User talk:Chaiken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Chaiken, 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! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] User categories

Hi, Alison,

I've recently stumbled upon your most valuable contributions and I suppose you could include several categories like [[Category:Physicist Wikipedians]] on your User page. It would make you more visible to those interested in Wiki-Physics counication.

Thanks for your attention. ACrush ?!/©

Alison Chaiken 00:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC): Thanks for your suggestions, ACrush. I have been oblivious of User Categories. I'll follow your advice!

[edit] Your user page

Please look at the first two sentences of your user page in source code. --ACrush ?!/© 17:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Alison Chaiken 17:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC): actually bioassay is what I intended, although bioarray wouldn't be far from the truth.

[edit] you're anonymously famous

Just to let you know, an article you started is referenced in Nature magazine here, and you are referred to as "a physicist". Cheers, BanyanTree 20:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that. Reporter Jim Giles actually interviewed me for the Nature article on science articles in Wikipedia but the only place our conversation showed up was the indirect mention in the editorial. Too bad they didn't link to the article! Alison Chaiken 06:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gimbal mounts

Thanks for the photos. These are actually kinematic mounts, not gimbal mounts. Gimbal mounts have a very different mechanism, which makes the mount rotate about the center of the mirror, rather than about the center of the ball bearing in the corner. We needed pictures of these, anyway. Would it be possible to change the text that says "gimbal" in Gimbalmount1 to "ball bearing"? --Srleffler 06:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Done: I uploaded new files called mirrormount1.jpg and mirrormount2.jpg and I also added them to Commons:Category:Optics. I must confess that if I haven't purchased a particular kind of part myself, I very often don't know what it's called. This is what you mean? Alison Chaiken 18:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, the thorlabs photo looks like a gimbal mount, although of course we can't use it for copyright reasons. I have seen gimbal mounts where the way the mechanism works was clearer than these. --Srleffler 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that you can't use images from a catalog, but they are helpful in allowing me to photograph the right part the next time. Unfortunately most of the gimballed mounts we have are adjusted via set screws on the edges. These will be more difficult to see in a photo than the knurled handles in the Thor Labs photo. Alison Chaiken 20:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EXAFS

You seem like the kind of person who could comment on the above article that has been on dead-end pages since last september. Is this article simply a duplication of others or not? If it is, could you redirect it to the appropriate page. If it is not, would you be willing to kick it into shape? MNewnham 22:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd describe the article as factually correct but confusing. People who aren't already familiar with EXAFS aren't going to glean much from it. NEXAFS which I have already written about is in some sense a subset of EXAFS although the experiments are done by different scientists at different beamlines and probe different phenomena (mostly electronic for NEXAFS and mostly structural for EXAFS). I could certainly take a crack at revising EXAFS although I'm sure you'll sympathize when I say that I have a long list of articles I'd like to revise. NEXAFS was easy to revise as I've actually done that experiment; to write decently about EXAFS, I'd have to read up on it extensively. Thanks for calling it to my attention though. Alison Chaiken 02:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that response. If you don't have the time to look at it, I'd suggest just adding a couple of appropiate categories or stubs, a wikilink or two and an {{expert}} tag. This makes it float up from dead-ends into an area where others of the appropriate expertise can see it, and maybe someone else will take a stab at it. MNewnham 03:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and rewrote the article a bit and added wikilinks. That's about all I can do without reading up on the topic and right now I'm trying to finish coercivity! Alison Chaiken 04:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references

hello, im fairly new to wikipedia and not always sure how to use references or wikilinks. it seems like refs are important, and most articles i see here seem to have too few. i certainly am not interested in spending time defending them. i dont quite see your objective. do you wish to see fewer links in references, or fewer references? i think most of the references ive drawn are reasonable, with the exception of spin wave article where i defer to your judgement as the author. please respond on this page and i request you from refraining to make repetitive comments on my user page. thank you, sincerely Anlace 06:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that many articles have too few references. However, using an alias to insert references to your own work constitutes bad faith. A number of the references you put in were clearly inappropriate, notably the paragraph you inserted into spin wave whose only purpose was to cite your own paper. I don't see how citing an unavailable State of California environmental report serves readers well when equally authoritative on-line sources are likely available. It's true that I have cited an out-of-print book in many of my articles, but the books are widely available in libraries and are likely to be reprinted. Unless you can provide a hyperlink to your articles, I think that every one of the references to them should be removed. Even then the referencs deserve scrutiny. As for making repetitive comments on your user page, you provoked me by reverting my edits repeatedly and then ignoring my polite initial comments! Alison Chaiken 15:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging

Greetings. From the description and use of Image:Spontaneousmagnetization.png, it appears you intended this media to be freely available. I took the liberty of applying a {{GFDL-presumed}} tag. Could you confirm this at by replacing my edit with {{GFDL-self}}? Regards, Dethomas 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. I suppose I should make this change with all my images . . . Thanks for the heads-up. Alison Chaiken 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rug making

The link already existed under 'Hooking', so it was a dup. Now I look, Kilim is also duplicated, so I've removed that as well. Noisy | Talk 09:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good -- now I see what you mean. Someday an energetic person will need to lead a cleanup of this whole category, but I'm more busy with physics articles. Alison Chaiken 14:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikola Tesla

Great inventor/engineer or great physicist/scientist? I am seeking comments from Ph.D. physicists in Talk:Nikola Tesla. TIA---CH 03:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mission Peak Regional Preserve

Good idea, I've added to {{AfD footer}} a mention that deletion might not be required in a certain cases, such as duplicate articles. JYolkowski // talk 23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/User_talk%7EChaiken_3647.html"