File talk:Snowflake 300um LTSEM, 13368.jpg

Is this actually a natural snowflake? It doesn't look natural at all. If it's natural that's amazing.

I think this is a really cool photo http&#58;//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 00:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice... Who didn't catch the added 1337? - the 1337 is not in the original image.

Jmount - Why did you revert my questioning of the authenticity of the image? It seems to me that if the authenticity is in question, the question shouldn't be covered up or buried unless there is widespread agreement.
 * If you wish to raise issues of authenticity please do so here on the talk page. I'll move it here for you. Rafy 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is a question of authenticity then shouldnt it be on the main page so that people who don't look at the discussion page won't be mislead into thinking there is no question? What is your justification for removing the question from the main page? Since you provided no justification for your changes I'm going to revert. I think the question should remain until the issue is settled. What's your resoning to support your conclusion that this is genuine?
 * I reverted yet again since nobody wants to justify or explain their removal of my edits. Mrcaseyj
 * The purpose of a Talk page is to discuss issues pertaining to the image. Comments do not belong on the main image page. This is normal wikipedia practice. Your edit was not removed, it was simply moved to where it belongs. Rafy 07:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you cite stated wikipedia policy that the authenticity of an image shouldn't be questioned on the image page, but only on the discussion page? Yes the purpose of the talk page is to DISCUSS issues pertaining to the image, but my edits were my CONCLUSION that the image is of questionable authenticity. If you would like to discuss whether this is a well reasoned conclusion, then by all means the place for us to do it is on the discussion page. Certainly a discussion shouldn't be part of the primary page for an image, but if an image is of questionable authenticity then I think it's important to alert viewers, and not expect them to dig for that info. There are actually many comments about the image on the main page, and I think mine is probably more important than most of them. Judging by the first comment on the discussion page I'm not the only person who thinks this image looks unreal. Until we discuss this further I'm just going to put a short warning on the main page directing people to the discussion page. But if you can't or won't justify your position that my full comments shouldn't be on the main page then I'll revert to my original version in an hour or so. mrcaseyj
 * Since we can't tell if the image is authentic, my conclusion is that we can't draw a conclusion. That's a little confusing. To see why this conclusion of inconclusiveness should be on the main page it helps to consider a different situation. Imagine we have an image that we want to keep in the wikipedia but we know it's a fake because the forger admitted it. In such a situation it would clearly be proper to reveal the known falsity of the image on the main image page, and not expect people to read the discussion page. The main page IS the place for such comments. This situation is different of course, but after discussing the issue of authenticity, a summary of the discussion DOES belong on the main page. mrcaseyj

Authenticity of the image

 * I no longer question the authenticity of the image. Apparently samples are sometimes prepared for the microscope by sputtering a thin layer of metal on the surface. Mrcaseyj 05:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This image is of questionable authenticity. In the high resolution version of the image, you can see on the edge of the end piece, what looks like cracked paint peeling back.



The groove on the column looks like it was made by dragging a finger through soft putty, complete with the displaced material bulging up around the edges of the groove. Also there doesn't appear to be any groove in the other visible face of the column. -- Mrcaseyj 06:46, 24 October 2006
 * The source of the image is http://emu.arsusda.gov/snowsite/default.html (The US Government Department of Agriculture). The source if reliable enough to assume their assertions are made in good faith. Rafy 07:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt the good faith of the Department of Agriculture, but this image may have been generated by a single employee of the department. There are various possible reasons why such an image may be faked. It could be a funny experiment to find out how far they can go before people will call them on it. It could be an attempt to get attention or get published. Mrcaseyj 09:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr Casey should perhaps read how specimens are prepared for scanning by the microcope and then retract his contention.
 * Ah, sample preparation is sometimes done by sputtering a thin layer of conductive material onto the sample (even on ice?). You could have just said so. I wish you were here earlier. My appologies to the originator of the image. Mrcaseyj 05:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Rime Frost
That rime frost looks like the way non-Newtonian fluid behaves when you set it to Farraday waves and prod it. Is it just a coincidence? Merpin (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)