Talk:Nanotechnology

I don't understand why you reverted my edit. The article has a stub at the end asking users to expand it. I did.

Reversion of JohnD edits

I don't see what was wrong with them, other than a reference not being provided. Why shouldn't they be restored since they were removed without explanation?. --DinsdaleP 09:57, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I can't speak for Ed Poor, but I'm guessing the only reason this was reverted was the lack of reference. Whenever yyou edit, please try to cite credible sources. Thanks. --Ben _Talk 10:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

This doesn't make sense: "The 'Top Down' method involves taking a larger object and removing parts to create a smaller structure similar to creating a statue from a block of stone." If I had inadvertently deleted correct information, he ought to have explained why it was correct. Instead, he implied that the stub template gave him a 'right' to edit.

No one here has rights. We only have an obligation to share truthful and useful information. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:22, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I'm not a physicist, and my only resource is wiki, which is in and of itself, not saying much, but wiki does seem to accept that these are two quite standard ways of making nano tech. "top down" and "bottom up" are even the words they use. I won't change anything, as I'm distrustful of wiki as a source.--JeanJacques 10:47, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Those are the standard ways; JohnD just described them wrong, and then argued instead of making a correction.

Collaboration is not about "exercising your rights" but about helping each other to produce a good article. Those who overemphasize the former at the expense of the latter will not get much attention here. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:54, 12 November 2008 (EST)

JohnD didn't "argue"--he just asked why his edit had been reverted. And he can't make corrections if he doesn't know what's wrong with the edit. Which is probably why he asked you why you reverted his edit.--RossC 13:30, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, what you quoted (and the entire section that was deleted) made perfect sense. It may not be highly technical, but it explained the two methods well, in a way anyone could understand. Can we just reinstate it, and perhaps improve it from there? Human 17:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Ed I wasn't arguing, or suggesting I had the right to do anything. I just wanted to know what was wrong with what I had written. Your edit summary didn't say and you described my edit as 'nonsense' on my talk page.

I believe that what I added was essentially correct. It could use more references, which I can add, and I may have over simplified things a bit. I find it tricky to write something that is understandable by a layman but also accurate and imformative. I think this could easily be improved upon by multiple edits and collaboration. As it stands I think the article needs a lot of work. It gives an example which as far as I am aware does not yet exist outside the realm of science fiction, and then references an obscure work of fiction out of dozens that have been written on the subject (I personally prefer Prey by Micheal Crichton).--JohnD 07:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

This article seems vague and speculative. Please describe work that has actually been done first. In the last section, you may describe future prospects. --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Ed, can I remove the IBM stuff? I don't think advertising from the IBM website really belongs in the article.--JohnD 13:40, 26 November 2008 (EST)

IBM research

Try reading this: http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research.nsf/pages/r.nanotech.defined.html

Ok read it. I still don't think it belongs in the article in that form, particular when it's just copied and pasted from the IBM website. If you look at the rest of the sub-headings of that section, there are all scientific disciplines so having a heading IBM at the top just looks out of place.--JohnD 13:40, 26 November 2008 (EST)