Talk:Stanford physicists print smallest-ever letters 'SU' at subatomic level of 1.5 nanometres tall

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

I CREATED this interesting news article on SU and nanothechnology. I am Philippines Judge Florentino Floro, having registered with Wikinews on December 3, 2008, and is a Wikinews:Editor as of January 12, 2009.

In having written more than "62 articles" (here - User:Florentino Floro/MyList and in Wikipedia Encyclopedia User:Florentino Floro/MyList2), I live with my Philosophy and hope to elevate Wikinwews to the phenomenal success of Wikipedia encyclopedia, by writing very comprehensive, detailed and fully synthesized news, amid collaboration of editors and the final touch of the reviewer. Please do not be annoyed if sometimes, (due to stress and human factor - plus the fact that as lawyer and judge, I never ever had enrolled in any journalism subject), I would tend to relax the copyright rules and style guide, but, without however, violating the SPIRIT AND INTENT of both international law of copyright, and Wikinews rules on style guide. REST ASSURED, that in writing every news article, I VALUE fairness, justice, integrity and honesty. This is what NEWS WRITING is all about. Please help in publishing this news. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The question we're all wondering[edit]

How many times could you fit Wikipedia on a pin head? :P Bawolff 08:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you read the following links, all of these started from the 1959 twin challenge with $ 1,000 prize. Some other sources:

[1]Smallest-Ever Letters Are 1.5 Nanometres Tall [2]Physicists produce world's smallest lettering that is just 1.5 nanometers tall [3]Stanford Uni writes world's smallest letters [4]Stanford scientists are downsizing champs: They've generated world's smallest writing [5]Indian-American physicist helps craft world's sub-atomic writing [6]Unlimited information storage may soon be a reality [7]Stanford University physicists' subatomic writing breaks record, and opens a new door to computing's future

Putting Wikipedia English Encyclopedia in 1.5 nm letters, might be very difficult, for reasons: a) it is online, and the scientific article deals with physical papers, like CD's page one, and b) assuming ex gratia argumenti that Wiki Enc. could be printed or its online version could be nanoimprinted, still, I am certain ... the talk pages and pages which deal with editor discipline/blocking which are filled to the brim with anger, hatred and vengeance, that not even the Count of Monte Christo could have imagined today - could not be ... While this planet is populated with idiots, savants, exhibitionists, pedo priests of CA and San Diego, skeptics, agnostics, mystics, scientists amid the Holy Pontiff's Natzi image revealing the past holocaust, we are not dealing here with rocket science ... and I dare say that this earth is not only for humans and animals but for elementals, ghosts, UFO's and aliens, alike.[8] Let me quote a passage from the Wikipedia Holy English Bible:
Two things - one, the editor who wrote this article (and likely the same editor who posted this comment) is banned on the English Wikipedia for good reason. Two, the article is really quite bad in a number of ways. I'm surprised it was published - an edit summary says "PUBLISHED: PASSED REVIEW" or some such. I'm not familiar with the standards on en.wikinews, but shouldn't the articles reflect news reporting as opposed to mainly opinion?
Avruch T 00:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: The internet cafe I use here in Bulacan is shared. There are some Wikipedians who use the same, and only one IP address is provided for more than 40 PCs. But of course I cannot rebut the strong and angry comment of the editor, since as I wrote in the article, the secret of Wikipedia's phenomenal success is freedom and openness. Just sayin. Pardon, if this reply is too long, and biased.--Florentino Floro (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Exceptionally long quote[edit]

Quoting the entire conclusion does not seem very news-like. --SVTCobra 00:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree. When I was developing this article, I found the quote too large. But when I finished the development for review, and after reading and shrinking into this article, ALL the news reports, the finished for review product became large enough, such that I even had to add-put the additional image I uploaded. I wanted to trim some sentences of the quote from the conclusion, but, since I had only one subject in college physics, I was afraid, that - since readers of this article would be scientists - they might criticize the amendment - since I found that if I would shorten the conclusion, some critical parts might be torn down. Hence, I left the discretion to the peer view, since, neutrality requires the CREATOR to be off limits the final touch to the article. Thanks for your terse comment. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Review[edit]