Talk:Scanning tunneling microscope

message: A reader's question: "as illustrated in fig 1".  Where?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.90.18 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I decided. I removed the last 3 paragraphs which is what was the copied part. That's all that is necessary. The rest can stand on its own, but will need some expansion to show the inventor, etc. DGG 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: forgot to mention--this sort of thing with non-cordinated parts and low-quality or copyvio sections tacked on is generally the results of vandals messing with  an article. It isnt all that uncommon, unfortunately. Be bold in removing the copyvio parts if the article is obviously something important. If necessary, remove the whole text and leave a stub. The right version is likely to be somewhere in the page history. I'll keep a look out for the vandals. Good work in spotting it.  DGG 08:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's not very "pretty" for an STM image. Both images need a scale bar (or at least for the size of the field-of-view to be mentioned in the caption). An brief explanation in the caption of the gold picture of what the structures are would be nice. Gruntler (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking of taking fig 1 out entirely and replacing it with one of these famous images  since they clearly illustrate the atomic manipulation properties of the STM. I'd also be nice to have something where the atoms throughout a plane are clearly visible, not fuzzy like the ones in the gold picture. Any particularly famous ones? Gruntler (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I deleted the reference. Is the tunneling text in fact copied from Chen? If so it should be removed. It's not very well-written for Wikipedia anyway so it'd be no great loss.Gruntler (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It would appear that both are based on Intro. to STM by C. Julian Chen (reference 4 at the moment), everything cited appears in the book on pages 3-6 (1993 edition). Possibly it isn't in the google books preview? Sheepe2004 (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I feel that this sentence in the introduction, "STM can be a challenging technique, as it requires extremely clean and stable surfaces, sharp tips, excellent vibration control, and sophisticated electronics," although mostly true, mistakenly gives the impression that STM is an inaccessible technology.  Many very innovative hobbyists have created their own STMs, some for very cheaply.  I attempted to add a clause to the end of that sentence to this effect, but Materialscientist removes it stating it violates WP:NOTHOWTO.  I do not feel that adding this information (with no instructions, just the statement) violates WP:NOTHOWTO.  Materialscientist, can you back this up further at all?  I agree it is inappropriate to describe in wikipedia how to accomplish many tasks, but I think it is very important that wikipedia not convey that these tasks are more difficult than they are.  I do not think it is wikipedia's place to discourage home science.  I intended the links only as citations, so my edit would not be reverted; I realize now I did that improperly and am editing a third time with more correct citations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.133.99 (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur Projects 

message: I believe the image of gold desperately needs a scale bar that indicates how big (nm^2) the picture is.
While all other relevant parameters are mentioned (Bias Voltage etc.) this is the most important one in my opinion.
Using STM one often has periodic artifacts, therefore I am not sure whether the really small dots represent atoms or only the large ones.
I am new to Wikipedia and not quite sure how to contact the author about this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Freyberg (talk • contribs) 09:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atomic_resolution_Au100.JPG 

message: Someone keeps vandalising the summary with “shreks most famous invention” instead of whatever it should say. I don’t know what is supposed to be there so I haven’t reverted the edit, but I think we should protect it because it’s a pretty popular page in the science community as far as I’m aware. 
Androvax (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request semi-protection for editing  

message: Hello, I was wondering if it's interesting to add to the gallery images of ensembled structure. For example the Quantum Corral, A Boy And His Atom, some classic company logos like IBM or NIST. The last three may not really provide a lot of physics insight, but the first one does. One could also consider adding a spin-polarized atomic image - I have several of these, but it might be considered promotion of my own work. What is the community's thought on this? 80.114.174.240 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: One or two imgs (not overly processed, if possible) that illustrate a new concept would be great to have. Bear in mind that images need to be (nearly) free of copyright, which usually means your own work and nobody else's work. Upload at Commons. Thnx, Ponor (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery Update