Jump to content

User talk:Bduke/archive1

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


Archives November 1st, 2005 - May 31st,2006

Quantum chemistry stubs

Hopefully WP:WSS will mark all quantum physics and quantum chemistry stubs with {{quantum-stub}} in some time. The process has just begun. Conscious 07:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

City of Hobsons Bay

Thank you. I am sure admins (like Ambi and others) would be able to do something about it, but people are generally banned for much worse than what I reverted on the page. It has to be persistent vandalism (not just a spate in a few minutes). If you would like to join the WikiProject and improve articles, then you're welcome to.

--EuropracBHIT 04:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC).

Re: Comp Chem stuff

Hi. I don't really have any comments, I really like your recent additions. I would write more myself - though probably about some specific quantum chem methods - if I could afford to pull more time away from my research. Karol 09:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

CDU entry

The whole entry is a bit over the top anyway - reads like a pub rels person -- there are quite a few issues ( olf myilly poiny campus which was on old royal darwin hospital etc etc) go ahead - if you know anything, do an edit. otherwise... vcxlor 09:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you are refering to here. Myilly Point was the original campus of the University College of the NT, where I was a foundation member of staff in late 1986. I do not see a reference to Myilly Point. It was the old Darwin Hospital, while the new one is correctly referenced as the home of the Menzies School. It does'nt look like a public relation person. It just looks like a mess to me. Bduke 09:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is that if wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the cdu entry lacks any detail in the historical sense - as a foundation staff person you may well have a few items that should help expand the article! vcxlor 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have had a big go at it. I would welcome your comments. I note that several university pages do not have much history. A good example is Deakin University. Bduke 01:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! It is much more what it should be! Mal Nairn was a family friend (my father being a vet had known him when he was at Murdoch), and he actually now lives in the house that I grew up in Swanbourne. I was a postgrad at NTU while he was VC.

Humff. Reminds me that Mal was from Murdoch not UWA - fixed. Would you care to write the link for him? I can not find anything that is not in my memory and that is flakey. Bduke 04:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs more like you! I have the unfortunate situation here in Perth of having to deal with teenagers and less than 22 year olds who have minimal understanding of historical context of hardly anything. NTu/CDU has had more than its share of problems, and I think your building the article up is excellent! vcxlor 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Being 66 does give one a sense of history! Bduke 04:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The article is really so much more interesting, and you have hit the nail on the head of what has been quite a complex history! Please do more on the territory - your work is excellent! Thank you !vcxlor 01:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Austin Asche

No problem, I'm not too familiar with the Australian government. -Drdisque 01:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Northern Territory

It's really good to see another person taking an interest in Northern Territory topics, as it's one of our most sadly underrepresented areas. I've tried to do my bit, but I'm limited by being on the other side of the country. Thanks for updating some of the articles on MLAs, anyway - I went through a huge burst of activity in the leadup to the election, and got distracted with other projects when the results were released, so some of the articles are a tad out of date. Ambi 06:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm in Melbourne now, but I lived there for 18 years. Bduke 06:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Grant Tambling page

Gah, that was a stuffup. Thanks for pointing that out - he was actually defeated by John Reeves. If you ever want to check any federal election results (or recent territory results), Adam Carr's site Psephos is invaluable for these things - it has results for every electorate in every federal election since 1901 and territory election since 1997. (from User:Ambi 11.56, 30 December, 2005)

Hello!

I saw your post here and thought I'd come by and say a word of greetings. Nice to meet another computational chemist! Do you think you could help with expanding the articles on vibronic coupling and coupled cluster? --HappyCamper 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Martin Walker's home page

Hi Brian,

I just noticed that you put some message on Martin Walker's homepage instead of on his talk page. As I wanted to announce a nice new User Box for the wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals (aka WP:Chem), I took the liberty of plastering it on his home page, but perhaps messages can better be put on the talkspage? Wim van Dorst 23:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC). ps. Interested in the WP:Chem project? Will give you a nice userbox ;-). WvD.

Yep, I put it on the wrong page, but I have now moved it. I am interested in the general WikiProject Chemistry but not so much in the Chemicals sub-project. Best wishes, Bduke 00:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Recruiting other chemists

Hello Bduke! Thanks for organizing the List of publications in chemistry page. If you want to get some talkative chemists then bother these people:

I think you'll be lucky to get comments from anyone else. Most discussion in the chemistry related Wikiprojects just involve us. We REALLY need to get fresh voices in these projects, but for some reason, not many chemists are Wikipedians and not many Wikipedians are chemists. I hope this helps. ~K 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I have come across all of these but one and I have just left a message on his talk page. Bduke 03:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Comp chem software table

Hi. I just felt that there's no point in having them in the table if there's no page, but maybe that was too hasty. I actually have heard some very good opinions on PQS, especially its optimization and customer support, and I also used it myself one time for fun, with success. As for Quantum, I've never heard of it. Karol 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, really. I was just about to create a PSQ page yesterday, but then I went to sleep :) Karol 07:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

userbox

Hi,your userboxes looked messy,so I cleaned it up a bit.Batzarro 09:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Darwin

Done. You don't need to be a sysop to revert vandalism though - if you click on the edit history tab and go back to the last good version, you can revert it yourself. Ambi 20:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Chemical thermodynamics article

Thanks. Have to rush to a classical guitar concert.

My daughter-in-law is Australian. She and my son and I are all faculty in the Chem. Dept. here at the Univ. of TX-Austin.

When I post it as a proper standalone article, I'm going to change the redirect so it doesn't default to Thermochemistry, but will be a separate article. Already noted that one.

My "reformulation" is simply a mathematical rephrasing, not original research. I am aware of Wikipedia's guidelines. In any event, if it were original research, I wouldn't post it here before publishing.

David Shear Theoretical Chemistry Institute University of Texas at Austin dshear@austin.rr.com

Athenaeum

Very good start to entry-it must have an amazing history. If your statement of the building being finished in 1842 is correct (and Im not doubting it) it may be amonsgt the oldest buildings in Melb (see History of Melbourne entry) and should be mentioned in both entries.Lentisco 04:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well to be accurate perhaps the fact that its facade may date to a later date should be mentioned. The Athenaeum library msut have a separate entry as it would have a long and very interesting history as well as being central to Melb cultural life in its way. Lentisco 04:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, 'To many in Melbourne its ...' is true now--in fact only say only 1% of Melbs population would know of its existence--but in the past esp. in 19C it was a major public institution. So historically its very important.Lentisco 04:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Scouting Barnstarn

Did you see this proposal? Scouting Barnstarn --evrik 19:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite nice. I have mixed views about Barnstars - not sure whether they are a good idea or not. Perhaps they do help the WP community. --Bduke 20:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Scouting Barnstar - Where to put it?

I believe that the award that was created for the Scouting Barnstar should be a topical award. Scouting is a world-wide movement that has served youth in many countries for more than 100 years and represents the youth of the world at the United Nations.

It has been suggested that the award be given as a PUA. The first line on the PUA page reads, "This page provides a collection of awards created by individual Wikipedians." The Scouting Barnstar was created by the WikiProject Scouting.

Currently, the is a discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:Barnstars#Removed_the_scouting_barnstar. Please comment there if you are interested.evrik

Australian Ufology

Hi Bduke. I've added this deletion debate to the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, and also to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia page. -- Longhair 09:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Category war

Please consider going to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Boy_Scouts_of_America_controversy_and_Category:Boy_Scouts_of_America_controversies_to_.28he_didn.27t_say_what.29 and voting on this (we want delete) and the "Contentious issues" listing right below it (we want keep). There are constant edit wars on the "Controversies about..." article, so I don't really worry about it, but I would like to keep the contentious issues grouped together in the project as they relate to Scouting. Rlevse 11:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Australian States Scout Template

A draft is at User talk:Bduke/Workshop/Template:TSAUSbystate. --Bduke 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Now created as Template:Scouts Australia States. --Bduke 07:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth Scouting

Brian, you seem to be developing articles in a pattern, and I really could get behind it if you're thinking what I'm thinking. I am reading the original Scouting 'Round the World by a Scotsman, very heavy on Commonwealth Scouting. I really dig it as my interest is the B-P and colonial period in many countries. I don't know how to do it precisely, but I'd love to see something tying them together. Here in the States B-P is generally an afterthought, not as it should be. Check out where I am going on The Bharat Scouts and Guides. Work in progress. YiS, Chris 05:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

afterthought-instead of dividing the UK by Scout County, as there aren't that many (articles now), what about expanding that template to cover all of the Empire, the movements that have grown from the parent? Just an idea. Chris 05:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I'm afraid I am not working to much on a pattern. I am also getting behind with some chemistry work. I need to get something finished for a workshop on the 12th. I will tackle the Australian State pages sometime soon. Somewhere I suggested that for the UK we should work on the areas (a few Scout Counties) covered by a Field Commissioner. That would give us about 20 articles for the UK - not too different per population from one per state in the US. It is not the 100+ Counties. Unfortunately, I can not find a list of Field Commisioners and the areas they cover. There is a suspicion that they no longer call them that. I'm really not sure about the empire idea. I personally like to look at the history but I think people want it see it as it is now and the Empire is rather irrelevent. The template would be hugh. On the UK, I do not think we can progress until we get a keen UK Wikipedian on board the Project. We do not seem to have one. --Bduke 06:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian, I'm done with the Scouting WikiProject, I appreciate your hard work and backup, and I have renamed two templates I am turning over to you until they can find homes, as you'd be the best point of contact for them. They are User:Bduke/workshop/Template:SCanbyprov and User:Bduke/workshop/Template:TSAUKbydiv. I will be around, but I'm done with that lot. See you for now. Your brother in Scouting, Chris 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

thermochemistry paper

Fixed per request; thanks for the format suggestions. I am fairly certain that this book is also the founding book for physical chemistry (I have degrees in chemical engineering, electrical engineering, and I'm presently working towards a third degree in biochemistry). I am also presently reading Nobelist Jean-Marie Lehn's '95 supramolecular chemistry textbook; I’m not for sure, but I think it might be the first every such textbook on this subject? --Sadi Carnot 00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

UK scouting template

The problem stems from there not being a legal Flag of Northern Ireland, and the former one (which is associated with militant Protestantism in some eyes) getting treated as if it were official in the NIR template. Hence my removal. The Tom 23:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: VSEPR theory

By all means, be my guest. I have yet to see a formal description of the theory outside an undergrad-level textbook, so if you have any sources that might be helpful please let me know. I'd be interested in bringing this page up to standard as well. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic! I should be able to get hold of the article within the next couple days. Thank you very much. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template:Scouts UK Counties

User The_Tom removed the image from many templates, despite not fully understanding al the issues at hand - I simply restored to all.

I have no problems with you removing all the flags from this particular template.

G'day there BDuke,

I saw your support listing for my nomination of Surf lifesaving to become the Australian COTF and decided to have a look at your userpage. Boy was I surprised to see my "useful editing links" list sitting there on an Admin's (?) page. I'm honoured to have done something that other people find useful - I wasn't even creating it for other people - under the assumption that I couldn't find a convenient list of this kind of stuff because I don't know where to look (not because there isn't one)! I assume you copied it off my userpage? If not, who did you copy it from? I created it due to the slow speed at which I find the right boilerplates and stub categories - this way I can just have a tab open behind my main page so I can copy and paste the templates across.

I hope it of use. I've recently added some more things to the list if you want to add them to your page too - they are primarily about notability, and some RC patrol things.

Cheers,

Witty lama 04:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Pulp and Paper Merit Badge

Brian - The AfD tag was posted on this article while I was still making it. I think you may have seen a very early edition. Please revisit the article and see if you might change your mind on your suggestion for deletion. The article is squarely focused on the nature of the merit badge, and no longer makes any claims to be a resource page. My eventual intent is to preserve the history of each merit badge, including current and previous images, history of requirements, how the requirements relate to culture, business, and society, etc. Thanks in advance. NThurston 20:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Publications in Chemistry

Hi there. Thanks for voting for keep on my additions. I just thought I'd say though, that I didn't get the impression that the list is only for old papers and such. I just felt motivated to act when I saw that Lavoisier and Boyle's books weren't on a list of important Chemistry publications! I'll try making some more additions, as reading classic science books is somewhat of a hobby of mine. Gershwinrb 10:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

COMSATS

Thanks Bduke, actually I'm a new user of Wikipedia. I have redirected COMSATS to the full title now. And I've also mentioned that it is South Asia not American South.-- mamoonlodhi 12:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Commission_on_Science_and_Technology_for_Sustainable_Development_in_the_South_%28Asia%29"

144.173.6.76 (talk · contribs)

Hi Bduke, I blocked the ip for 24 hours. In future, you'd probably be better leaving a note on one of the sub-pages on WP:RAA, where you're likely to get swifter action. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

chemistry portal

i thought this way is more inline with the other science portals.. and now there's a link to the previous selected articles, which i think is handy. Mlm42 23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The portal is so important I think that such a change would best be debated on the portal talk page before making the change. However, I have to run off to uni now, so I have no time. --Bduke 23:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote
My request for adminship passed with a final result of 78/2/0. Hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. Please ask if I can ever help out with anything in the future.
Martyman - 09:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Hall

Hi, I tend to try and stay away from the articles on ANU residences. From what I have seen they tend to be heavily frequented by people wanting to push a point of view or rubbish a rival college. Ambi and Petaholmes are both also at the ANU, so they might know something useful about it, but I really don't know anything about it. --Martyman-(talk) 09:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right. I have tried, partly successfully, to stop some Hall and College articles from being deleted. It would have helped a lot if the articles had been better. There is too much childish nonsense and rubbishing of rivals, as you say. I have done some work on my old Oxford College and that does not suffer quite in the same way. The Melbourne College articles are not too bad. The Sydney ones are less so. --Bduke 11:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Henry Schaefer

Your article on Henry F. Schaefer, III seems to be a copyright violation from http://hermes.ccqc.uga.edu/member_page.php?id=8 . I noticed that in the original draft, you had put the copied parts in quotes, so I realize you weren't intending to do anything wrong, but it needs to be cleaned up. Sayeth 22:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right. When it was in quotes, I think it was OK as it was only bio details. The quotes were taken out by an anon editor. I'll get around to altering it soon. It only needs minor rewriting I think to put the first para in my words, not his. Are you an admin? If so I'll ask you to clear the copyvio tags when I have done it. --Bduke 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine now. I'm not an admin, so you'll have to get someone else to clear it. Sayeth 16:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
It's been sorted out now. Just a couple of comments on the revised article:
  • As an experimental chemist, I cannot accept that a calculation "overturns" my experimental results: it might "force a reinterpretation" or some such phrase like that, but the like time I checked experiment remained the stronger proof.
  • You should add a source for the claim that he is the sixth most-cited chemist: "according to Science Citation Index" is better than nothing if we can't find the full study.
Thanks a lot for helping to improve our coverage of twentieth-century chemists! Best wishes Physchim62 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. I'm not sure about "overturned". In the triplet methylene case, the theory forced Herzberg to go back and do the experiment again and he came up with a quite different result. However, I'll follow your advice. That para was not by me anyway. --Bduke 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to Wave Structure of Matter

I am inclined to agree that this article should be deleted and put on WikiBooks, but I also think it is not suitable for 'prod', but should go to AfD. However, I'll leave it and see whether the authors have something to say about it. --Bduke 01:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem contrivercial to me. Check out the talk page, he claimed he was going to fix it in september. He hasn't been active in months. -Ravedave 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Scout collaboration

Hey, Brian, still haven't made it to Japan, still no closer than I was Monday a week ago. :( Ah well. Take a look at Wikipedia:Anime Collaboration of the Week, maybe you guys could use that as an idea for a weekly improvement drive for some articles that are not as they should be. Heck, I can even nominate four or five of mine. Hope you are well. Chris 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I hope you can make it to Japan real soon. I have experience of weekly/monthly/fortnightly collaborations and have come to the conclusion that a certain number of participants is needed for them to work. Not sure what the number is though. Some struggle to find candidates and do little with them when they have one. Others work quite well. The Australian C of the fortnight works quite well, but the Science one of the week is pretty poor. I'm not sure if a Scout one would work - maybe if every candidate was a BSA article, but not I think for a UK or Aus candidate article. We will be in touch when you return from Japan. Take care. Brian. --Bduke 01:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Alan Budd

Well it seems to have very little info (plus only one source which didnt give much of the info that was on the page, so there must have been one other source) I could see that there differnt sections like his life and such, but were not properly defined. Walksonwalls 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I may try to do something on it. I did not write this article, but I am keeping an eye on articles related to the Queen's College. I have meet and admire Sir Alan. Regards. --Bduke 20:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Meetup in March

I see that you are listed as a participant in the WikiProject Melbourne. If you are a Melbourne resident I would appreciate your views on the suggested Meetup in March . Please give some indication of your interest, or otherwise, in the idea. Even a simple "No thanks" with your user name would be welcome and assist in assessing the level of support for a meetup. Thank you.. Cuddy Wifter 06:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Penyffordd Scout Group

No luck in getting to Japan yet, seems her family does not want to talk to me. Check this out, it belongs in Clwyd. Chris 00:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That is tough, mate, really tough. I'm sorry. Re Clwyd - yep, I came across it a few hours ago. I have left message on users talk page. He is a newbie. I did'nt put the merge tags on but I told him that merge was the only thing that would stop it getting deleted. If he does not reply by tomorrow, I'll fix it myself. I wish someone would add some real material about Clwyd Scouting. It really only has the merge from the 3rd Colwyn Bay Group. It is a mess. --Bduke 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

King Edward VII School, Sheffield & C.J. Beck

It would indeed be of some note if Beck were an alumnus of Wesley College and publishing in 2002. For KES provenance I refer you to a site you are no doubt using for research. See; nlc.oldedwardians.org.uk/ plays/strongLonely.html and related speech day credits. Google Image search displays the school play pic and book cover for 'Spiked'. Malundi 4 March 2006

I know about the Old Edwardian site, but I'm not actually doing research right now. I ordered the Centenerary book months ago, but there was a commumication problem (they e-mailed me saying they needed more postage to send it to Australia and I never got it). That is fixed and it is on its way. Are you an Old Edwardian? I'm a very old one. I was there from 1950 - 57. Regards, --Bduke 22:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a French saying which ends, "...fifty is the youth of old age." All the best with your work. Malundi, 6 March 2006.

Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dorms in the US

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Hall (Bristol) has been closed without consensus, but I just wanted to clarify if you were still wondering. "Dorm" is a fairly umbrella term in the States. For example, the precedent I listed on my deletion argument, Jester Center, is where I'm living for the rest of this semester or term. It has more than 7,000 residents, access to athletics facilities, numerous tutoring and computing resources, at least 7 eateries, occasional faculty sponsorship of a hall, and social activities, and was deleted a few months ago. On the other hand, other "dorms" on campus solely provide rooms, but are classified the same way. We also use the term "residence hall" as a term for all "dorms." However, the term "college" usually refers to an academic body, such as the "College of Engineering," or the "College of Liberal Arts" within the "University of Texas at Austin," or simply by itself as, for example, "Franklin and Marshall College" — not a place of residence. — Rebelguys2 talk 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was aware that College had the meaning you indicate. I spent 5 months at the University of Georgia back in 1990. I was not aware of the facilities that "dorms" provide. The situation here in Australia and in UK is getting to be similar. For example the University of Melbourne has many old Colleges with history, senior members, tutorial system, sporting competition, etc., but there are also many commercial blocks near the university that just rent out rooms and have no legal connection to the university. I was Head of a College once in UK. I think they deserve articles of some form. Some can be grouped together. The problem is that many have articles written about them that are just vanity rubbish and they also get vandalised frequently by, I suspect, their own members. BTW, I notice that Smuts Hall, that was kept at AfD recently, has been substantially worked on since then. I think on this one, I would be happier if US Wikipedians decided the fate of US Dorms and Australian (or UK) Wikipedians decided the fate of Australian (or UK) Halls/Colleges. They at least would know what the article could be developed to. --Bduke 20:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Brian,

I have a view that Wikipedia should evolve into not allowing anonymity or to at least allowing the moderation of anonymous/pseudonymous edits by non anonymous folk, just my view but I hope I'm allowed to express it. I have no doubt people will disagree and I'll respect their right to do so but that doesn't make the anonymous slagging that I've personally witnessed on some articles right, good for Wikipeida or behaviour I could ever accept. DarrenRay 04:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Scouting in East Sussex

Umm, Brian? :-o Chris 22:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Take a look now. I fixed up a similar Glasgow mess yesterday. Cheers, Brian. --Bduke 23:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

Is it possible to get a example of a good or featured science article of yours? This would make it easy to vote in your favour in the project. Whats also be good a example of participation in a PR with good ideas. I think a long list of edits and administrative abilities are not enough for board member. --Stone 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a featured article and I do not believe I have a good article, in the sense that I think you mean. That has not so far been my priority. Let me explain. My chemistry contributions fall roughly into three categories:-

  1. Biographies. I feel that an encyclopedia should not only tell people about the science but also about the people who made the science. The people I need to mention in articles that I work on are mostly in International Academy of Quantum Molecular Science. This article lists the current and deceased members. I have written 18 of their articles. However of 88 current members, there are articles for only 29. The deceased members fare better, with 18 out of 29 having articles. Generally I have written articles for people where I found redlinks or wanted to add a link. Recently I finally fixed the fact that the first sentence of the main article, listing the founding members, had two redlinks. I think it is more important to have a brief articles about all of these people, rather than a very full biography for a few of them. The latter can come later. I use this example as the first category as it is so clear.
  2. Chemistry literature. My first edit, as anon, was to List of publications in chemistry which is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. I came to see that these articles could develop into a POV mess. Now after a request from the coordinator of that Project and with the consensus of the chemists who frequent the page, I coordinate that page. We have developed stricter guidelines for inclusion and a debate process for every new addition. With a few more entries, particularly in the empty sub-discipline areas of chemistry, I think this article will be a good one. Removing entries that were just journal titles lead me to List of scientific journals in chemistry. I have added very many entries (name and external link to journal home page) but it is still very incomplete. Most journals are redlinks. Again I think it more important now to write brief articles on all these journals rather full articles on a few. I have added at the top of that article three lists of the top 20 journals according to different citation measures. I have also been involved in the search for the best way to have just 10 chemistry journals listed in List of scientific journals. We seem to have settled recently on the top 10 by citation count of journals that publish papers in all areas of chemistry. It is of particular concern that about 50% of all the journals in these links of clearly important journals are still redlinks.
  3. Computational chemistry. This main article has been listed as a good article (not my doing), but it had, and continues to have, some serious problems. It had many redlinks to particular methods and to particular software. I have written quite a few articles to fix these. It had many links to articles that contained errors, many of which I have fixed. The section on semi-empirical methods was particularly difficient, giving the impression that these methods were just a 50 year old method for π-electron molecules. I have altered the main page here, removing some material to a new article and written several new articles on particular methods. All are still stubs but their expansion can come later. Sometime soon, I will go back to work on the main article. However the sub pages still need a great deal of work. There are overlapping articles that need merging and impoving. There are articles that come from physicists in physics categories and similar articles from chemists in chemistry categories. There are still methods that are not mentioned.

I hope this gives you some idea of my philosophy at this time. Basically, in these areas that interest me, I think we need covereage before long articles. Stubs however, still need to be accurate and well written. That is my aim. In other areas of science, including some areas of chemistry, longer really good articles can exist and I think I can help to achieve this. --Bduke 22:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: GAMESS

Good call. I think they split in 1981. As to the pure DFT codes, I guess DFT is slowly becoming an accepted part of quantum chem. :), but these codes are really specialized (as in not genereal QC), so I would personally opt for a separate list. Karol 08:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what you did is fine. Karol 08:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect of University of Melbourne student services

Hello. Not quite sure what you mean about redirecting it to something that doesn't exist. It points to Melbourne University student organisations (which, at time of writing, exists) :) Stevage 08:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I have noticed it is there now, but it was not when I left the message for you. --Bduke 08:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My PhD...

...will hopefully be completed this coming December, so I haven't got it yet. You know, I'm so horribly fed up with that discussion. I don't think I should offer to withdraw twice. I really think I should be done with that project now. It's not clear what the project is really for, or what the board would actually do. And some people don't even realise that reviewing Wikipedia articles is not as difficult as reviewing journal papers; in fact, if our review was as detailed, it would likely introduce POV on the part of the reviewer (which is why we should stick to the convention of having at least two reviewers for each article). Broader review is what we are looking for. Britannica articles are not written by the top authority in each field. I doubt they would be intelligible if they were! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, I thought I'd take this off-line. I think we mostly agree. However, the peer-review struture being debated there just won't scale, which is why I'm pushing for a board that reviews only basic science. For the "true science", the deeper stuff on WP, I think we'll need a different organizational model in order for it to scale. I suggest something along the lines of an independently run journal. That way, a narrow band of a half-dozen particle physicists could set about reviewing particle physics articles, and another band could get going on astronomy, or whatever. Small tight groups like that could communicate effectively, and be "on the same wavelength". There's no particular need for such groups to be overseen by some big heirarchy. All they need is some sort of way of getting thier imprimatur onto a page, stating that "this article has been reviewed for scientific accuracy by the Ichthyologists Association of Wikipedia" or some such. I have an old, half-baked proposal over at User:Linas/Original research, peer review and reputation on Wikipedia; I now realize that I have to rip out the "original research" part, and expand on a proposed organizational and operating structure.

Would you be interested in developing this sort of clique-ish/journal-like/small-band-of-domain-experts type organizational principle? linas 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we really do agree, but let us see if we can come closer. If you can get a half-dozen particle physicists then I think you will be lucky. I do not think there is that number of experienced expert chemists (and chemistry is a wider field). I think there is about 4 who have PhDs but of course I could be widely out. I think you only need one out of each group on the currently proposed Board for it to work. That person will field it out to the others in your half-dozen. This might develop into what you suggest. On "basic science", I just do not see we need something different from WP:PR. We just need people on say the Wikipedia Chemistry Project to advertise articles that get put up for peer review and ask people to go and put some science into it. If the Science Peer Review is only going to do something like that, I do not want to be involved. That is particularly my view if it is going to cover Science, Engineering, Technology, Medicine and what ever. It would be too broad.

I looked at your earlier proposal. I realise that you want to update it, so I will only comment that there are lots of internet peer-reviewed journals. I got a paper to review from one published by the Royal Society of Chemistry in UK only this morning when I downloaded the overnight e-mail. I am happy to discuss this further. I suggest we take it to e-mail. E-mail me from my User page and give me your ve-mail address and I'll reply. Whatever we do, we have to recognise that there are people on Wikipedia who do not like the idea of experts having a greater say than 14 year old kids. A pity. Both can contribute. --Bduke 02:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Several quick remarks, I should be doing something else:
  • Its normal to reply on one's own page, as it does keep the conversation in one place.
  • I think we do have four and maybe more experimental particle physics types at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics. I am not sure they are all active just right now, and I may have counted poorly, but they're here. There are a few more theoreticians including one or two bona-fide string theorists, although I guess some are grad students. Heck, John Baez has made occasional appearances, and there's at least one "famous" math prof who works anonymously.
(take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Participants and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants. Many who are active haven't bothered to add their names. I need to bug them, I guess. Why don't you set up a similar list for chemistry?).
  • You say: We just need people on say the Wikipedia Chemistry Project to advertise articles that get put up for peer review and ask people to go and put some science into it: ding..ding..ding.. and this is exactly what is not happening. I put up an article (I forget which) for WP peer review, and no one ever bothered to mention this to anyone involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics !! That's why I said "that process is broken" ... because it is.
  • The earlier proposal was not just an online peer-reviewed journal, but more along the lines of an on-line peer-reviewed living document. Journal articles, once set to ink, stop changing; the propsoal was for a collaborative environment that could continue to change. No matter, its a different beast anyway.
Later, then. linas 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry#Participants, but it only lists names. The Maths and Physics idea is a good one. I'll suggest it on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Chemistry, wait a while, get little response and do it anyway!! Lets pick up these ideas again later. It is late afternoon Friday here. I shall be pretty well off line for a lot of the weekend - not all. --Bduke 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm gonna punt for now on the discussion over at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review. I thought I was recapping the general consensus, and instead, I got a vote of 'no support' from you and from KimvdLinde. I'm hoping something can be rescued from the dregs of the potion, but it'll be hard now. linas 06:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I also didn't reply to your "other proposal" since I couldn't figure out how it differed from the status quo of what's always been done. Can you clarify how your proposal differs from how things work today? linas 14:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought it differed from the status quo in using the expert in physics or whatever tags, listing the article on our noticboard and having people list the article on the appropriate project page. In other words your suggestion minus a board and using WP:PR to display the results of the view. I have always said that I see little point for a board for general articles and my suggestion of using the projects allows a specialist de facto board to arise for specialist articles, much like your proposal I think. In your discussion on "authority" I think you have always been a bit out on one side and you have underestimated the difficulty of getting consensus. It is moving away from the wiki way. My proposal is a minimal proposal to get started. I had better look at what has been said overnight now. --Bduke 21:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

George Garfield Hall

That's OK, it was a fairly easy merge, and probably a good way to get a complete article, with two authors working independently. I was a little surprised that the newer article seemed more complete than the older one, which had a number of editors. Your background is probably the difference. I had some misgivings about dropping the phrase "known for original work on problems impacting theoretical molecular chemistry" from the merged-from article. You would be in a better position to know whether that red-linked phrase would be useful in the joined article. Happy editing! Chris the speller 01:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That redlink would always have been one. Its fine. I have known of George Hall's work for decades and meet him at conferences in the 1970s and then again a couple of years ago. I have not worked with him, but I guess I knew where to look for information. --Bduke 07:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

ACOTF

You voted for Rum Rebellion. It has been selected as the new Australian Collaboration. Please help to improve the article. Thanks. Scott Davis Talk 12:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Supramolecular Chemistry

Added more content. P.S. sorry for breaking your "talk" page rules, but I prefer to keep may talk page clean after I transmit a response. Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 22:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...

I wonder, may I invite you for a virtual cup of coffee? It has just finished brewing right now, and the aroma is simply impeccable... --HappyCamper 00:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, of course, but I think it has gone cold while I was unloading a washing machine and a frig off the back of a truck. What conversation did I miss? --Bduke 02:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

list of scientific journals in chemistry

replied on my talk page, per your request :) Brassratgirl 00:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Baron Wolfson

Based on a recommendation from Emsworth, I have moved the article to Leonard Wolfson, Baron Wolfson (talk). I also merged the two articles on him, and fixed the various links. The article's still a stub, but I think a slightly better stub. Fan1967 00:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you have done a great job. What a mess. There seems to be more articles about this guy than usefull words in any of them. However it is now sorted and should get better. --Bduke 02:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

NEVPT

Hi, relative to the NEVPT article I replied on my page. --munehiro 06:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 12:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to talk

Brian, Thanks for your comments - I am still relatively new to WP. I created the chemist category because there were categories for exponents of other disciplines but not chemistry. I assume that WP is a self-modifying system and that if this is the wrong thing to do I would be told.

It is actually quite difficult for people to find the right places for information and discussion. I have left contributions elsewhere without response so it seems fairly variable.

For the link I followed a neighbouring example...

Petermr 12:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sun Run

Hi BDuke, Sorry I linked the scouts Sun Run page to the Vancouver Sun Run. Could we add a disambiguation page to choose between the two? TastyCakes 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I just looked and see that you have done it. I think it would be better to have Sun Run as the disambiguation page and not have Sun Run (disambiguation), but I guess it can stay. --Bduke 21:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Ya, sorry that probably would have made more sense.. TastyCakes 21:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to worry until someone else notices. Thanks for cooperation on this. --Bduke 22:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Electron correlation image

I read your review of computational chemistry, great stuff! About image:Electron correlation.png, I made it, and you are right about the full CI mistake. Check out the new version, hope it's better. Karol 07:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

SPR start

I like that we can start know! And with CC what good idea. In my working group I was at the boardeline between experimentalists and computational chemists. I have heared so many comments on CC that I can use know. The best thing always was: Show me the flask with the substance! I had a lot of students asking me after talking to the prof: What is CC and why should we use it.--Stone 07:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jmol and more ...

Please read: Wikipedia talk:Using Jmol to display molecular models JKW 18:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

E=MC2 Barnstar

Moved to User:Bduke.

Vatican deletion

Thank you for backing me, Brian. Still not gotten to Japan, hope you are well. Your friend, Chris 02:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I've just found something about Somalia and have added it to the article. Best of luck in getting to Japan. --Bduke 02:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Scientific Peer Review

I appreciate the comments, Dr. Salter-Duke. I too hope that some of the editors will have time to suggest ways to help me improve the article. Based on a suggestion from another editor, I'm trying to incorporate some more plate tectonics and climatology into the article, though my grasp of these is tenuous. Do you have any other suggestions on how I might improve it? — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Diborane

I had never personal contact with diborane. The closesed I ever came was the synthesis of boron tribromide and triiodide in my 6 semester. But the essay in Ang. Chem. was good and gave some good history details which are good for wikipedia. Thanks!--Stone 10:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I'm new to contributing on Wikipedia, and I still have a lot to learn. Thanks for pointing me to the Scouting WikiProject. I'll be sure to check all the pages you listed. User:Codingmasters, 11:48, 23 April 2006.

CSIRO is ACOTF

Hi. You voted for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation as Australian Collaboration. It has been selected, so please help to improve this article in any way you can. Thanks. Scott Davis Talk 15:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

SCOTW

File:Chemistry-stub.png You voted for Ammonia and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Week!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

Scouting article work

If you are getting this, it is because you do or did work on Scouting articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting#Participants_and_primary_areas_of_interest).

As the Scouting WikiProject has been formed since early January 2006, we've had many great improvements made in this area of Wiki and I want to personally thank everyone for their help. We don't always agree on things, but we keep moving forward. YIS, Rlevse 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC) EXTRA KUDOS FOR YOU BRIAN!

It was my first use of VandProof to mass-notify people on their talk pages. It didn't work well-;) I had to do them manually. Rlevse 22:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rover Scouts edit

G'day. Sorry, still trying to work out how this all works :-)

Thanks for your help. Do you live in Melbourne too? Have you joined the Scout Fellowship or a Guild here?

Patrick Mc

ACOTF

Hi. You voted for Surf lifesaving as Australian collaboration of the fortnight. It has now been selected, so please help to improve it in any way you can. Thanks. Scott Davis Talk 13:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mass-to-charge ratio

I have left some comments for you on the AfD page. Please also note that Kmurray who nominated the article for deletion is the head of the relevant IUPAC commitee. Kherli is arguing with the standards organization on wikipedia. Please help bring some sanity to this situation and get involved and make up your own mind.--Nick Y. 17:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Australian Senate for the Northern Territory

Present and former. I've added Tambling. I didn't add him before because know about him because he wasn't in Category:Members of the Australian Senate. Snottygobble 11:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; you were a Senator for a moment there. Snottygobble 12:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No worries. --Bduke 12:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Scout admin

See Jergen's talk page about a Scout admin. I think he makes a good point. I have dealt with an outside admin who may fit the bill. Let me know what you think. Rlevse 11:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

University of Sydney

Why, when removing one lot of vandalism, did you add nonsense:-

motto =Sidere mens eadem mutato (Latin: "See the man, eat the potato")| ? I think that lengthy explanation should stay.

Hi BDuke. I must have missed that bit of vandalism. Thanks for alerting me to that.
I also reverted the lengthy explanation simply because it was messing up the factbox. As you know, infoboxes are meant to be succint summaries, with necessary explanations placed in footnotes, and any lengthy discussion in the main body of the article. --Sumple (Talk) 05:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Put the explanation in a footnote. The university and college pages get too much vandalism. --Bduke 05:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Pine Lake Environmental Campus of Hartwick College

Your recent edit to Pine Lake Environmental Campus of Hartwick College was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 22:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Mass spectrum and Mass spectrometry"

Thanks you for sending the message about removing the merge tag. I have just written the reason in the discussion page of Mass Spectrometry. Shrimp wong 03:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I largely agree with you. Let's see whether anyone objects now a reason has been put on the talk page. --Bduke 03:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"ordered set" at quadratic formula

Hi, I noticed you edit the page quadratic formula every once in a while, and wondered if you had any thoughts or information on the ridiculously long discussion we're having on the "minus-plus" sign. Lethe says that there is a distinct "first" and "second" root, while I say that both roots aren't ordered with respect to eachother, and furthermore that sets can't be ordered (in that sense of the word). I'd appreciate it if you come help form a consensus, so that perhaps that header won't form a black hole on the talk page. Thanks! Fresheneesz 19:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Eagle Scout Peer Review

I listed the Eagle Scout article for a formal peer review a few moments ago in the hope in about 2 weeks to list it as a FAC. Based on my experience with other FACs and one of my own successful FAs, I think there are two things people may object to: a) is the lead long enough? and b) are there too many lists? Please think these issues over. Thanks for all the help, Randy. YIS, Rlevse 11:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove!

Here's a pizza for you! Pizzas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! LINUXERIST@ ~~~~~
I've seen you at afd on a few instances, so I thought I'd drop you some Pizza. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Henry F. Schaefer, III

Hi Brian,

I actually removed the more general one because I thought it was redundant with the chemist tag I added earlier. I'll defer to you though, so I have no problems with adding it back. BTW, you and I have co-authored a few papers together, drop me a line at russthomas at mindspring.com .... :) --Roswell native 14:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen's RfA

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg Hello Brian. Thank you for your full support and gracious comment at my request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. You can see me in action and observe what then happened as a result. If you need admin assistance, feel free to ask me. Naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. I look forward to working with you in the future, hopefully as an admin. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bduke/archive1&oldid=1142882940"