User talk:Bduke/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] list of scientific journals in chemistry

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] NEVPT

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Jmol and more ...

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

[edit] E=MC² Barnstar

Moved to User:Bduke.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] SCOTW

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Blnguyen's RfA

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)