User talk:Antony-22/Archive 5

Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups

Hi- the flag you chose was non-free, so not acceptable- would you like to choose another? J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the copyright status of that flag is incorrect; it's existed since 1899, and if that particular rendering is under copyright then a free equivalent could easily be made. I'm going to check with another editor, and once the copyright status is worked out I'll update you on the flag choice. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a free version. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for United States Department of Commerce

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gabriel Duvall

Thank you for your review. Please let me know if your concerns have been satisfied. Savidan 02:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Don Eigler

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for International Society for Nanoscale Science, Computation, and Engineering

The DYK project (nominate) 21:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Valerie Aurora

The DYK project (nominate) 17:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

DNA nanotechnology

Hi Antony, I have begun the copy-edit you requested for the above article. As it's a very technical subject in which I have no expertise, I'll only be dealing with general prose issues rather than technical ones. Please feel free to revert or correct any mistakes I might make, and I'm sorry that you've had to wait so long for the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That is very good timing, actually; I'm just finishing up my own edits and preparing to submit for that second FAC. Thanks so much for taking this on! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries; it's an interesting article, and very well written. I should be done soon. Edit - I've now finished copy- editing the article; I've tried not to change any technical phraseology or meanings but please feel free to correct or contact me if I've mistakenly altered anything, or about any other issues. There are some redlinks in the final section, mostly to scientists' names, which I didn't remove because I thought you might like to review them. Otherwise, I've made far fewer changes that I normally do. I wish you success for the upcoming FA review. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

DNA nanotechnology FAC (Ling)

• Here's the thing, and yes in fact I do know it's unfair: I am afraid to +Support, because of my blinding ignorance on the matter. I'm afraid that I'll +S and then a month later there'll be an article in one of the more anti-Wikipedia newspapers about how the article has huge holes or is even full of crap, and several people (list names here, including mine) supported it. If you have subject matter experts (SMEs), you should trot them out and ask them to stamp an official okey-doke on the content.– Ling.Nut (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I really, really appreciate the insight. I actually had a feeling that something like that was going on; it's kind of a color of the bike shed situation, where people are happy to comment on grammar but don't feel qualified to comment on the technical aspects of the article. Recruiting experts sounds like a good idea, then. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the analogy as presented in the bikeshed article is kind of mildly insulting, though I'm sure it has a lot of truth. The insulting bit is "everyone wants to stamp their personality on it", which is indeed human and may have more than a little truth. It's also true, however, that a handyman can fix a broken door hinge out of an eleemosynary impulse, rather than a shallow vanity boo etc.. :-)– Ling.Nut (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No offense intended, all the prose suggestions have definitely improved the article and I'm happy that they're being made. I just found it odd that at my first FAC no one returned to support after I had dealt with the issues they had brought up. It kind of made me wonder whether there was something else holding them back that wasn't being explicitly said, like discomfort on taking stands on really technical articles. Regardless, I'm new to the FAC process so I'm still learning the ropes, as it were. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. :-) Also, there must be some editors around who are in this field.... – Ling.Nut (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Complaint

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding arbitrary and capricious deletion/addition of material, illustrating probable undeclared (perhaps even unrecognized) bias. The thread is "NPOV or bias?".The discussion is about the topic Clearcut editing bias. Thank you. --Voice of 5-23 (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Link to archived AN/I thread. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Triple resonance page

I have added some figures which show how sequential assignment can be done using triple resonance spectra, and added some missing references. It is far from complete yet, but if you want to submit it for consideration of DYK, you are welcome to do so, if it isn't too late. Hzh (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's at Template:Did you know nominations/Triple-resonance nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Feel free to suggest another hook if you can think of a better one. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It is always going to be a tough sell for an article that is esoteric to most readers. Most of those who come to this page would already know something about NMR, otherwise they wouldn't be looking for it, but it does however make me think that the page should have something that can give the rare casual reader who knows very little about the subject more basic background. Something to do in the future I think. Hzh (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Triple-resonance nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Time-critical request for help

I've enjoyed reading your DNA nanotech article and watching its FA progress - I really hope it makes it thru soon. In the other direction, I'm in dire need of someone to start the discussion on the GAN for the Frederic M. Richards article, since this Saturday I'll be giving a talk at Wikimania about my experience with drawing in content-expert editors thru the WikiProject Biophysics. It should be an easy evaluation, because it's already had a lot of good comment on the article talk page and the peer-review page, including content issues, organization, style, and a thoro review of the citations. However, it's been languishing in GAN without anyone willing to take on the eval. IMHO it's at least at GA level, but it needs someone uninvolved but with reasonable wiki expertise to start the discussion. I'd be enormously appreciative if you'd be willing to do that, and to give your take on the article. Thanks in advance for considering this! - Dcrjsr (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am at Wikimania too! I've never done a GAN review before, but I've actually been meaning to get involved there so this sounds like a good excuse. I'll take a look when I have a free moment. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so very much! See you there. Dcrjsr (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:2012 United States federal budget/GA1

Hey there, I reviewed the article you put on GAN. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: DNA nanotechnology

This is a note to let the main editors of DNA nanotechnology know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 14, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 14, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

DNA nanotechnology is the design and manufacture of artificial nucleic acid structures for technological uses. In this field, nucleic acids such as DNA are used as non-biological engineering materials for nanotechnology rather than as the carriers of genetic information in living cells. Researchers in the field have created static structures such as crystal lattices, nanotubes, polyhedra, and arbitrarily-shaped DNA origami; as well as functional structures including molecular machines and DNA computers. The conceptual foundation for DNA nanotechnology was first laid out in the early 1980s, and the field began to attract widespread interest in the mid 2000s. The field is beginning to be used as a tool to solve basic science problems in structural biology and biophysics, such as protein structure determination, and potential real-world applications in nanomedicine and molecular scale electronics are under development. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Drive Award

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Your recognition for 1 GA reviews at the last June-July GAN Review Round. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	comprehensive scientific concepts
	Thank you for the courage to let us understand scientific concepts comprehensively, for example DNA nanotechnology, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

nano ...

you probably have read WP:3RR? you should probably engage in a discussion on the talk page once you have been reverted by two different editors. Frietjes (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I only got reverted once for each template, by you; the original change to the templates was not a revert. But I agree, there should be a discussion at Template talk:Nanotechnology. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's just discuss here, as the only editor who appears to object to the removal of the styles is the editor who added them in the first place (you). Your rationale in this revert was "It's important to have distinctive, aesthetically pleasing boxes to aid navigation". Why is this important? The trend for years, ever since {{sidebar}} was formalised, has been to move away from custom styling except where it provides some tangible benefit to the reader. Here, your chosen stying is arbitrary (there is nothing in the chosen colour scheme which relates any particular field of nanotech to its colour), distracting (the colours are bold and clash with the article body) and potentially damaging to article accessibility (whether by the letter of WP:ACCESS it is prohibited to change the colour of links or not, it is plainly not appropriate to do so on a whim). Lastly, "aesthetically pleasing" is in the eye of the beholder, and the general move to vanilla styling on sidebar templates strongly suggests that the defaults are aesthetically pleasing to a majority of editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Being that this is a content/style issue on a specific set of templates, I believe that the appropriate place for discussion is Template talk:Nanotechnology, and I will respond there. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for United States fiscal cliff

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Caltech–MIT rivalry

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks so much for your quality improvement efforts to the article, DNA nanotechnology, a great contribution to Wikipedia in the topic of SCIENCE! :) — Cirt (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nanoelectronics entry

Hi, From the version history on the Nanoelectronics entry, your edit of 8-25-2009 seems to have been the origin of the nice discussion of scaling issues in the Fundamental concepts section; this begins "The volume of an object..." and includes the drill power vs. friction analogy. This seems to be a highly copied section, as it is on many other web sites w/o citation. The paragraph is found in full, essentially verbatim, on p. 274 of "Textbook of Engineering Physics, Part II" by Neeraj Mehta, supposedly published in 2009, ISBN : 9788120337015, 8120337018. If I wanted to quote this para in a paper, should I cite Mehta, or Wikipedia, or can you advise me as to the original source of this text? It is elegantly and succinctly stated, which perhaps explains why it has been copied w/o attribution by so many. Any insights would be appreciated. Thanks. 0rpheus93 (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! So, that paragraph is actually much older than 2009; that date is just when I moved it there from another article. It looks like this edit on October 18, 2006 is the actual origin of that passage; it was written by an anonymous user. I later rewrote it as part of this edit on November 20, 2006. If Mehta (and these other websites) are copying it without attribution, someone should probably complain to them. Anyhow, you should cite the Wikipedia article on Nanoelectronics as the source. There's some more info about citing Wikipedia at WP:Citing Wikipedia and WP:Reusing Wikipedia content#Text content if you need it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Curious

I am completely puzzled as to the purpose of the comment "(Someone more interested in nanoscale technologies should expand this description.)", placed directly into article text, by you, first way back in 2007 in Impact of nanotechnology, and then again more recently when you added similar text to History of nanotechnology last year. I wouldn't say anything, but as it's been in both articles for many months, I feel there must be something I'm missing. I've hidden it in the former and deleted it from the latter; my apologies if I'm at all stepping on your toes in doing so. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 04:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Good catch—I didn't write those paragraphs, I was just moving them from another article without looking at them too closely. You're right that such self-references should be omitted in the text itself, as there are templates for that if needed. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)