User talk:Bdushaw

Welcome!

Hello Bdushaw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- KHM03 01:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archives[edit]

Your GA nomination of Nucleon magnetic moment[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nucleon magnetic moment you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nucleon magnetic moment[edit]

The article Nucleon magnetic moment you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nucleon magnetic moment and Talk:Nucleon magnetic moment/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nucleon magnetic moment[edit]

The article Nucleon magnetic moment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nucleon magnetic moment for comments about the article, and Talk:Nucleon magnetic moment/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nucleon magnetic moment[edit]

On 8 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nucleon magnetic moment, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the neutron has a magnetic moment even though it lacks an electric charge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nucleon magnetic moment. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nucleon magnetic moment), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Elizabeth Holmes, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I meant to post that comment in the two places that it was relevant. Your edit summary of clean up/fix is an insufficient explanation of why you would remove another editor's comment on a discussion, even if duplicated elsewhere. Peaceray (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peaceray - I am sorry if what I did was out of place. I have no objection to your comments or the reversion you made. My only thought was that you were trying to add a "vote and a comment" to the RFC, and that the RFC is now broken into two sections - the upper part for "vote and a comment"'s and the lower part for general comments. Indeed, it seemed the paragraph you wrote was in a place where it seemed to be responding to the comments just above (pertaining to definition of "fraudster"), whereas it seemed to me you wanted to add your "vote and comment" to the RFC. The list for those is just above the second section labeled "Discussions"; note the bullets. Please do what you think is best to represent your views...but I will just add you have not formally added your "vote and a comment" to the RFC (IMO). Cheers, Bdushaw (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Discovery of the neutron is a good article. Thanks for bring it to GA status. I really enjoyed reading it. TheLonelyPather (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've always wanted a barnstar! :) It was a fascinating (to me) article to write. Bdushaw (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations \| August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudster[edit]

Hi, this term has come up again, this time at Talk:Sam Bankman-Fried. Same exact issue, first sentence of the lead section. It's gone on for too long, I don't see any option but another RfC. I was wondering if we might just copy-paste the wording you used for the Holmes RfC. It would be plagiarism, so I wanted to ask your permission. Unless you had another suggestion? -- GreenC 01:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GreenC, Sure you can use the same wording - I tried pretty hard to frame it as neutral as possible. "Other suggestions?" I had thought for the SBF article, the EH RfC would be directly applicable, no RfC required. Indeed, I myself eventually removed the "fraudster" word from the SBF article soon after the RfC closed. It seems odd to repeat the same RfC; anyone having a look at it would conclude that another RfC would be pointless. I tried to get some general language developed for the "Biographies of living persons" guidance, but after 6 weeks of trying (and general agreement that it was an important general problem) I was mostly just abused for my efforts. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_53 I agree with you that there is a quite similar pattern to such discussions - both our RfC, the discussion on the Biographies page, and now the SBF article. Not to open old wounds, but I almost replied to one of your later comments that the label was "going to far". We overly discussed the issue, but I thought the label, in that case, was mostly just misleading or not accurate. The issue of labels for biographies is a challenging one - I see the article for Adolf Hitler starts out by labeling him a politician, rather than a mass murderer. After one starts to notice such labels, some of them start to seem quite odd indeed (and don't get me started on the "Lists"). Best regards, Bdushaw (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I beg pardon...I was confusing SBF with "Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani". The EH RfC certainly applies to RSB. I would have to think more about SBF and the word "fraudster". Could it not be argued that he did indeed deliberately set out to defraud people, a la Madoff? SBF and fraudster seem less clear. Bdushaw (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word fraud appears 6 times in the lead section. The question is the wording of the first sentence, since he committed multiple crimes including money laundering and conspiracy. The first sentence needs to be high-level so we simply say "felon" or "criminal" which captures all the crimes, then go into more details further down the lead section in chronological order. -- GreenC 15:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was convicted of Conspiracy to commit FRAUD + Money laundering. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"War on Fox"[edit]

Hi, I recently became involved in another phrasing dispute about the phrase "War on Fox", concerning Media Matters for America. This organization had a media watchdog campaign during 2011-2013, with the aim of encouraging advertisers away from Fox News, for example, by issuing fact-checking reports that undermine Fox's credibility of being 'fair and balanced'. It's reached the point of an RfC, as you can see on the talk page, which has the diffs and background. The question, are there any essays, guidelines or policies that might be relevant to this problem of emotive and out of context quotes, not in a BLP context? -- GreenC 20:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepers! I can't offer any help, knowing not much about such things. I am just a guy who likes things to be written well... Your question might be better addressed to Wikipedia's Village Pump? Best of luck! Bdushaw (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It came down to an RfC, and that has closed now at Talk:Media_Matters_for_America#RfC:_Drop_Fox_campaign. The closer noted:

This comes comes down to whether NPOV requires that we use the language that sources use, and it does not; it requires us to include the information that sources include, but we are free - and typically encouraged - to use our own language, particularly if the words used by the sources are charged.

-- GreenC 20:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations \| March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add references when making changes[edit]

Hi. You recently made a number of changes to Neutron that are probably correct but are not backed by references. These kinds of changes make the article more difficult to verify. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am away on travel just now and away from my sources, alas. As I mentioned on the talk page, I will embark on a concerted effort to support as much material as I can by citations, but that will be a lengthy process! (Also as I've mentioned before the kind of basic-level statements are difficult to source properly...but citations needed!) Bdushaw (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]