Talk:Atom (science): Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger m (Talk:Atoms moved to Talk:Atom: Singular form) |
imported>John Stephenson (→Wikipedia Review: Turned out to be right, in one sense... :) - but actually, I hope you guys do something good with the time you have) |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The atom page was previously deleted (several months ago), but I believe that a page on atoms is both needed and necessary for the success of any compendium of human knowledge. I intend to continue working on it and develop this page into a worth while entry. | {{subpages}} | ||
NOTE: The <code><nowiki>{{editintro}}</nowiki></code> template atop the article page should be removed prior approval. | |||
<!-- DO NOT ARCHIVE ABOVE THIS LINE --> | |||
The atom page was previously deleted (several months ago), but I believe that a page on atoms is both needed and necessary for the success of any compendium of human knowledge. I intend to continue working on it and develop this page into a worth while entry.{{unsigned|Ethan Karpel}} | |||
:It was probably deleted because it might have been a direct import from WP's version. It was decided at some point during the Big Cleanup to remove such directly-sourced articles with little or no revisions, which is why it was removed (most likely explanation). In any case, welcome to CZ and totally have at it! --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 22:16, 30 October 2007 (CDT) | |||
== QM == | |||
Ethan, Don't forget to link somewhere to [[hydrogen-like atom]], where the SE is solved. Cheers, --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 10:32, 1 November 2007 (CDT) | |||
== Posited == | |||
Paul, would you consider to replace the text "The idea of an atom dates back to the ancient Greeks who posited" with "The idea of an atom dates back to the ancient Greeks who postulated" or "The idea of an atom dates back to the ancient Greeks who proposed"? | |||
After looking up the meaning of posited, and thinking for a while, I can't recall any time I saw that word used recently. I think the alternatives I proposed might have a better recognition rate, so improving comprehension. Or maybe I just need to increase my vocabulary :-) [[User:Ewan Nisbet|Ewan Nisbet]] 03:05, 1 January 2008 (CST) | |||
:OK go ahead, change whatever you want in my English. BTW I did '''not''' import anything from Wikipedia, I take offense of this sort of infamous suggestions :-) --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 05:12, 1 January 2008 (CST) PS As far as I remember, I wrote only the small part under the heading "nineteenth century". --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 05:15, 1 January 2008 (CST) | |||
::Noted. Somehow I had become confused by some of the text on your userpage. In any case, i'll check my tounge even more carefully in future :-) [[User:Ewan Nisbet|Ewan Nisbet]] 03:58, 2 January 2008 (CST) | |||
== Back == | |||
I'm back and ill try to put some energy into finishing up this page. I must apologize for my long absence but college takes priority. [[User:Ethan Karpel|Ethan Karpel]] 00:26, 4 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
==Wikipedia Review== | |||
Someone on Wikipedia Review kindly took time out to [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25658 find fault with this article]. I have no idea how much is true, but I leave the link here in case anyone well-informed wants to read it. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 08:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I quickly fixed this article. I tried to respond on Wikipedia Review (of which I had never heard). I registered (under my own name of course) and tried to post, but for some reason I was not allowed. I don't quite understand why people hate CZ so much, but it is a good thing, it means that we are becoming noticeable. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 09:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::PS Later I received an e-mail, I am now a registered member of Wikipedia Review. My first post was thanking Milton Roe for spotting the error. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
More than a year on, it's now Paul who has kindly [http://knowino.org/wiki/Talk:Atom_%28science%29 taken time out to find fault with this article]. ;) [http://knowino.org/w/index.php?title=Atom_%28science%29&action=historysubmit&diff=2430&oldid=1262 Revisions on a new wiki]. Warning: if you are reading this some while after I originally posted it, that wiki may no longer be around. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 16:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC); links updated: [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 06:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:57, 18 December 2010
NOTE: The {{editintro}} template atop the article page should be removed prior approval.
The atom page was previously deleted (several months ago), but I believe that a page on atoms is both needed and necessary for the success of any compendium of human knowledge. I intend to continue working on it and develop this page into a worth while entry....said Ethan Karpel (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)
- It was probably deleted because it might have been a direct import from WP's version. It was decided at some point during the Big Cleanup to remove such directly-sourced articles with little or no revisions, which is why it was removed (most likely explanation). In any case, welcome to CZ and totally have at it! --Robert W King 22:16, 30 October 2007 (CDT)
QM
Ethan, Don't forget to link somewhere to hydrogen-like atom, where the SE is solved. Cheers, --Paul Wormer 10:32, 1 November 2007 (CDT)
Posited
Paul, would you consider to replace the text "The idea of an atom dates back to the ancient Greeks who posited" with "The idea of an atom dates back to the ancient Greeks who postulated" or "The idea of an atom dates back to the ancient Greeks who proposed"? After looking up the meaning of posited, and thinking for a while, I can't recall any time I saw that word used recently. I think the alternatives I proposed might have a better recognition rate, so improving comprehension. Or maybe I just need to increase my vocabulary :-) Ewan Nisbet 03:05, 1 January 2008 (CST)
- OK go ahead, change whatever you want in my English. BTW I did not import anything from Wikipedia, I take offense of this sort of infamous suggestions :-) --Paul Wormer 05:12, 1 January 2008 (CST) PS As far as I remember, I wrote only the small part under the heading "nineteenth century". --Paul Wormer 05:15, 1 January 2008 (CST)
- Noted. Somehow I had become confused by some of the text on your userpage. In any case, i'll check my tounge even more carefully in future :-) Ewan Nisbet 03:58, 2 January 2008 (CST)
Back
I'm back and ill try to put some energy into finishing up this page. I must apologize for my long absence but college takes priority. Ethan Karpel 00:26, 4 May 2008 (CDT)
Wikipedia Review
Someone on Wikipedia Review kindly took time out to find fault with this article. I have no idea how much is true, but I leave the link here in case anyone well-informed wants to read it. John Stephenson 08:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- I quickly fixed this article. I tried to respond on Wikipedia Review (of which I had never heard). I registered (under my own name of course) and tried to post, but for some reason I was not allowed. I don't quite understand why people hate CZ so much, but it is a good thing, it means that we are becoming noticeable. --Paul Wormer 09:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- PS Later I received an e-mail, I am now a registered member of Wikipedia Review. My first post was thanking Milton Roe for spotting the error. --Paul Wormer 16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
More than a year on, it's now Paul who has kindly taken time out to find fault with this article. ;) Revisions on a new wiki. Warning: if you are reading this some while after I originally posted it, that wiki may no longer be around. John Stephenson 16:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC); links updated: John Stephenson 06:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)