This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I ran into the Table of spherical harmonics containing a typo at the spherical harmonics of l=2 (namely, the normalization factor of Yz2). 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 suggest semi-protection. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC).
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)
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)
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)
I suggest you actually look at the history. I have never reverted you. My last edit to that article was on November 10, 2012. While this was going on, you have added it twice and been reverted twice by different editors. In total you have added it 4 times and been reverted by 4 different editors and warned by one other editor as well as by myself. You have described those editors as vandals. The rules are clear. All material without sources can be challenged. You have not given a source for your conclusion and it has been challenged, so if you really do want to work cooperatively, you now discuss it on the talk page. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you help me with redirecting Kition (ancient state) to Kition? There is only one notable Kiteon. (The first title was previously an incorrect redirect to the city of Larnaka.) --The long road homw (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Other contributors of note include:
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Bduke: I'm curious about why the use of the Scouts Australia logo on Glossary_of_Australian_Scouting_terms cannot claim a fair use rationalisation; isn't it simply using a corporate logo for identification purposes, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCI ? Is this because the logo incorporates a trademark symbol? Or for some other reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldshield (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I've read from the orbital hybridisation talk page, after I overhauled it, that you intended to re-write the orbital hybridisation section on hypervalent molecules, so I thought you could give some input. I didn't personally read the 1994 paper by Cooper (although Dirac66 did and gave a short explanation on them in the article) but from another paper published on Elsevier's Computational and Theoretical Chemistry Cooper used a general notation describing hybrids on such compounds as A(spx-like)+X(p) where A is the central atom and X is the ligand atom. I've tried to interpret that (could be very very erroneous, I'm not sure. Original Research probably) to get a systematic notation where the "missing" hybrid orbitals are "topped up" by the ligand orbitals and hence resulting in nonbonding character, which seems like what Cooper has been trying to say when the central atom's hybrids are delocalized over the ligand atoms to form more linearly independent hybrids than can be afforded by the central atom's orbitals alone. However, I think we need more knowledge on the matter as we are still somewhat confused now on what Cooper was trying to refer to and hence cannot come up with a sure systematic notation to describe hybrids on such molecules as Cooper didn't come up with a systematic notation. Could you help? Thank you very much.--Officer781 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Women's College, University of Sydney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Women's College, University of Sydney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A Dad Oyster Utters (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wesley College, University of Sydney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley College, University of Sydney until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A Dad Oyster Utters (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Because wikipedia doesn't have this information about spin-coupled theory, and out of curiosity, I thought maybe I'd like to ask this. If spin-coupled theory is based on a single orbital configuration, how does it model the three-electron bond (oxygen, nitric oxide, etc) and aromatic rings such as furan (Eg. for Benzene it consists of six singly-occupied orbitals, so that one is fine)?--Officer781 (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Three-center four-electron bond , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Officer781 (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for removing the tags. I thought you remove them when you're done spell checking through different types of English. Gaz and Gaming Fan (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I presume you're tired and taking a break now but I have this burning question to ask. No rush. Nitrogen dioxide has a "radical bond" separate from the delocalized 3c-4e out of plane pi bond and the sigma bond system. Traditionally this "radical bond" is described as resonance between a lone pair and a three-electron bond (which is itself composed of two resonance structures). However, on close inspection, two of the resonance structures are the same (the one putting the single electron on the nitrogen atom), hence resulting in three resonance structures where a three-electron bond cannot (strictly speaking) be discerned. The "Pauling resonance" picture, which always puts the three-electron bond opposite the double bond, may not be the only resonance structures as theoretically the three-electron bond can be placed together with the double bond (ie the "radical bond" can be treated separately from the pi bonding system). So should the nitrogen dioxide "3c-5e" bond be considered as a case on its own rather than the "three-electron bond resonance" picture? Sorry if this question might sound philosophical in nature.--Officer781 (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In light of my recent edits to update the orbital hybridisation article to currency, do you by any chance know of the strictly localized hybrid orbital description for hypervalent molecules, such as the Breathing Orbital Valence Bond (BOVB) description? Want to see if the strictly localized description offers a more simplified (but also consistent, for example in allowing the s orbital to bond with all five bonds in PF5) explanation.--Officer781 (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Localized molecular orbitals. I've added a comment there. --Officer781 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if you've taught group theory for chemists -- specifically what it is that makes finding irreducible so important.
A new article has recently been created (or is in process of being created), Symmetry in quantum mechanics. The lead author is open that there is a long way that it needs to go yet. The key missing link (I think) is presentation of what's sometimes called Wigner's theorem, linking the degeneracy and transformations of eigenstates of linear operators to the irreducible representations of their symmetry groups.
I made a few comments on the author's talk page User_talk:Maschen#Symmetry_and_QM_.2F_Irreps here, and he's also started gathering some material for an article on irreps User:Maschen/irrep; but I think a steer on how irreps are used in chemistry -- symmetrised basis sets, etc -- and their overall significance might be useful.
Not sure how closely this matches your background, but I thought it was worth a shot. All best, Jheald (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
[1] PantherLeapord (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a Fox! (What did I break) 23:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd really like to keep the discussion there, and it's not my map.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I've brought the discussion over to the Talk:List_of_World_Organization_of_the_Scout_Movement_members page. FYI--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Talk: Variable Hybridization. Need you there at the talk page for a little help. Thanks!--Officer781 (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Entropy (energy dispersal) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Bduke. I just want to tell you, as you were interested in australian aboriginal wikis, that two test wikis of pitjantjatjara language exist and there is also a test in Torres Strait Creole. Here are the links of the aboriginal wikis: Pitjantjatjara Wikipedia, Pitjantjatjara Wiktionary.--Biol. Cons. (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Bduke. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This edit [2] was reverted with no explanation. This is a valid communciation from me to Headbomb. It especially pertains to WikiProject Academic Journals. Also, I doubt very much you are allowed to revert an edit on another editor's talk page, unless it is blatant vandalism. I assume the appropriate guidance can be found at WP:TALK. I am going to assume this was a mistake and I am reverting your edit. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You're the first person to express an opinion AND explain it. Thank you! However, please take care - you risk getting a reputation for being polite, thoughtful, reasonable, and rational. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
AussieLegend (✉) 17:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Bduke. Do you know if County College ever had the nickname "the piano tuners" and an informal logo to match? I visited a long time ago and may have remembered it completely wrongly. Maybe it was Bowland, or maybe nowhere. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The prod was made with good faith, however it really should involve discussion - hopefully that might happen... satusuro 23:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to World Scout Moot may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the size consistency page needs to be removed. The model like HF, MBPT and CC are size-extensive not size consistent, size-consistency has to do with the description of the PES and is therefore system dependent. For example RHF is not size consistent in the case of the dissociation of H2, and therefore all post HF methods like MP, MBPT and CC are not size consistent in this case neither. Take a look at this page where it is clearly explained.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lablopoque (talk • contribs) 13:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer and for the tips about wikipedia. I am indeed new on wikipedia. Regarding the different usage of size consistency, I think we should clarify like Dan Crawford did on his notes. "Though these terms are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, there are very important distinctions to be made between them." We should not talk about size consistency to describe the differences between CC and truncated CI even if many people did (e.g. Modern Quantum Chemistry by A. Szabo and N. S. Ostlund).
I don't know about reference 3, but it seems that (again) they used size-consistency when they meant size-extensivity.
Do you have a link to a page where I can see the guidelines for sources on wikipedia?
Finally I agree that the title of the page has to be change and the content modified, I will try to work on it. Lablopoque (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the changes, it's much better now. I took a look at ref. 3 and it seems that they do talk about size consistency, they also used the term size-extensivity in the introduction in the right context. I am not familiar with multi-reference MP theory but there are still some parts of the article that look confusing to me. Anyway I think the reference to this article is technical and not so important and I suggest we remove it from the page. In my opinion the confusion between size consistency and size extensivity comes from the fact that they can be formulated in the same way. The only thing is that when one talk about non-interacting systems in the context of size extensivity it implies that the Hamiltonian of the full system should be separable into the Hamiltonian of the subsystems which is not the case when one looks at dissociation curves.Lablopoque (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you please help me. I tried to but the Greens' political position as Left to Far Left, however HiLo48 reverted my edit and told me to go on the talk page, which I did. I provided my argument and my evidence in support of putting the Greens' political position as Left to Far Left. The user then reverted my comments for no reason, after I had discussed it on the talk page like he asked, and is now threatening to block me. All I'm trying to do is put a more accurate summary of the Greens so users can get the best experience when using wikipedia. Please tell me what I have done wrong and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Just to make sure that my response to your message does not get lost, here is the core message again, because I would really like to hear your response:
The implication from your message could be that PP is subject some sort of persecution whereas I see the situation in reverse: we have a recalcitrant editor who has a long record of mediocre or disruptive edits.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm giving you a chance to discuss your grievance with the editing of Titanium hydride on its talk page. If you do not use this chance to solve the issue, and continue with such unconstructive reversions, I will have no choice but to take this to WP:ANI. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
…see interspersed italic comments, and final proposal at [3]. Written at the time, and just discovered as not posted. Cheers, and respect your involvement. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up. I have restored the anon editors restoration of the removal of Bt. from Baden Powell. For somewhat technical reasons surrounding the origin of Bt as an abbreviation not post nominal it is never used after peerages - since it is a qualifier of 'Sir'. As such official sources cease to use it upon the creation of a peerage. See [4] -v- [5] immediately either side of the creation or a contemporary example like The Duke of Westminster [6]Garlicplanting (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
If you have an ORCID identifier, please add it to your user page, using ((Authority control)). See WP:ORCID for help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Bduke! I've seen that you've contributed to chemical physics article. I ask to comment on the isssue of difference between physics and chemical physics on one hand and on the difference between chemical physics and physical chemistry on the other hand. I've seen somewhere a discussion on the delimitation between physics and chemical physics/chemistry and as a consequence of this delimitation (if a strict delimitation is possible) whether wikisources from chemical physics are allowed to be used for articles pertaining to pure physics.--188.26.22.131 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I open a new section here on your talk page. I've noticed on User:David R. Ingham a list of research articles written by him. I have a request from you: Could you put on your user page a similar list of articles?--188.26.22.131 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I open another section on your talk page. It concerns the application of quantum chemistry to the estimation of molecular properties of various compounds. Are you aware of any such (semi-empirical) applications directed specifically on activity coefficients determination?--188.26.22.131 (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)