QuantumShadow

Re: Tri-Gate Transistor

I removed the text because the decision of an earlier deletion discussion for that page decided that it was not notable enough to merit its own article. There are a plethora of different transistor structures that do not have their own articles, and this one is simply a novel construction of the (MOS)FET. -- mattb 19:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no set rule for which talk page you should reply on. It's actually a rather kludgy system in general. Some people prefer to respond back and forth between talk pages, and some would rather you carry on the conversation on one page.

Anyway, "important and major improvement in transistor architecture" is pretty subjective language. Multiple gate FETs have been around for awhile without ever being commercialized. IBM has had a similar construction to Intel's tri-gate transistor for some time (Intel has the lovely tendency to make up its own names for things; it co-developed a narrow-bandgap HFET a couple of years ago and called it a QWFET). I would suggest adding a couple of sentences about multiple gate control schemes to the field effect transistor. At least until wrap-around multiple gate FETs make it to mainstream processes (might be awhile since, as I understand, there are nontrivial yield issues with the etching process at the scaling levels that merit the more complicated construction), they still fall well into "interesting research" territory and it would be difficult to argue the merits of them having their own article.

Incidentally, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you stay and continue editing articles. You may want to have a look at this introduction for some useful information. You should also know that credentials don't really mean anything on this site (both a good and a bad thing, I think), and article content is determined mostly by consensus and citation (I'm a RF electronics/optoelectronics researcher, for whatever that's worth). -- mattb 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Veropedia

A tag has been placed on Veropedia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for help on "Psychophysical Paradox"

Dear QuantumShadow,

I have noticed that you voted in favor of keeping my article. Apparently, you were the only one.

I would like to request your help in understanding why there seems to have been such an opposition to my article, and how I can, perhaps recreate it under a different name.

I think that the name of the article was problematic, because it is not the common name in English.

It was the common name in Latin, German and French, at the late 15th century, and early 16th century - when this subject was introduced by Leibniz (1714). Surprisingly, Leibniz, who was German, wrote his book (Monadology) in French...

One has to remember that in 1714, the USA did not exist, and there were no prominent English polimaths of the caliber of Leibniz, hence - English was considered to be inferior for discussing science.

All this leads me to the conclusion that I should have named the subject - "The Psychophysical Problem", which is apparently, the current English term.

I would appreciate if you could drop me a note with your thoughts about the issue - at my talk page.

Is there "Politics" in Wikipedia, and do you think I can recreate the article under a different name ?

Thanks, --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shimon, I think that the problem is not with the name of your particular article. The problem is much more broad, most of the people on Wikipedia are "deletionists", i.e. they think that Wikipedia should have only the most important articles, all other information should be deleted. See http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/10/0057210 The deletionists monitor all the new articles and try to delete all of them (unless they are found in another proven encyclopedias).

You have two options: either try again under different name, giving even more proves of notability, etc... or adding your information as a subtopic under another relevant article. in the latter case it is much more difficult to delete your entry, as there is no Wikipedia Policy on deleting subtopics. After some time your subtopic may gain enough credibility to become standalone article. Good Luck! QuantumShadow (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for removing the correct Bolivian data. It was my mistake.--Italodal (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

January 2019

Hello, I'm Smjg. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Nick Santonastasso. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)