Talk:FreeON

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Computing: Software / Free and open-source software This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Hello,

can someone give us some more guidance on this conflict of interest problem? We would like to clean up the article but are not sure what exactly to change here. Nicolasbock (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is clear. All of you editing this article are linked to this software. That is a conflict of interest. Read that link. Until such time as there are good external sources referenced and other editors are contributing, the tag should, in my opinion, stay. However, it is no big deal. It is simply warning the reader that the article is written by people promoting the program. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of the references given are published in peer reviewed journals, I am unclear what else to add to make the sources more "reliable". Could you please advice? Nicolasbock (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent attempt to add inline references is completely wrong. Have a look how it is done on other articles. The list of peer reviewed papers is just that - a list. You would not do that in a paper. The references there would be against specific points. That is what you need to do. Support each statement by a reference. Also note that inline references only show up if you add <references> or {{reflist}} under a heading for references. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an external link to the first citation. Is that correct like that? Nicolasbock (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, see above and look at other articles. I'm going to be tied up for the next 24 hours, but will have a go at showing you how to do it tomorrow. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt and I have tried to fix things a little with the references, and have started to move them into the text as you have suggested. Are we on the right track here? Nicolasbock (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section, all their DOIs and a arXiv are list here if someone needs them in the feture.

• arXiv:1001.2586
• doi:10.1063/1.3068658
• doi:10.1063/1.2965535
• doi:10.1063/1.2715556
• doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6055-7_50
• doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.123001
• doi:10.1063/1.2222359
• doi:10.1063/1.2202105
• doi:10.1063/1.2207625
• doi:10.1063/1.1944725
• doi:10.1063/1.1944724
• doi:10.1063/1.2121569
• doi:10.1063/1.1869470
• doi:10.1063/1.1568734
• doi:10.1063/1.1771636
• doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.193002
• doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.193001
• doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.69.035116
• doi:10.1063/1.1790891
• doi:10.1063/1.1568734
• doi:10.1063/1.1559913
• doi:10.1063/1.1316012
• doi:10.1007/s002140000127
• doi:10.1016/S0010-4655(00)00074-6
• doi:10.1063/1.479926
• doi:10.1063/1.477969
• doi:10.1063/1.477546
• doi:10.1063/1.474150
• doi:10.1063/1.473833
• doi:10.1063/1.473575
• doi:10.1063/1.472135
• doi:10.1063/1.471163

-Mys 721tx (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple major contributors appear to be developers of this software. DMacks (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]