever read these sort of article. It took nearly a year for someone (you) to spot it). --Bduke 05:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Local unit? Pls look into. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian, I am new to Wikipedia and therefore have left responses to your merge suggestion in a number of places. I will collect them all here for your ease:

Oppose This article has been recently created to give an overview of Sea Scouts in New Zealand and all those involved with Sea Scouting are being encouraged to contribute. Each Sea Scout group is also being encouraged to establish an article about their group which will link back to this article. You are correct that a list of groups is not sufficient but it is a starting point. By merging Hawke into this article it would reduce the likelyhood of contributions from other groups. This article needs chance to evolve before any merging occurs. HawkeSeaScouts (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I may not be writing this in the correct place or appropriate forum - so please forgive my errors. If you wish the scouting portal to grow you need to encourage development which may be slow. Within New Zealand there is a great chance to have a really good article about sea scouting and many good (not sure what notable means in an international context) articles about individual groups. This reflects the de facto structure of sea scouting in NZ, the area/district/regional/zone distinctions do not have any real context and it is unlikely that anyone would write an article. If you want contributions to grow I suggest that you allow the individual group articles to evolved linked to a national sea scouting article. It is for this reason that I set up the structure in this way - competition will encourage other group leaders to contribute both to their own articles and to the national article. HawkeSeaScouts (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now had a good look at the Scouting WikiProject and in particular Editing conventions and now see why you are making the suggestion - The problem with the guideline on Local Scouting Articles (BSA) is that, as indicated by its title, it reflects the american model where you may well find articles about the councils which could include details about units. This is very unlikely to happen in NZ. So I would again ask that you consider a slightly different model in order to increase the visibility of scouting in general. HawkeSeaScouts (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yours in Scouting Craig (another Yorkshire migrant - which explains my blunt comments :-)

While the first part is likely true, the rest of the edit summary seems rather brusque: Rudeness: "No evidence it is taught in Australia - wishfull thinking from a ID POV pusher." It looks like this was 124.171.157.194's first edit. CruftCutter (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was harsh and I was biting a newbie. However, it is completely untrue. ID has a very small foothold in Australia and it certainly is not given equal time in all Schools or even many Schools. Why do you think he added this nonsense? --Bduke 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You were'nt biting a newbie, the person behind 124.171.157.194 is a long time POV pusher at creationism articles. The response seems justified to me. 66.92.182.62 (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Which Chief Scout were you referring to in {{s-npo}}? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Any Chief Scout. The context makes it clear. Look at the B-P article and follow through the "succeeded by" links. The title changes but is always clear what it is. If I had called it "Chief Scout of the UK" or "Chief Scout of the World", it would have been wrong for some. I see no reason why it can not be used on articles for Chief Scouts of other countries if it the actual title is made clear. What do you think? --Bduke 03:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your reasoning here here, since Chief Scout differs in use, but this should be the exception. Others, such as Chief Scout Executive, should use the header of the National Scout Organization. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I still do not understand why a header should write "Chief Scout". Headers are either for categories of offices or for specific organisations to which an number of offices belongs. Specific titles are not what headers have been designed for; specific titles are written in the title cell of each specific line anyway. (And I am very specific about this.) Waltham, The Duke of 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally, we would have a header for the National Scout Organization, with the title and person under it. Example: Robert J. Mazzuca is the Chief Scout Executive of the Boy Scouts of America.

The problem here is that the title and scope of Chief Scout has changed over the years, as it went from British Empire to Commonwealth to United Kingdom and Overseas Territories. From 1967 on we could use the header The Scout Association. Prior to 1967, we would use The Boy Scouts Association. Baden-Powell was the only Chief Scout of the World, so I think a header of Scouting would do here. We would keep the current line of succession. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what the problem is. From what I know, there is no guideline discouraging the usage of two or more different headers for one succession chain. On the contrary, such action is necessitated by the requirements of succession chains like "Archbishop of Canterbury" (first s-rel|ca and then s-rel|en, i.e. first "Catholic Church titles" and then "Anglican Church titles") and "Postmaster General of the United States" (first s-off and then s-gov, i.e. first "Political offices", as it was a Cabinet-level position, then "Government officies"). The fact that such header transitions are not at all described in the guidelines only shows that there are still holes that need to be plugged.

Therefore, I believe there is no problem with using the appropriate header for each different time period. Although there should be a general uniformity across succession chains, things like headers are also checked on an article-to-article basis. Waltham, The Duke of 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian- If there is no objection, I will add headers for Scouting, The Boy Scouts Association and The Scout Association and eliminate the Chief Scout header. I have also been updating the succession boxes to the current styles and will continue on that. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this will do the trick. Plus, these headers will be useful for other titles as well.

Nice new signature, by the way, Gadget. Waltham, The Duke of 19:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The only squeaky wheel is Charles Maclean, Baron Maclean. He was Chief Scout during the name change, and the title was split. I would not think we need to duplicate this for both association names.

Brian- I just put "ended" for Chief Scout of the British Commonwealth—this could use a better description. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What a fascinating discussion you have had on my talk page while I slept. First, some background. Another editor added all these succession boxes with the default header of "Non-government organizations". I had a look at the template thinking I could copy it and modify it to fit the Chief Scouts to find of course that there were already Scout alternatives to the default. I am quite happy with your suggestion, Ed, above. I think that is for the best. Go ahead and do it if you are still awake. "Ended" does not seem the right word, but I can not think of a better one. I think I need my early morning coffee to kick in. --Bduke 21:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we could have taken this over to the template talk, but then you would not have had such a good read first thing in the morning down in Oz. I'm just logging out at work and headed home for the evening. I'll pick this up later this evening at home. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The coffee is kicking in. What about "Title discontinued" in place of "Ended"? The last two UK Chiefs now have articles. I have advised the author of them about this discussion as he was the editor I refer to above and he may have some ideas. --Bduke 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The new headers are far better than the default one I used, thanks. This document here says Maclean's title was "relinquished", I don't know if you'd want to use that one instead.--Mas 18 dl (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. I changed it to "relinquished." --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

I have no objection to your decision, I just thought I'd reply to this line: "perhaps I am the only admin who has seen this", since I'm also an admin. I did take a look at the copyvio before you deleted it but wasn't sure whether I should change my opinion because of it or whether it could be rewritten to avoid the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I did not recall you were an admin. I also thought about whether it could be rewritten to avoid the problem, but thought it was better gone, particularly as the material can easily be used to recreate the article if done properly. --Bduke (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that we do not use original research on Wikipedia. We use independent sources. If the council office can lead you to individual sources that it fine, but you telling us what they told you is not fine. I really would like this disagreement to be resolved with reliable independent sources. --Bduke (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I really believe you have no concept on how a local BSA Council operates, a local BSA council has a 3 tier level of operation, the "CEO" who is the Council Secretary, chosen by the Executive Board, (30 - 60 volunteers {not paid}), The Council Commissioner who is the volunteer support of any "paid staff" and the Council President, who is the "chairman" of the Executive Board.

If I get any member of the professional (paid) staff to provide information plus any volunteer, are you telling me that they are lying? ````—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkopechief (talk • contribs)

For the record, I am calling you a liar for claiming to be a Scout-your entire edit history violates helpful, friendly, courteous and kind. Your smug arrogance has no place on the Wikipedia-you need to find another forum in which to spout off, not here attacking longtime established reputable and sourced users. Chris (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tkopechief, I am not saying they are lying or you are lying. I am saying that you are doing original research, which indeed can be accurate, but it is not allowed under the policies of Wikipedia. That is just the way it is. Please read the policies. I did not write them. Your research has to be supported by sources which others can access. --Bduke (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on what? I provided information on how a any local council operates, do you have any evidence to prove I have lied? Is the the fact of how the National Council of the BSA or any local council a threat to you? I have extensive knowledge and background of how the paid professionals and volunteers in the Boy Scouts of America should relate to each other and whether a call the local Boy Scout Office should be important, or respected. If a call to a local BSA office is a threat to you, then I am sorry, Wikipedia can be what ever you believe, reality, may be something else. ````—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkopechief (talk • contribs)

Okay, I do not have the skill to proberly ID my selfelf,

However, my stance is the same, this guy is pushing his whatever without sources and I am supposed to defend myself? You have to understand how BSA local councils function in the BSA, there are over 300, The official Boy SCouts of America position on Honor Societies would be simple, what more should I provide.

There is an official OA part of the Wiki, what should some local person provide, and what is wrong with the local BSA council link, I find that only the Tribe of Micosay, Firecraters, and Tribe of Tahguitz have any real link.

I can not help this individual who insists on my adherence to some standard without answering my questions.

You have not answered my questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkopechief (talk • contribs)

This discussion really should be on the talk page of the article. There was no need to copy it all here. I have reformatted it as it was unreadable. You can not indent a paragraph and get it to look right. Let me try to make a few things clear. I did not say you are lying. I said you have to respect Wikipedia policies. Get a source for your point of view and I will support it being added to the article. Please read the policies about original research, verifiability, reliable sources and so on. I have to run. I will reply in more detail on the article talk page later. --Bduke (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I will restore the header that I removed, and I will start a thread on the talk page to request consensus for the removal of the header. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:SPEEDY, db-bio is a tag to be used for an "Article about a person, group, company, web content, or computer software that does not indicate the importance of the subject." (Emphasis added.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Then the template should say something other than "The reason given is: It is an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject", which is what it does say. --Bduke (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the table, you should have used any one of {{db-bio}} {{db-band}} {{db-club}} {{db-corp}} {{db-group}} {{db-web}} {{db-software}} for A7 and the corp or group ones would have been more appropriate. --Bduke (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your name as an admin who closed a discussion for Ormskirk Heelers due to the nomination being withdrawn. A similar event has occured for the Nelle Wilson Reagan article and I was wondering if you could take a look at it. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it rude that you said I have very few mainspace edits. And also this does not give you the right to delete my userpage. I will try to contribute to the encyclopedia.  iXela  talk  21:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the WikBack! I have just approved your registration. I look forward to you contributing to the boards.

If you have no idea what this is about, or if you did not register, please contact me right away as the account may have been created by an imposter.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WKEL-FM, you closed it as "No consensus". According to my count, it was a "Keep". Only six "Delete" votes were cast and 10 "Keep" votes. So, my question....why the "no consensus"? It looks like the consensus was "Keep". - NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First, "No consensus" implies "Keep". The administrators job is not to just count votes. I was concerned about the quality of the arguments on both sides. The delete votes tended to not understand WP:CRYSTAL, while the keep votes were rather unsure about the opening of the station. The article for example talked of a date that has already gone and also of moving the license from one place to another. I came down to "No consensus" as leaving the possibility more open to bringing it back to AfD if the station does not open. If it does open, then all is well. --Bduke (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, now I understand :) Thanks...NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for my essay. I edit from New York City, where it's currently 19:47. Handy things, these utc templates. Wonder who made 'em, eh, cobber? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)