User talk:Ronningt

My contribution of 17/06/2008 was contributed as per the To Do List on the respective talk page: Please advise why you consider that contribution unjustified. Thanks in advance, Coffea (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Restructure according to guidelines in WikiProject Science, ie. :
 * start with 2 or 3 paragraphs for the general public, using daily life examples

Spectronomy
Thank you for clarifying the term ghosts as it relates to FT in the spectronomy article. This article is a strange one, and I cannot even verify if the term spectronomy has been used in this context before. Do you have any idea about that? Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

I become curious about this after reading your comments, and web searches do not turn up any evidence that spectronomy has this meaning. The web searches all point towards spectronomy being a common mis-spelling of spectrometry. I support the deletion of the article unless the original author can provide some evidence of the term's use. Thanks, ronningt (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nod on the absorption equation! It was my first edit so I was a little unsure of how things are done. Weimdog (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Cut & paste move
Good call, I think, moving the content of Spectrum analysis to History of spectroscopy. Some of the content could also probably be usefully added as introductory material to the parent Spectroscopy article too.

One thing WP prefers, though, if you're going to rename or re-purpose an article like this, rather than cutting and pasting it, is to use the "move" tab because then the whole edit history of the old article gets moved along too (and the talk page, as well). Here's what the recommended friendly standard template message has to say: Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Spectrum analysis a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into History of spectroscopy. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

I've tagged the new page with a "history merge" request (WP:HISTMERGE), so with luck somebody with the required permissions should be able to move the old history to the new page in the next few hours.

All best, Jheald (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback and the helpful information. I'm glad there's a way for somebody to take care of that after the fact, and I'll definitely keep that in mind.ronningt (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Spectral line
I have given the proper referrence of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where this data was included under the heading of Spectral lines. Is MIT wrong? شہاب (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. This data should belong to radio spectrum. Thanks for guidence! شہاب (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That one guy making concerning edits about spectroscopy/spectrometers =)
I responded to your talk message in Talk:Spectrometer, and when I noticed your message in Spectroscopy, I figured it would be best to just post to you here. I notice that a lot of spectroscopy articles aren't well-developed, and I want to hear your opinions on how you envision the article(s). Spectroscopy is a great field and is a personal interest of mine, and I want to help work on all of the articles.

On a side note: feel free just to ruthlessly revert/delete an edit I have made (or will make), and then let me why. I won't get offended =) Popcrate (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Great to hear from you. For me, learning to not get offended by other editors edits and criticisms has been a valuable area of personal growth. I'm so often only writing for myself that it's really nice to be in a collaborative environment and be able to share what I have and gain from other editors.

My background is also dominated by optical spectroscopy with some mass spec thrown in. The specifics of nuclear and sub-atomic often elude me. The balance I aim for--and find difficult--is to be respectful of the breadth of a field while also being useful to a newcomer to the topic. If the majority of readers arriving at Spectrometer are interested in optical spectrometers, then an introduction that is as general as possible is not going to help them. In fact, it could drive them away by being vague or confusing.

Building on your edits to Spectrometer, I've taken another pass at its introduction. See what you think. ronningt (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Haha yes, I actually think that some degree of intense criticism and argument can produce good results in the end. Becoming personally offended only inhibits one's ability to learn and expand the mind to new perspectives (that's my philosophy, anyway).  Example:  I didn't get offended when you I saw your comments, and as a result I realized that there is a lot more depth to the field of spectroscopy that I have yet to research =)


 * On to articles: I think the very beginning intro should be imagined from the perspective of somebody who just searched "spectrometer", and be concise and descriptive.
 * Example) When I search "spectrometer" on google (at the moment), this is the first result I see (from google itself, I believe):

spec·trom·e·ter spekˈträmədər/ noun noun: spectrometer; plural noun: spectrometers an apparatus used for recording and measuring spectra, especially as a method of analysis.


 * Try a similar search for "spectroscopy" and you should see the wikipedia article's intro appear... The intro probably should be a bit general, that way a reader learns/discovers that there are many types of spectrometers.


 * Possible structure for Spectrometer article:


 * 1) Intro designed to appeal to a quick searcher
 * 2) introduce different types of spectrometers, and main concepts/links about spectroscopy
 * 3) "Types of Spectrometers" section with brief descriptions of each major type of spectrometer with links and neat pictures
 * 4) Discoveries made/ Brief history of spectrometers
 * 5) More Complex Applications and in-depth info past this point, for those who can handle the equations, etc.
 * Popcrate (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Peter Ventzek for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Ventzek, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Peter Ventzek until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)