Contents

User talk:IndianFace

Hello, IndianFace, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your nameontalk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on this page and someone will drop by to help.Jcmiller1215 (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

saw your post here. I'm doing a 4th year project also (onsupersymmetric quantum mechanics, if you're interested). Feel free to ask me here or on my talk page (or anyone else) and I'll be happy to help. Good luck, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 20:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was looking at the article you're working on, Electron scattering. It's shaping up nicely, but I think it would be good if you would give the math behind it (or at least some formulas) when you mention Coulomb forces and the Lorentz force.

PS: I'm working on the Seyfert galaxies article and I'd appreciate you leaving some comments, if you have time.

Careless Torque (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Careless Torque,

The "Phenomena" section was written by a predecessor, I will get round to either expanding it or folding it into another section.

Thanks for your interest, and please check back again and give me some more feedback.

IndianFace (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice? Stick to inline referencing. As the article gets bigger it looks better and its preferable to be able to see where in each reference your citing the source. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and for an example of an article where this is used see Angraecum sesquipedale. Chhe (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chhe,

Just wondering if you'd noticed an error in what I'd written so far that prompted that advice or if it was just a heads up?

From the citation page you sent me I think I've managed to adhere to the Wikipedia style of citation, if I've missed anywhere it'd be of great help if you could point me to where.

Thanks for taking an interest, let me know if you have any other suggestions.

IndianFace (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No error. The way you are presently citing things is quite commonly used and fine if you want to stick with it. I was simply telling you about a more organized method of citing things when it comes to articles that are very big, namely "Short citations". I hadn't learned of this when I first started editing wikipedia and I wish I had since it would have saved me a lot of wasted time so I thought I'd mention it. Chhe (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what you mean, this may also suit my manner of citing better as I have neglected page numbers for the time being.

This should certainly make my final rewrite and latter stages of my project much easier, thanks for the heads up.

IndianFace (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, IndianFace is using in-line references. If you really want to be concise, use a "ref name=" and then add the reference to the reflist at the bottom of the page. Just my two cents. At the end of the day, there's no wrong way to do it, just the most comfortable with different people. -Primefac (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		It's nice to see how much work you've done on Electron scattering, an article that was only a small stub two month ago. Well done! Careless Torque (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electron scattering, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charge and Current (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!