User talk:Bduke/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sidgwick and Powell

At Talk:VSEPR theory you mentioned having attended Powell's lectures 50 years ago. Do you remember his first name, which could be added to the article on Nevil Sidgwick? The 1940 proto-VSEPR paper only says H.M.Powell. Dirac66 (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Afraid not. In those days one did not know the first name of your lecturers. We knew him as "Tiny" Powell. Just found it. He was Herbert Marcus Powell and used the name Marcus. See his Royal Society Biographical Memoir. That also supports my memory that he was called "Tiny". --Bduke (Discussion) 22:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a graduate chemistry class is editing my favorite articles

Hi Bduke, I've talked with you before (above on this page) so I wonder if you can provide some insight on an unusual situation I've come across. I saw a number of accounts with similar-looking names, so I went to Special:Listusers and found 8 accounts with that name:

It's transparently obvious that these are students in an American graduate school. "Chem 540" is the course number. I take courses in Chem. 504, 511, and 531, so the numbers make sense. There are 8 groups (grp1, grp2, etc.) and f08 refers to the fall 2008 semester. The instructor evidently assigned the students to split into groups of between 2 and 4 students to work on one or two Wikipedia articles between them.

The articles of interest are:

Here are the issues of concern to me:

  1. Is it okay for accounts to be shared among three or four different people instead of just one person?
  2. Can we check that the edits to these articles are in accordance with standard Wikipedia style and don't overwhelm or make redundant the material that was previously in the articles?
  3. These users have uploaded multiple images, and have not responded to requests that they should provide source information. Can anything be done to bring these images into compliance?

Thanks for looking into this. (By the way, I'm curious which university this might be. It certainly isn't mine.) Crystal whacker (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed some of them too. While I've seen some good additions, they need help with Wikipedia style and conventions. But I'm also worried about these likely being collective accounts, which as I understand are not allowed. --08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, both CW and Itub. I glanced at the start of this discussion before I went out this morning and I have been off WP all day. Having students edit WP is not prohibited and indeed it can be a useful educational approach which we should encourage. The addresses do look like groups but they may be very small groups and they could be considered as the name of the group spokesperson. I'll try to look more at them later, but welcome comment here. We need to get in contact with the instructor if we can. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Collective accounts are not allowed? You must be joking. An IP from some Jr. high school library is left open for all students to use, if it doesn't vandalise. And too often, even if it does. What could possibly be different if it were to register, and pass out the password?

Hey, I know, why don't we declare all the members of these each student account meatpuppets of each other, on grounds that they all know the same things about chemistry? Then, we can treat the individuals as though they were single accounts. Oh, wait-- we're doing that already, automatically. Bummer. SBHarris 09:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a bit inconsistent, but in fact IPs are treated different from registered accounts in more than one way. The rule about not sharing accounts is written at WP:NOSHARE. --Itub (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I think "NOSHARE" is a sensible policy for long-term account usage. If I were sharing this account with my roommate for the foreseeable future, it could lead to all kinds of problems: you wouldn't know whom you're talking with. If you see a signature at the end of this posting, you may not know who I am, but you do know I'm the same person as "Crystal whacker" in every other place on Wikipedia. I think communication benefits from simple approaches to continuity of character.
However, these folks don't really know what they're doing, don't know about the account-sharing no-no, and in their context it doesn't really make sense to bother them. It's evident that they're using the accounts to collaborate on a group of articles, and that they will retire the accounts in a few weeks when the semester ends. I suspect most of them do not have Wikipedia accounts (in my school it's not popular), but if any of them do edit Wikipedia, they can do it under their "own" username and it wouldn't bother anyone. So I would recommend not to make an issue of the account sharing, and certainly not to block these users who are contributing good encyclopedic content. If necessary, refer to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: if the rules prevent you from allowing someone else to improve Wikipedia, ignore them.
I did try to figure out who these students are. "Chemistry 540" means different things at different schools. I didn't find a "Chemistry 540" corresponding to "physical organic chemistry," which is the subject of interest. The editing times of the students suggest that they are probably in the United States (which matches the writing style and my general instinct). At this point, the only way to figure out who these people are is to ask nicely and hope they answer. (In theory we could ask an administrator to look up their IP address, but that doesn't seem worth the trouble.) Crystal whacker (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Those pesky images

Not to get sidetracked with account sharing issues: OrphanBot has already removed this image: Image:Crystal1.jpg. I suspect that the students made these images themselves in most cases. It's within a first-year graduate student's ability to draw something like that with help from software. Can anything be done to rescue the image, or will it be deleted? Crystal whacker (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion

I have copied this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Looks like a graduate chemistry class is editing my favorite articles as it has become too wide to discuss here. I have written to all 8 students concerned on their talk page to draw their attention to this discussion and suggest that they need to seek a mentor from the Project. I am willing to help there but it needs others. Please comment there and consider the discussion here to be closed. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Trust Wiki

It has occoured to me that many persons do not trust Wikipedia due to the fact that anyone can edit it. I think we should advertise that we constantly chech sources and cites. Many people think that we do not have the capeablilty to check all edits. We should allow the general public to know of our technologies to prevent and reverse vandalisim and the punishments of offenders. We are not trusted by all but I believe in Wikipedia to make it happen. Someone could start a project to do these things.

P.S. Pass this message to every single wikipedia user starting with the project council. I have chosen you for the "B" section. Please pass it on to all members under "B" on the project council.

Bmoc2012tms (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Lost Noise

Heyy, I created a page on wikipedia called "Lost Noise" and someone deleted it :( . I am contacting you because you were on the list of administrators who will give us our deleted texts. Is there any chance you can give me the text on that page :). I don't mind how you give me the text!. Cheers... Lostnoiserock (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008

The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia 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. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Bduke, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the work on setting up WMA. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2009

Delivered January 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 11:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Disturbing phenomenon on vandalism patrol

I'm patrolling vandalism and I see this net diff on chemist: [1]

Nothing happened. Right?

Actually, some anonymous editor removed 1,000 bytes of content from the introduction and added the word "PENIS", then another anonymous editor removed the word "PENIS" but didn't restore the content, then a few more edits followed, and finally six hours later a third anonymous editor restored the content to its original form. I pity those readers who stumbled upon the article in the intervening hours. What am I to make of this? Is vandalism patrol even worth the effort? Crystal whacker (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is up-hill work on that one. I have come across similar problems. That article is a target for stupid vandalism. I have semi-protected it. Only registered users can edit it. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Good move. Crystal whacker (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me e-mailing me a deleted article?

Hello. I read that you can e-mail me my article "Molo, musician", which was deleted. I need it so I can complete it according to the suggestions I received to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, if possible, I would also like the article "Ruta 800". Can you reply on my talk page? Thank you in advance.Mirapaltecho (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Kuhn SSR

In case you hadn't noticed, more than the great majority of the claims made about SSR in this article are also unsourced, and thus are also OR on your view that unsourced = OR, but as indeed is most of Wikipedia, either because most of its claims are unsourced or else because the sources cited do not justify the claims made.

I would therefore be most grateful if you would delete all Wikipedia unsourced claims in this article and elsewhere before you start deleting mine, thus generously giving me some leeway to find a possible source that makes this elementary obvious point whilst you delete most of Wikipedia.(-: --Logicus (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You know that "other problems exist" is not an argument. Your source is to Kuhn. That is fine. The addition, "However Kuhn never demonstrated any such progress was exemplified .." does read as your opinion and thus OR. It does not seem an "elementary obvious point" to me. Criticisms of Kuhn's arguments most clearly do need sourcing. We report what others have said about him, not what we think. I'll leave you to find a source. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly a Yorkie, and thus illiterate and in error, in spite of the royal ‘We’ (-:

You claim

“We report what others have said about him, not what we think."

FALSE. This article, like other Wikipedia book reviews, mostly reports what Wiki editors think about the book, rather than sourced claims and opinions of others. Hardly a single sentence. In it is sourced. And if you want to learn something about Wikipedia, take a look at its other book reviews and you will find the same applies. For example, see Wiki reviews of Newton’s ‘Principia’, ‘The Open Society’, Friedman’s ‘Capitalism & Freedom’, ‘The Republic’, ‘Macbeth’, ‘Hamlet’, ‘The Wealth of Nations’, Russell’s ‘Principia Mathematica’, Wittgenstein’s ‘Philosophicus Logico-Tractatus’. They all consist almost exclusively of Wikipedia editors’ unsourced opinions. And thus they are mostly OR on your view that unsourced = OR. --Logicus (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If these articles do indeed mostly report what Wiki editors think about the book, then they are not following policy and should be changed. They are not intended to be reviews, but encyclopedic articles on notable books. A description of content can be sourced to the book itself, but criticism should be sourced. ‘The Open Society’ is a good example. The criticism section is sourced. Please be civil. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Portland High School

No problem. I noticed your comment on Longhair's talk page and thought I'll fix it now. Now just got to fix up the Categories on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Girlguiding Sussex East

Just a short message to say thanks for your help with merging the Sussex East page into the London and the South East page. As I said I am new to Wikipedia so thank you. I have a picture of the Sussex East Silk - I will need to teach myself to upload it! Anyway, thanks again. Claireyfairypink (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. The image needs a bit of tweaking, but I'm not that sure about images, so I have asked Rlevse to help you. I moved your comment to the bottom. New items on talk pages go at the bottom. It makes archiving easier. Good luck. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A centralised discussion which may interest you

Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2009

Delivered February 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 07:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting 5 articles which were deleted

I notice that you are listed on: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles.

I am requesting 6 articles which were deleted then redirected to be userfied, :):

From: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 15

Can you please move all 6 pages to my userspace, with the history intact (I am interested in who created the article, and when).

I really appreciate it. You are probably wondering why I ask. Well, I have spent my weekend on a graph found here: User:Ikip/AfD on average day. I am interested in what type of user gets their page deleted, etc....November 15 is just a day pulled out of a hat by another user.

Thanks :) Ikip (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I will reply later. I'm busy now. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. You do not seem to have made up your mind what you want, as you keep changing the list. I will therefore wait until you have not edited the above for 24 hours before I do anything, but let me know if you do not need any of them. I am not going to waste my time. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Bduke, I am doing this like an assembly line, with about 10 admins. When one admin userfies, I change all of the other edits still needed. I am sorry for deleting that material. When I am attempting to update 10 pages, I am bound to have a mistake. SORRY. It looks like i am completely done though. Thank you for your offer to help. Best wishes. Ikip (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Sir/Ma'am, would you mind userfying this article, it is one of two that I forgot: Rollac Thank you, Ikip (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
No. After seeing that you were surveying me and other admins without telling us and generally wasting our time by asking more than one of us to recover the same articles, I do not intend to help you in any way. Your behavior relating to the above has been unacceptable. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Would you be willing to be 3rd moderator at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we await your response. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Scout Groups/Networks

I'm confused as why you don't list Scout Networks. These are a provision by and an integral part of each Scout County (ref POR). I can understand why you don't list Groups, but Networks are a completely different entity entirely.

Peter Davies ADC (General Duties) Bedford District Scout Council —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat99 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I replied to the above on your talk page. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely if you are removing the detail from my post and leaving the summary, then it would sense for the subtitle to remain rather than having it listed under District badges as worn on the uniform of Scouting members

William Shippin
County Scout Network Leader (D)
Bedfordshire County Scout Council
Wshippin (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the badge heading too, but that change has been reverted by another editor. I thought both headings were unnecessary. I have moved the Network stuff further up. If each aspect of the County is covered in one paragraph, there is not need for there to be headers for each paragraph. A couple of hints: (1) the use if "br" is not needed, (2) "Preview" is your friend as it allows you to correct errors without saving and this makes checking the history of the article much easier for others. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Western New Guinness

OK the tyop was deliberate - welcome to the madhouse of what some call the malayan archipelago (sic) - either a guinness or a tooheys or even a boags might be needed if you venture too far west (hic).

I am interested in your approach to what some clever rodents do which is to place either synonymic cats and or parent cats with children cats in articles - are you either way on that one? (I try to remove em myself but just interested in your view) cheers (tic) SatuSuro 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I get confused about that situation even after a boags or three. I do often remove parent cats from an article if the child is there. My excursion into this is via the CfD debate for Category:Ethnic groups in Papua. I am now saying that the one entry should be removed as it is in what would be the parent cat and it then can be deleted, as we do not have Category:Ethnic groups in West Papua. Of course they now have 2 provinces in Western New Guinness, but of course they could have 1, or 3 or even 10 next week. I just went and populated Category:Ethnic groups in Western New Guinea. I am inlined to think that Western New Guinea is even more confusing than PNG which I sort of understand having worked there for 4 years. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Opps

Opps ok. Will respect that in the future.--theslave (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Video lecture links

Sorry, I thought it was useful to add relevant links to give readers extra information in another medium (video). If you don't think the energy dispersal link is relevant, please feel free to take it down. EconoPhysicist (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Beer style

Hi there Bduke. Do you think you can lift the full protection of Beer style? You protected it for an edit war about two weeks ago; it should probably have died off by now. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

ACS journals

Hi Bduke:

You left me a message saying:

"Three paragraphs recently added to this article were a direct copy of this page so I have removed them. We can not copy material directly from other sites unless the material is released under a free license. If you have been doing the same on other journal articles please revert them yourself. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)"

I work for the American Chemical Society and work on the marketing team which drafted the content I posted on ACS's site and here on Wikipedia. They have all been deleted!!! How can I release the material under a free license? I am not posting any journal articles, just information about each journal, and thus am not violating any copyright laws.

I am employed by the publisher of these journals and have been instructed to create a page on Wikipedia for every one of our 36 journals. I'd rather not have to rewrite all the content we already have written so how can I publish this on Wikipedia without having it removed?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webchemist (talk • contribs)

I have copied the above to User talk:Webchemist to keep the discussion there in one place. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
This Barnstar is awarded to Bduke, for his elegant idea to solve a difficult problem. Thank you for your wonderful suggestion about changing the templates. I have begun this today. Ikip (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - March 2009

Delivered March 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.


→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 00:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, On November 17 I have edited the page for Ab Initio as following: 

   in computing: Ab Initio is a software company providing high-performance data processing solutions, including ETL( extract, transform, load ).

You have removed my edit and reduced it to 

  in computing: Ab Initio is an extract, transform, load tool used to manipulate data.

I believe this is incorrect. Ab Initio is not just an ETL tool. I know a lot about this company - I was trying to get into it in October - November. Passed 12 interviews - and still was rejected. They are very picky. But I can assure you that Ab Initio is NOT just an ETL tool. They concentrate on finding solutions to impossible problems - many of them have nothing to do with databases and ETL. I would describe them more as "extreme high perfomance massively parallel data processing". Anyway, I would appreciate if you coud return my edit back, because it describes the company much better.

Warm Regards Lev Selector, Ph.D. New York Levselector (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please correct short description of Ab Initio in computing

Hello, On November 17 I have edited the page for Ab Initio as following: 

   in computing: Ab Initio is a software company providing high-performance data processing solutions, including ETL( extract, transform, load ).

You have removed my edit and reduced it to 

  in computing: Ab Initio is an extract, transform, load tool used to manipulate data.

I believe this is incorrect. Ab Initio is not just an ETL tool. I know a lot about this company - I was trying to get into it in October - November. Passed 12 interviews - and still was rejected. They are very picky. But I can assure you that Ab Initio is NOT just an ETL tool. They concentrate on finding solutions to impossible problems - many of them have nothing to do with databases and ETL. I would describe them more as "extreme high perfomance massively parallel data processing". Anyway, I would appreciate if you coud return my edit back, because it describes the company much better.

Warm Regards Lev Selector, Ph.D. New York Levselector (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you please help

Would you please help to mark the article Guoyue with under-discussion tag, and the content is suggested to be merged with Political musics in China and the article Guoyue is suggested to be redirected to Traditional Chinese music. Thanks. -Zhinanzhen (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Anthony Appleyard has helped. Thank you! -Zhinanzhen (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Scout continent template

Once all the articles in a continent are updated, let me know and I will fix the title and links. I already have things in place, as some of these are going to require some customization. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I think Oceania is pretty well done. There remains a few questions about small islands affiliated to the UK or New Zealand, but the basics is there. The Commonwealth ones are Scouting and Guiding and the US ones are just Scouting. I have fixed the titles for the template on the Commonwealth, but the template still points of course to redirects for each of those countries. On a related matter, how do we best rename the categories? --Bduke (Discussion) 22:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and some others are under the BSA and GSUSA. Here is the sandbox version:


We can update {{Scout continent/Oceania}} as needed.

As to renaming categories, we don't. We create a new category and go through each article and change the category, then delete the old category. This is where AWB comes in handy. If you are not up on AWB, create the new cats and let me know the mapping from old to new. I can get on that tomorrow. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am totally confused. I'm using the template Oceania topic which was on all but one of the oceania articles I looked. The Scout continent one now had mostly redlinks, with only the clear ones that use Scouting and Guiding in X being correct. What is the relationship between these two, and which should we be using? I can then work to get them all right. As for categories, I thought that was the case. I have not used AWB, but will look into it. I had a long go on WP early this morning, but I'm now into coding chemistry stuff, so I'll probably not do too much more today. Cheers, --Bduke (Discussion) 00:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

PD review

See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of residential colleges

You previously commented at WikiProject Colleges & Universities about the notability of college/university residences and other campus buildings. A RFC has been submitted on the best way to deal with the existence of many Wikipedia articles on residence halls and dormitories at colleges and universities that may not be notable. Your input and feedback would be appreciated at the RFC. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - April 2009

Delivered April 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 04:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus test on university topics

You previously commented on the RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Consensus test. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

BJCP

I have restored the links you have removed from the Beer style article. Your removal of them was a clear breach of Wikipedia policy. The BJCP link was included on the article for 9 months until some editors decided to remove it and the article became unstable. The consensus up to that point was clearly to include the link, and there was no consensus to remove the link. Wikipedia protocol says you must have a consensus to make changes to an article. They didn't have a consensus to make such a change, and regardless of whether you are an administartor or not you do not have consensus either. The article must remain in its last stable form before the disagreement, those are the rules, and it was stable for 9 months prior to the disagreement. There is no logical reason why the onus of convincing should have to be put on the community for inclduing the links, when they were part of a stable article for so long. There is no reason why they can't stay on the article page and the discussion can continue. By removing the links you are making an editorial decision without obtaining consensus! Betty Logan (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.

Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

FreeON help

Hi Brian,

We are total wiki newbies, and could use some help please with the FreeON page.

My understanding is that the conflict of interest flag set up by the COIBot had to do with links that were not appropriate. There were two classes of links. The first, were to authors home pages. Would e-mail addresses be more appropriate? The second was to a blog that I maintain for the project, where I plan to discuss minutia of the project, technical and philosophical. I figured this might be ok, since I am "a recognised, reliable source", at least as far as I can tell ;)

So, two questions: (1) How do I get the conflict of interest flag off the FreeON page, and (2) If I'm not "a recognised, reliable source", how do I become one?

These are certainly not a big deal, and we don't want to "over advertise", but would like to use wiki to establish a reference for our small community of experts. I see that you also are a quantum chemist, so your advice is even more appreciated.

Best, Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Challacombe (talk • contribs) 14:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page as there was already a lot of discussion there. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Neural Networks edit

Yes, I have made many edits to neural network based drug design.I appericiate that the material should be written in user friendly way, and I will definitely do that in my future edits. But please understand that if we can provide complete detail to reader, that is muc more beneficial. Rather than just touching the subject and walk away. In computer designing, there are 3 ways only. I will try to add the context in all the three equally but more is the content, it is more better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj6 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Hi, Was just wondering how i should go about referencing edits, because, as in the case of my local scout campsite, there is a climbing tower, ive climbed it, so how do i reference this ? cheers simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sifish (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference for your edit before I even looked at your edit here. That reference mentions the Tower. Just because you know it is there is not a reference. It needs to be available to all readers. Take care. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2009

Delivered May 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 07:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

heaviest element

We should get a RS for the claim that ca 190 (170-210) is the theoretically heaviest element. (Extension of the periodic table beyond the seventh period) Do you know of anything? kwami (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, personally I consider extending the periodic table beyond the last element that we actually have evidence for to be completely speculative. The article has a sort of source for 210 as the actual maximum, so going beyond that is completely wrong as it is based on absolutely nothing at all. That is why I and others keep reverting attempts to keep extending the table. I welcome your addition of italics for those heavier than 170, but anything beyond 130, or even 122, is also theoretical uncertain. Why not just italic the elements for which there is absolutely no evidence. E.g. there is evidence for 122, although it may be disputed and overturned. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Radio Monash

I noticed from the Radio Monash page history that you have blocked re-creation. I'm not sure if you are aware of Radio Monash or if you were just cleaning up what appeared to be vandalism-type changes. I believe that Radio Monash has been given an unfair rap on Wikipedia. It is a notable station that has been around for almost half a century, with a large listener base. I have been listening for over three years and was disappointed when I couldn't view or create a Wikipedia page for it. I personally know at least 20 other listeners who feel the same, some being Monash University students, while others are not. Given the changes to it's broadcasting status I can understand why someone who isn't fully aware of Radio Monash might interpret it as not a notable radio station at present, although this is untrue. But that aside, the station's history should be reason enough to have a Wikipedia article. Imperfect.dark (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason I protected it was because the decision to merge some material from the earlier article on Radio Monash to Monash University was taken at "Articles for deletion here and there were at least one attempt to recreate it against that AfD decision. If you want to go back to something like the July 22, 2007, version, you should take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. You can still see earlier versions from the history of the article. Do you have any reliable sources that attest to its notability? The references on the earlier version were not that great. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not personally aware of any recent publicity outside the Monash University community, however any references from this community should not be discarded as the students alone number 55,000 including two international campuses. Also given that Radio Monash webcasts and is therefore not restricted to the local area, there are pockets of popularity around greater Melbourne and around the world. Furthermore given it's widespread nature and long history, I don't see it being less notable than the Monash Student Association which covers only a small aspect of only one Monash campus, which as you can see does have it's own Wikipedia page. I only use this example because it is a fairly direct comparison. I believe that if the prospect of a re-creation of the Radio Monash page were opened to discussion it would attract a lot of activity and support. However given that the Radio Monash page now redirects to the Monash University page, the Radio Monash talk page is not easily located.
Imperfect.dark (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Whether Monash Student Association is notable or not has got nothing to do with this. Each article is decided on its own merits. If you take it to deletion review you will get the discussion you want, particularly if you point to it on the talk page of Monash University. BTW, I have a connection to Monash University, so I am certainly not going to be the admin who removes the protection on the redirect, unless the closure of a deletion review allows it. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Why have you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ircd-ratbox ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.102.36 (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ircd-ratbox. I was merely closing a clear discussion for deletion as an administrator. It was last year. If you do not agree, then you will have to take it to "Deletion review". --Bduke (Discussion) 22:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

fr:Base STO-nG

Hello ! my response ... Let me know your future corrections for this article. Bye and thanks again ! Grimlock (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Scouting Ireland

Hi, you may remember your intervention here at Scouting Ireland ended an edit war. Sadly another one has erupted, with two editors in particular determined to prevent the article stating that Scouting Ireland is the WOSM-recognised scouting movement for the Republic of Ireland. They insist on editing so that it says Ireland, which is confusing for readers. Your intervention would be appreciated. Mooretwin (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also welcome your input on the talk page. The more editors we get discussing the issue, the greater the chance an edit war of reverting changes will not take place.MITH 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm real close to reverting this back to the version before all this warring, protecting it for a month and creating a subpage to work on a draft. It has taken 45 edits to make this handful of changes.[2] If I was forced to look closely, I would not be a bit surprised to find at least two 3RR violations. This has been highly disruptive. I don't have a dog in this hunt— my handful of Irish ancestors were kicked off the island over 250 years ago. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Only 250 years ago!! Some people would say that the dog is still in the hunt. I once heard a story that a Danish visitor to NI was greeted with "So you are the b..s who burnt our library in 850". I have commented on the talk page and await a response. The general argument about the naming or articles is getting in the way here. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah— mostly German, with a pinch of Scots, Irish and English. My last name is actually of German origin, not English. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Very disappointing and illogical intervention, Bduke. By agreeing to the current text (which is a result of a revert of the previously-brokered consensus), you have endorsed that break of consensus (which happened while the Irish Collaboration was ongoing), and rewarded those who sought to retain that break of consensus through edit-warring and outnumbering me. It doesn't make sense to say "No changes while the Ireland Collaboration" is ongoing, but then stand over such a change. Mooretwin (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2009

Delivered June 2009 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 00:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bduke/Archive_7&oldid=1199755292"