User talk:Bduke

This page was last edited by 76.118.130.14 (talk | contribs) 11 years ago. (Update timer)

---

Home	Talk	Articles	Barnstars	eMail	Contributions	Workshop	Images

---

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave a new message at the end. You will be asked for a subject also. Alternatively, you can add your message at the end of the appropriate section listed in the index below. House Rules I will respond to a post you make here on this page. If I post on your talk page please respond there to make coherent discussions in one spot. Reply to comments using a colon(:) before the post.

Archives Welcome messages are archived at Welcome List of publications in chemistry deletions are archived at User talk:Bduke/chemistry pub deletions November 1st, 2005 - May 31st, 2006 Archive 1 June 1st, 2006 - December 31st, 2006 Archive 2 January 1st, 2007 - May 31, 2007 Archive 3 June 1st, 2007 - December 31st, 2007 Archive 4 January 1st, 2008 - June 31th, 2008 Archive 5 July 1st, 2008 - December 2, 2008 Archive 6 December 3, 2008 - June 30, 2009 Archive 7 July 1 2009 - January 2010 Archive 8 January 2010 - July 2010 Archive 9 July 2010 - February 2011 Archive 10 February 2011 - November 2011 Archive 11 December 2011 - Archive 12

Reverting articles about mathematics

I ran into the Table of spherical harmonics containing a typo at the spherical harmonics of l=2 (namely, the normalization factor of Y_z²). I found among other edits your latest revert, which undid a correction made by an anonymous user, thus reverting to an erroneous state. Please stop automatically undoing edits to articles about mathematics without checking the credibility of the edit. I know that anonymous edits can not be trusted in general, but irresponsible reverts are just as dangerous as uncredible edits. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loudandras (talk • contribs)

I will continue, as a responsible wikipedia editor and administrator, to revert edits that are not supported by reliable sources, particularly when the material has stood for a long time. Changes of "2" to "4" by IP editors with no reason given are exactly what vandals do. There was no reason to know that the IP editor was not a vandal. The credibility of the edit is the responsibility of the editor making the change explaining it by an edit summery. Your later edit was fine because it came with an edit summary. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

• News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward

• WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics

• Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review

• Arbitration report: Doncram case continues

• Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Element Stability charts

Considering your interest in chemistry, I invite you to look at the Talk:Isotopes of lead article where I tried to point out the cognizant advantages of viewing the reported stability data of the wikipedia stability charts in a graphic format, which points out the most important aspects of the data as well as any trend data inconsistencies. This was deleted as being part of a "fringe theory" concerning some Real Physical Model Images that I had created of the atomic nuclei in an article I had also created. Since I really think that these "Element stability profile" charts are helpful in understanding the nuclear stability characteristic of the isotopes of an element as a whole, I wonder if you know a way for this information can be permitted to be added to the element isotopic data information.WFPM (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I am not going to get into this mess. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry too that you can't see the merits of an Element stability profile chart. So thanks for your attention.WFPM (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul Dirac

I suggest semi-protection. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC).

Good idea. Done. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

• In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention

• Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics

• WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess

• Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests

• News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate

• Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012

• Arbitration report: Doncram continues

• Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Bendigo workshop 2013

Can you help? Wikimedia Australia will be holding an introductory training day for editing Wikipedia and related projects. With support from La Trobe University and Bendigo Community Health Services, it is for health information professionals across the region. It will also be open to other information community groups as well (regional historic societies, librarians and the like). The workshop is on Thursday, February 21, at Latrobe University Bendigo. If you can help, please contact Leighblackall or Peterdownunder, or register directly at the Wikimedia page.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexuality Section

I wanted it where it was so I moved it back here.

I suggest that you take your concerns about the sexuality section on the article on B-P to the talk page of that article. If you just keep adding it, you will be blocked from editing and it will be reverted. However, you are not going to get consensus because your addition is not supported by sources. You are just making it up yourself. Getting that section as it now is was hard work with a lot of people contributing. It will not be easy to get consensus to change it. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

	+	
	+	

It is customary to reply on your talk page, as I have it on my watch list, so I have moved it back here.

	+	
	+	

I really didn't appriciate the commentary that follows:

	+	
	+	

"I suggest that you take your concerns about the sexuality section on the article on B-P to the talk page of that article. If you just keep adding it, you will be blocked from editing and it will be reverted. However, you are not going to get consensus because your addition is not supported by sources. You are just making it up yourself. Getting that section as it now is was hard work with a lot of people contributing. It will not be easy to get consensus to change it. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)"

	+	
	+	

You ALLOWED to edit the Wikipedia. Telling me I will be blocked simply for editing because you don't care for the content is not appropriate. Admins are not supposed to make threats of this nature. If I break the rules, then block me, until then, stop the threats. 76.118.130.14 (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

	+	
	+	

I was not making a threat and I was not speaking as an admin. I was simply telling you how the place works. I think you added that sentence more than once and it was removed. This will continue, because the conclusion is not supported by a source. It is not that I do not like it. It is that it is against policy. Any editor who continues to edit war faces the fact that they will be blocked. It has been clear for several years that changes to that section only happen after extensive discussion on the articles talk page. I actually hope that you learn to work in a cooperative way and help us expend articles on Scouting topics.--Bduke (Discussion) 05:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You WERE making a threat...that's what threatening to block IS. It is not against policy. I'm not edit warring. I adding something, you removed it without comment, that's actually vandalism, which is against wiki rules. I am working co-operatitivly. 76.118.130.14 (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)