User talk:Bduke/archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Archive from January 1st, 2007

[edit] Category:Currencies of Australia

Whether this category should be in Category:Currencies of Oceania or in Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific, which is a parent of the first one, should be discussed on Category Talk:Currencies of Australia. Can we avoid an edit war? --Bduke 03:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi there. It wasn't my intention to begin an edit war, rather than there should be more clarity about currencies in this particular continent/region of the world. Thus I have created a new template, and category for them. I'm not sure what you mean about Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific being a parent of Category:Currencies of Oceania?? Is that just because it predates it?? I'd intended that Category:Currencies of Oceania would become a category in its own right. (Extra3 13:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC))
    • I now notice that Category:Currencies of Oceania has been moved inside Category:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific, rather than as an independent category?? Maybe we can talk about that?? If the latter is meant to be the parent category, which isn't the template renamed as Template:Currencies of Asia and the Pacific, rather than just Template:~Currencies of Asia (which is where the category derives from)??(Extra3 13:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Merge or expand

Should this The Wolf Cub's Handbook be merged somewhere or tagged for expanding? I think we have something related to it somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

I can not think of anything, but it is not an area I have really worked on. --Bduke 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wood Badge

I've done some work on this lately. Can you look at the Australia and UK parts of it for improvement? I'd like to go for GA soon. I'll be adding too. It definitely needs more wikilinks and refs. Rlevse 11:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] data pages

Hi Brian, Bentiromide (data page) has come up for deletion today, and while it looks like these "(data pages)" are normal, I dont know much about how the norms on displaying chemical data on WP. I was hoping to list it on a deletion sorting page watched by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, but I couldnt find the appropriate page so I've listed it on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Science. Could you take a look? Cheers, John. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayvdb (talk • contribs) 09:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you. John Vandenberg 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Bduke, I appreciate your additions to the Molecular orbital theory, but I have two suggestions regarding references. Yes I like seeing page references, but doing this in Wikipedia, as far as I know, gives a cluttered, redundant look to the reference section, e.g. see: Molecular orbital theory#References as you have it. Specific page references seem to only work good in when used in books. I thought it was a reference format typo when I saw it. Also, it is nice when people use the standard templates, such as:

  • Last-name, First-name; Last-name, First-name (2000). name. name. ISBN 0125309902. 

This keeps all the references in Wikipedia uniform. Just some friendly suggestions. --Sadi Carnot 00:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sadi, I understand your concerns. However, the reality is that WP is getting much tougher on articles that do not have everything sourced and referenced. The references to part of the book avoid having many more references to journal articles. For example I put three references against the Roothaan equations in its own article. If you want to make the references more uniform, please do so, but do not remove any of them and do not assume it is a typo if you are unable to check the reference. Does the standard template allow page numbers? We really do want to refer readers to just a small section in each case. I'll comment later on the timeline on the talk page, but I'm pretty stressed right now. --Bduke 01:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To use pages, you would code your original ref:

  • Frank Jensen, Introduction to Computational Chemistry, John Wiley and Sons, 1999, pg 81 - 92, ISBN 0 471 98055

To this (click the edit button to see the code):

  • Jensen, Frank (1999). Introduction to Computational Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, 81 - 92. ISBN 0471984256. 

Talk later, --Sadi Carnot 02:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The scout merit badge is for both the north and the south, its all one organisation for scouting ireland.

[edit] Re: Lancaster University

Hi! Thanks for the message!... In short, no - I'm not an English nationalist, but I can understand your point as this pops up from time to time... I'm unsure of your familiarity with the various naming conventions, guidelines and policies, but it is convention to use the constituent countries of the UK as the primary geographic reference frame, rather than the UK itself. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it satisfies most editors, most of the time (particularly the Scottish!), and is the most common approach on other encyclopedias.

I should add that the UK can certainly be added as an afternote, so long as the c.c. is also mentioned however.

I hope that explains things a little! Kindest regards, Jhamez84 23:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It does exist, somewhere (!). If you can give me a short while, I'll double check where exactly - it'll be archived somewhere. Jhamez84 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cats

It's true, they might rename it, but I figure it's a Wiki, and I didn't think following conventions strictly would be such a good idea for such an unwieldy name. Do you think making that category is a good idea? I just thought it would be a good idea to remove the "listiness" from that page. I'll hold off on adding more to that category for now. I just wanted to do some experiments with it for now.

I'm worried about the article itself though. It seems like a cut and paste of the original site, and I think it would be best to rewrite it completely. --HappyCamper 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STING

Added refs and removed tag. TimVickers 05:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wobbling molecules

Please look at the article Molecular Hamiltonian for molecular motions. Maybe you can make some useful additions/changes to this article. --P.wormer 10:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eugene Guth

Hello Bduke,

You left a message for me on my talk page. Let me respond. I find it arrogant that you would hold yourself up to be judge of what is fit and not fit to be published on Wikipedia. You have no entry on Eugene Guth, despite his significant contributions to several branches of physices, and his pioneering contributions to polymer physics.

Who better to keep track of his scientific achievements than his own son? I find your reasoning here to be specious at best. If you can find one single error in any statement that I put into my father's biogrpahy, then by all means, challenge that point. I would love to match my IQ against yours and debate the content of my own father's biography with you.

It would be trivially easy for me to find a friend who would submit to Wikipedia the exact same article that I wrote verbatim. Would that take care of your perceived "conflict of interest"?

Wikipedia needs to look for the best sources available -- first-hand knowledge is always better than fourth-hand knowledge. If Wikipedia cannot find a way to edit articles without inflaming the contributors, then it is a sorry organization. There is no excuse for the way in which the article on my father was deleted without any notice to me. Some bozo graduate student in Russia has the power to get an article pulled? Shame. That is putting it mildly.

Mikeguth 03:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hang on my friend. My comment on your talk page was about your edits to List of important publications in physics not about the article on your father. Those additions are still there, in spite of the fact that they do not follow the guidelines for that list since they do not properly give a description and a statement of importance. Nobody has touched them although they should. However these are not the only poor entries. There are many others that do not follow the guidelines. The article on your father was tagged as a copyright violation by User:Conscious. I had nothing to do with it. Did you read that copyright notice. It tells you exactly what you have to do and you did not do it. I have read your remarks to User:Conscious. You are quite wrong. The article does not include fair use quotes. It copies stuff from an outside source. Wikipedia has to be fully open source. Although such violations are quite common (I fixed one only yesterday that has been there for a year so) they are still wrong and unacceptable. In you comments you also breach other Wikipedia guidelines showing a lack of civility (WP:CIVIL). Calling a fellow editor a "bozo" is not acceptable. I am going to revert the changes to Eugene Guth and hope you will start again. Read the various policies, including Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, WP:BIO, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and so on. Follow the WP guidelines and policies and you will be fine. If you do not, you will get angry as you obviously are and not understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not. --Bduke 05:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


My latest revision of the article on my father did not contain one single quotation from an outside source. And yet you, or some other administrator, AGAIN removed it as a copyright infringement. Explain to me how an article without one single quotation from an outside work and merely summarizing scientific knowledge in the public domain (available in many different sources) is a copyright infringement?

User:Conscious is just a user -- he is not tagged or indicated as an "Editor." Frankly, I would be astounded if Wikipedia chose a graduate student in physics to be the Editor of scientific biographies.

I am not wrong about fair use. I am an attorney at law. I know the fair use doctrine far better than a Chemist in Australia. As to civility, when you take down an article without any notice to the original contributor, I believe a reasonable person would expect a sharp reaction. User:Conscious can deal with that, if you are not the person who took down my father's biographical sketch.

06:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (above added by User:Mikeguth)

I did indeed revert back to the version that contained the copyvio tag. I told you I was going to. As I said, you need to read the copyvio tag. It does not say that you can fix the article by reverting back to where it was before. It says:-

Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue.
  • To write a new article without infringing material, follow this link to a temporary subpage.

I am not an administrator. You have to convince one. OK, you are an attorney at law. Do you understand the license that all wikipedia articles are released under? Was nothing on your article copied word for word from an outside document such as a university web site on your father? The list of awards and prizes looked exactly like that. You can not copy stuff from elsewhere unless it islicensed under the GNU Free Documentation License or a very similar free license. This is not the same as "public domain".

You say:-

"User:Conscious is just a user -- he is not tagged or indicated as an "Editor." Frankly, I would be astounded if Wikipedia chose a graduate student in physics to be the Editor of scientific biographies."

This just shows how profoundly you do not understand wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have editors as opposed to users. You can edit any article, even if you do not register. Wikipedia does not chose anybody to edit scientific biographies, or indeed any article. You seem also to be unclear who did what to the artcile. Click on the history tag at the top of the Eugene Guth page. That shows you who has edited the page and when.

Now I do think that you father should have an article. Will you allow me to advise and mentor you? This is my advice. First calm down and read some of the policies and guidelines. Second, recognise that you do have a conflict of interest. This is obvious. You are his son. Read WP:COI. Third, you can create and edit the article on your father but you have to be particularly careful. Then read WP:BIO, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You have to write from a neutral point of view. You can not do original research. That means you can not add anything to the article that you know only because you are his son. Then click on the history and bring up the last version you wrote. It is the link to "15:08, 13 January 2007" in the second line. Click on edit and highlight the whole lot. Save everything to the clipboard with Contrl:C. Do not save. Cancel the edit and go back to the current version with the copyvio tag. Click on the link it says is a temporary subpage. Put the material you saved in the edit window with Contrl:V. Edit it on the subpage until you are happy. The version you left was a mess. The images did not appear for example. Then let me know. Give me the full URL to the temp subpage. I'll look at it amd then I'll find an administrator to fix it for you. Once in place I and others can help you improve it. Some other advice. Do not include a long list of awards. Just add the most important. Do not add a list of publications. Read some other biographies of scientists and see how they are written. Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Academics for some suggestions on this. Above all remember that everything in the article must be referenced to verifiable outside sources. This is where you have to be particularly carefull as his son. Someone else perhaps could get away with no sources for a while, but you can not. I hope this helps. Please consider it carefully. Also please sign you comments on talk page by adding 4 tildas ~~~~. For me it gives what follows here. Bduke 08:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economics

There is now a separate page for List of social science journals. But since others will probably ask, I just put in a section with the reference. The section seems underpopulated--if you know what should go in, could you add them. DGG 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title Change

Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elsevier

Hi. I have explained my reasoning for the little Elsevier/Endeavour edit at Talk:Elsevier#The_flagship_Endeavor.2FEndeavour. Cheers Nurg 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of the entries on the List of publications in philosopy

I felt so frustrated with being asked to provide an endless number of sources, which were then rejected by people unable to get free of their personal POV, that when all the entries in that list were deleted (at the very moment I was building a requested source's details) that I lost it and let loose with a major rant on the WikiProject Philosophy's talk page. I'd be interested in your take on what I've said. Best Wishes, Steve 09:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your email

Hi Budke,

I got your email. Thank you. I'll try to discuss it in here and not in email since other will be probably interested too. Thanks, APH 08:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC) PS. When I sign with tildas my user name is written but without a link to my page. Do you happen to know why?

I have no idea about the tildas. I can not reproduce it. --Bduke 11:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. I replied to your second email too. APH 12:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks so much for your attempt to help here. A very constructive effort. -- Fyslee 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you have a look at the energy and the last two edits by Hallenrm?

Either I've completely lost my mind, or I'm dealing with an invariably insulting editor who has an advanced degree in chemistry, yet really doesn't understand key parts of the physics of the subject. So, I'm asking for some badly needed RfC on the chem section of this article. I'm leaving an identical message for user:smokefoot and everybody else with a chem degree I can think of. Gracias for the outside view. SBHarris 09:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We all know what a chemical bond is. When the bond is formed, the system loses the bonding energy, which is usually passed on out of the system or molecule. It goes off as heat or radiation or whatever. All bonds take energy to break, if you want to go back to free atoms. What we refer to as "strong bonds" colloquially, are simply those that take more energy to break, than do weak ones. And give off more energy when formed. The strong bond in N2 is a good example: Gives off lots of energy when formed, hard to break afterwards. Total amount of mass/energy in the formed cold molecule is therefore effectively lower than for molecules with weak bonds. Molecule has less mass with a strong bond (a sort of chem packing fraction), just like a nucleus (Ni-62) with maximally stong nuclear bonding (though magnitudes are very different). This is Chem/ Physics 101. Hallanrm says nitrogen is some kind of aberration and has reverted my comments trying to clarify for the student that strong bonds mean low (total) energy systems and molecules. Add his multiple insults to his bad understanding of basic physics (and yes, chem is a subbranch of physics), and I'm about ready to go to ArbCom.

And by the way, most chemists don't react to the idea that chemistry is a branch of physics; they just nod. It's only when you say chemistry is JUST a branch of physics... SBHarris 12:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] impact factors

The only efficient way to get impact factors is from Journal citation reports: all listings are derived from that, there is no other source. Various universities do various things with off campus access, and it the university has it and you can't get it you should ask. They will say some nonsense about licenses, but in the ISI standard license all authorized users of the library have access in the library, though not necessarily outside. You could copy the chemistry list for example, and use individual numbers from it. (the current ones are for 05; 06 not until next august) I would not post the list, for it is copyright & they enforce it.

The other way is to look on individual journal home pages, most journals with high impact factors advertise them. You can search in google for "journal name "impact factor ", both in quotes. If you do this make sure you get ones specifically for 2005. There will also be a few pirated lists showing up, for earlier years, but all the pirate versions with 2005 numbers I know of have been taken down.

Once you have verified an impact factor, give the reference as Journal Citation Reports" (2005) or else the link to the publishers home page as [http//...html 2005 impact factor from publisher's site] . Anyone challenges that, let me know.

Or you can ask a friendly librarian somewhere to send you a list. They should not send the whole thing, but excerpts are probably permissible as fair use response to reference questions. DGG 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] defending notability for journals

The publisher is an acceptable source for specific information about the journal.

Notability is of course more difficult. I am trying to establish the position that all peer-reviewed journals listed in standard indexes are notable. The standard index for chem is of course CAS, and this is not available off campus to anyone from anywhere; the journal list is CASSI, and I think ditto. However, almost all organic chem journals & many others are in PubMed, and the link for their journal list is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=journals. Use the NLM catalog links display for the full information. since PubMed is a selective listing--though a broad one--this is not subject to the criticism of lists giving only unselected directory information. I do not think it would be challenged.

But I do not think it would be a good idea to add Indexed in: ABC routinely to articles, because this will end up with thousands of links to the Chemical Abstracts page, etc. Publishers sites will sometimes list rank, but I am prepared to find this for individual titles if there are problems. I do not think the rank should go in the articles about the journal, but be used only to defend notability. The relevant rank is for the category, such as Chemistry, Organic, and should be stated as no.5 out of 250 or whatever. Let me know if there are any challenges.

I will post this all somewhere, probably on a subpage of my user page.

One thing I would absolutely avoid is putting whatever ISI IF information anywhere except individual pages--putting it in the list of chem journals is almost certainly a copyright violation. DGG 22:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks

Hey, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. I noticed you said you couldn't find contact info. In the future, try looking the site up on whois. There are programs you can get, or you can use sites like http://whois.net . Thanks. Superm401 - Talk 08:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm using cygwin on a laptop at home now and it does not have whois. My linux box is not connected to the internet. I'll try whois on a uni server. --Bduke 08:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I recommend using a web whois form, then, like whois.net or dnsstuff.com . Superm401 - Talk 08:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
whois.net gave 109 results, but none of them seem to be www.justrec.com. However I did better with dnsstuff.com. Thanks. --Bduke 09:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the contact. In the future, sign the action section, please. Superm401 - Talk 13:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the DomainsByProxy emails are really unreliable. The deal with that is, DomainsByProxy registers the domain for you, then forwards email sent to the address (DOMAIN@domainsbyproxy.com)...or not. It looks like the (hidden) destination address is blocking mail domainsbyproxy forwards to them, which is kind of ridiculous. I've been trying to complain to domainsbyproxy for a while, but they're not quick about much. Just mark that you got an error in the action section. Someone will try to send a message to their ISP later. Superm401 - Talk 05:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, reading the error again it looks like domainsbyproxy is blocking your ISP. You may want to complain to your ISP about this, but still just mark the error in the actions section. Superm401 - Talk 05:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It is good to have someone, presumably from the US and not from down under like me, who knows about domainsbyproxy. Thanks. I have sent them a snail mail letter and will record it in the actions section. --Bduke 06:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm in the Atlanta, Georgia right now for college, but from Pennsylvania (adds to user page :) ). I have a bit of experience with Domainsbyproxy, and it's not good. I don't recall anyone ever replying to email sent to a domainsbyproxy address. I'm a bit surprised you sent a snail mail letter. Did you use the mailing address in the whois address. If you go to http://domainsbyproxy.com/LegalAgreement.aspx?prog_id= you'll see that address there. They say they'll act against people who violate the law; however, you have to send a certified letter to that address.
The bad news is that I sent such a letter, and it was undeliverable. Now, that could mean I used the wrong address. I haven't got the letter back, so there's no way to know for sure. However, I think I checked it, so I find this a little unlikely. Anyway, there are lots of mirrors to deal with, so I hope you help out. If so, try not to get bogged down. Superm401 - Talk 11:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that was the address I got from the whois. We will just have to see how it goes. I'm going to leave it for now. This copyright business is really a mess. They will just get away with it. Give my love to Georgia. I went there to UGA, Athens almost exactly 17 years ago for a 5 month sabbatical until June. Wish I could get back there. --Bduke 12:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your mediation offer

I'm now willing to accept you - but I don't think that any mediation would work while somebody's sockpuppet User:English Subtitle continues moving articles; at least one of them againts a former discussion on renaming it Talk:Boy Scouts and Girl Guides of Austria. --jergen 14:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way to add myself to the mediation? There are four of us who routinely edit and write the world Scouting articles for content, not procedure-Jergen, BDuke, Wim Van Dorst and me. Chris 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, Jergen. I am rather tied up today but should be able to get around to starting things off tomorrow. Remember I am on the other side of the world. It is 10.45 a.m. here. I will however add a brief comment on the translations page. --Bduke 23:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on SteveWolfer

Message posted on multiple user pages: as you've been a figure to some degree in the multi-article, Rand-related dispute involving SteveWolfer, I thought it would be appropriate to let you know that I've initiated an RFC on him. You are invited to join in the proceedings if you are so inclined. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations

Hi bduke, I answered to your request on the above page. I agree to mediation continueing, but with 2 side notes (discussion has to be on-wiki and the new user must promise not to move in the mean time). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] email

I sent you a email at the end of last week through the link in your user page. did the attachment come through? reply thru my email if you prefer14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Translations

I don't know if I am to be included in this, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Translations#Project_mediator_offer. I am not a member of the Scouting WikiProject. I guess I'd like to be listed as an observer on Evrik's side. English Subtitle 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as you will agree not to move pages while the mediation is going on and to follow the consensus that is finally reached, you are welcome to join in, but please hold back until Evrik as responded as I suggested on the mediation page. I will not be able to respond for a few hours now. --Bduke 22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I will agree not to change any more pages until this is resolved. --English Subtitle 22:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, once Evrik responds, I will add a few comments or questions myself (not sure what yet) and call for wider debate. Not being a participant in the Scouting WikiProject is not a problem, but if a consensus is reached, I am sure the project will accept it and be less than happy by anyone who is not a participant breaching the agreed view. --Bduke 06:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not happy about User:English Subtitle last contributions; just some minutes before answering your question he moved Beslidhja Skaut Albania to Besa Scouts Albania and vandalized again the redirects. He must have seen your question since he was logged in. This is clearly a disruption of the mediation attempt. --jergen 07:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It was 2 minutes before. It is possible that he had not seen my request. I have asked him to explain. I understand you frustration, but please leave it with me. --Bduke 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry if my response is tardy. It is on my list of things to do. --evrik (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wood Badge

The training system changed considerably just a few years ago - the preliminary training is done in a couple of modules which last about a day, and you are expected to complete those within the first five months of holding a warrant - the other twenty modules to get Wood Badge are what it is talking about as "appropriate training" in POR. ADC (Training) was replaced with Local Training Managers and Administrators with the rest of the changes. Horus Kol 14:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all roles are awarded with a Wood Badge after completion of training - I guess that's why POR leaves it as "appropriate training"... The week camp is not a part of training at all now. As for the three year limit - this is a slightly thorny issue - the new system has only been around for four years, and it has taken sometime for all of the practicalities to be worked out at the local level... I don't think the three year rule has been instituted in the Districts I am involved in - but warrants are reviewed every five years, and I am aware of some renewals being blocked by the Districts because of lack of participation in training - the reviews have so far not been strict on having completed the "appropriate training" proscribed by POR, because the decision ultimately rests with the District in which the warrant is held. Horus Kol 01:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CP Letters

I shall add some comments about relative position. Perhaps we should start challenging the reliability of the sources used for some other subjects. Rather than foolishly pick a incontestably notable one, I will look for a truly dubious example. DGG 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)00:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I will add the stuff for J Phys . dont hesitate to ask me put in what is needed here or elsewhere--it is as easy for me to do it as to send it to you for you to do it. I've no objection to small batches of work. DGG 01:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Wine Discussion (by Agne) : Input Requested

Dear Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wine member:

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Vintage_Infos_.28part_II.29 that has become

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide

Please add your comments/input to the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide.

Thanks! Regards -- Steve.Moulding 20:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/d/u/User_talk%7EBduke_archive5_8e5f.html"