User talk:Oysteinp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If I initiate a conversation on your talk page, I will watch it (for a limited period of time) for responses. You can respond on your talk page and I will read it and follow-up there as needed. If you initiate a conversation here, I will respond here unless you specifically request otherwise. If you do, I will more than likely copy what you posted as well so that the conversation stays coherent.
Please sign and date your comments by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
[edit] Image:Skutterudite-structure-large.jpg
Hi - please supply copyright information on this image page: Image:Skutterudite-structure-large.jpg. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for information and tags. Images without this information are subject to removal. Thanks, Vsmith 13:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
You might also be interested in discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics linas 00:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging
If you use {{GFDL-self}}, you are licensing the image for use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. That allows them to be used on Wikipedia; it also allows anyone else to use them under the terms of the license, including commercially. You would always be attributed and reusers must include your copyright statement. You retain full copyright on your images and can use them however you wish in any situation. Superm401 | Talk 19:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Missing article
I see that structure factor is a requested article at Requested articles/Mathematical and Natural Sciences. I was planning to have a go at it myself but you may be better qualified. Alison Chaiken 02:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the vote of confidence :). I was planning to have a look at it at some point and I' try to get it done in the next couple of days. But if you want to do it go right ahead! O. Prytz 18:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for edit summary
Hi O. Prytz. I would like to ask you a request. It is good if you use an edit summary when you contribute, especially for big edits, or when you remove big chucks of text, like you did at Space group. Edit summaries are a way of documenting the changes in the history, and makes it easier for others to understand what you did and why. I hope you don't mind. :) Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mind at all :). But as to the removal of screw axis and glide plane from the second part of the Space group article, I have commented on this on the talk page of the article. Also it was discussed on the talk page earlier. In the future I'll add an edit summary stating what I did and referring to the talk page if needed. O. Prytz 17:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 |
You voted for Carbon and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article. |
[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Skutterudie-structure-small.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Skutterudie-structure-small.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 20:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rollback of uncertainty principle vandalism
Your concern is noted, and believe me I do not take the heavy-handed use of admin powers lightly. However, that was an abusively-used sock puppet of a user who is now banned, and he was exhorting people to vandalize Wikipedia. Under the circumstances, I think a revert was very reasonable. You should also be aware that although it is beneficial in general to treat talk pages as free speech zones, they are not—they exist to serve the Wikipedia project, a purpose that was being totally subverted by the user in question. -- SCZenz 18:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand even though I might not agree. -O. Prytz 19:06, 8 June 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] Danras on Black Hole page
Thanks for reverting Danras's black-holes-don't-exist diatribe yet again. His methodology is pretty clear now;
- Danras edits the article and inserts a contentious/fringe opinion.
- A_User reverts to the canonical, calling Danras's edit OR and requesting a reference.
- Danras reverts to his version, calling the original OR and requesting a reference!
I wouldn't be surprised that if you were to revert it more than twice, Danras would hit you with the three-revert rule...
I don't know what to do about the guy - he obviously has got it into his head that black holes can't exist (which is fine - he can believe what he likes) but has decided that Wikipedia is the place to inform the world. He won't debate the key point, that you can't put in OR, but instead points out what he doesn't like about the consensus picture and demands that all loopholes in current theory be explained to his satisfaction before he will allow them in. I've stopped arguing physics with him and now try to keep it entirely to procedure, where you don't need to know any physics to see he's wrong.--Oscar Bravo 12:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is a good idea, and most editors would see that it's reasonable to ask for a reference on something like this. I'll make sure not to violate 3RR. :) O. Prytz 12:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Electron diffraction
You asked for comments about Electron Diffration at my talk page. I think it is a great article, but it can only get a B-rating as long as it is not a GA. The biggest problem with the article, IMO, is the lack of references. You need to cite your references more explicitly, ie. after an interesting point etc. write the pagenumber and name of your reference. Eg. the article mentiones the wavelength of diffrent SEM's and TEM, but it does not cite its sources.
Is it possible to write this in traditional exponential form: relative errors less than 10^-3, I mean where the number 3 is raised?
But besides these points, I think it is a great article, so just keep up the good work! Snailwalker | talk 16:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
