Talk:Atom (science)

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Catalogs [?]
Video [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition The defining unit of chemical elements. [d] [e]

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)