User talk:Physics16

Need to talk to me please date it and include it below this line. Thnanks!!!

Welcome![edit]

Hello Physics16, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Ocaasi (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Wikileaks appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Ocaasi (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ocaasi, I explain the reason I edit the "Wikileaks" page on the Discussion thread of Wikileaks. The fact that Wikileaks is a Topic of Ethical Discussion is a neutral fact, not an opinion. Still I understand, how the way I phrased it may come across as a bias, so if you would like to rephrase that one sentence then feel free to do so.h

I responded to you on the article's talk page. I moved your post to the bottom, where all new threads go, and fixed your indenting (:), since (:) is only used for replies. The first problem with your post was spelling it Weakleaks, which may have been unintentional but indicated bias. Secondly, the ethical questions you raised need to be supported by reliable sources. If you can find discussions about ethics in a newspaper article, essay, or book, then we can consider them. Just having a discussion about it in your class, however, won't be sufficient. Let me know if you have any questions, Ocaasi (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undid a Revision by ClueBot III[edit]

In the graphene article, I undid a revision by Cluebot III, because honestly, people need more time to discuss things. I believe the Revision ID is:602521213. Heck, I didn't even catch Lfstevens, because of Cluebot III until a week later. I feel like to be honest, we need Cluebot III to hold off on archiving anything in Graphene Talk for a year or more (ie April 2015) till we can get the article cleaned up. Else our attempts to improve the Graphene article will suffer a severe personal bias and lack of review. Already there are two changes that Lfsteven made that new two be altered: 1) The orphaning of a picture from its explanation 2) The lost of $1,000,000/cm sentence when he edited the Production section. This latter sentence is important because it actually tells a story of why graphene and carbon nanotubes have not moved beyond the research to manufacture. Its because the first exfoliation techniques (adhesive tap + chemical bath + carbon arch) were two expensive for manufacture. Since then, all research and other production methods have had 1 common goal--make it cheap and make it able to bond/conduct with other electronic mediums like copper wire/silicon. I also need to clarify with Lfstevens about why he put graphene oxide in the exfoliation step. I would just like clarification from him because the chemical process of graphene oxide --> graphene involves a very powerful laser that dioxides the graphene. Physics16 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]