Wikipedia talk:Be bold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Userbox[edit]

Here is a userbox for bold editors.

"BeBold" This User is Bold.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 20thtryer (talkcontribs) 21:52, 29 March 2012

Can we stop the ongoing vandalism on this page?[edit]

I noticed that a significant amount of vandalism has occurred on this page in the last few months. Would it be possible to protect this page against vandalism? Jarble (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's newbies taking its advice to "be bold" literally. It's not as if there's so much that we can't stay on top of it. There are almost 400 watchers, myself included, and one of us normally reverts within a few minutes. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cockatoo, Breeding, nesting[edit]

Being new to this, may I put my contribution in the form of a question? On New Year's Day 2 friends, my wife and I travelled the Murray River upstream from Swan Reach, SA. We observed a large flock of white cockatoos sitting in crevices on the left-hand side of sandstone cliffs along the way, about 8 - 9 meters above the water level. Could they be nesting there instead of hollow logs in trees? BirdBozo (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't the place for your question. You could try the reference desk. But if you are thinking of contributing to a Wikipedia article, please remember that anything you add needs to be supported by references to published work; you couldn't add your own observations, unless they had first been published in a "reliable source". Here is a guide that will tell you much more. Thank you: Noyster (talk), 13:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible Error in Text?[edit]

On Page 5 it reads "...3d region, usually the surface is oriented such that the influx is counted as positive; the opposite is the outflux."

Is this accurate? Should outflux be positive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.79.144 (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

We cannot tell which article you are concerned about. Please raise your question at that article's talk page: Noyster (talk), 08:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You are referring to some text at Flux#Flux as a surface integral (which a quick look suggests is correct), so Talk:Flux would be the place to suggest there is a problem. Or, ask a question at WP:RD/S. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)