User talk:Peterlewis

Congratulations

		Death Star
		This Death Star award is for your September 26, 2007 revision undo on the Miasma theory of disease article.Tripodero 13:09, 05 July 2009 UTC

Dee River Bridge failure

I noticed your addition to the List of bridge disasters - can you provide more detail such as which River Dee (Wales, Scotland etc.) and which bridge etc ? Thanks Velela 09:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User Peterlewis, 20 Jan 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Peterlewis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Please note that information about you personally should be on your userpage. I've deleted the User Peterlewis, 20 Jan 2006 article, and pasted the text below. Warofdreams talk 15:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a new contributor to Wiki, having corrected various parts of the Tay Rail Bridge entry, and started a new entry for the Dee bridge. I am an academic author working in Milton Keynes, England.

Peterlewis 06:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your comments! I am still learning the ropes.

Staplehurst rail crash

I like your new page on the Staplehurst rail crash! (I found it because I "watch" Dickens to keep the vandals at bay). But I have a question about it. The opening phrasing sounds like a continuation of earlier prose, or an earlier idea. Is this just because of your other writings on rail disasters, or is there any likelihood of a copyright problem with Red for Danger? (Obviously when a source work is in copyright, the usual publishing rules obtain about not repeating verbatim from that work, except as a precise, attributed quote.) If you want to reply, I'll find it here, or here! All the best for happy Wiki-ing! JackyR 19:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Its nice to know that someone watches new contributions! I found some vandalism myself this morning on Sir Henry Bessemer's site: (fucxxxx) inserted by some loonie, and promptly deleted. The prose is my own entirely, and my interest is in the cast iron beam which broke under the weight of the train, as well as a passion for good stories. I will have to write up the Clayton tunnel accident as a result of your prompt. And it would be interesting to see how much Dickens lifted from the accident into his story: the main cause of the tunnel accident was poor signalling. If you have read the story or seen the BBC film, you will know of the signalman's obsession with bells: the signals from other boxes. And it was these poor signals which caused the problem. And so on. I am writing a book at the moment on the Dee bridge disaster to follow my earlier book on the Tay bridge disaster, hence my interest in the early railways. I am new to Wiki, but enjoying filling the many gaps! In fact, I will write up Staplehurst for the book for the girder fracture as well as the awful consequences. LTC Rolt is a good source but not the best: the original accident reports are far more precise and to the point.

Peterlewis 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance, and how marvellous that you're sharing your expertise on the Clayton Tunnel as well. I was feeling kinda guilty about generating that red link... Must re-read "The Signalman", as have a vague idea I read it as a child. I certainly remember frosty mornings staring at signals on Higham railway station, in short school socks, wondering if some Dickens story had been inspired by them (OK, I now realise he'd seen more than one set of signals in his life...). The Clayton Tunnel article will make v interesting reading - although perhaps check out Wikipedia:No original research and this discussion (but only from "User:Kevin Myers 26 Jan 06" onwards): there seems to be considerable vagueness about what counts as "original research"... Anyway, enjoy! Cheers, JackyR 23:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Hope I'm not overwhelming you... Just a note about the headings hierarchy. The article title (on this page "User talk:Peterlewis") doesn't need to be typed in the text box. When you start a page, either:

1. the text says "Would you like to start a page called 'Foo'?" (in which case it automatically calls the new page 'Foo' when you hit Save), or
2. you are offered a line in which to type the new title, separately from the text box.

This leaves you the ==Goo== subhead and ===Hoo=== subsubhead to use in the body text. So one would normally use ==External links== rather than ===External links===. Er, hope that made sense! JackyR 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Advice

Thanks for the comment. It depends what you mean by original research. I am simply bringing to the surface what is already known about disasters. The causes of the Clayton tunnel disaster were well exposed at the time, so contemporary readers of Dicken's story will have known to what he was referring. LTC Rolt mentions this in his book: the horror of a tunnel accident (for Clayton was not the only one ). I am simply putting the story in its historical context, so giving the reader some extra appreciation. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is about? Peterlewis 06:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added some extra text to bring out the point about tension and compression. Peterlewis 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! Well that'll larn me to put notes-to-self on my To do list! Thank you! I'd realised from your comments that you were probably an engineer interested in metal fatigue, and meant to ask if it was true that the Ironbridge was built of cast iron entirely in compression (and can we safely add this to that article)?

Original research – yeah, it absolutely depends what one means. There are all sorts of rows about what is and isn't verifiable, and what an encyclopedia is - principally that it should be a synthesis of other already published stuff. I get preoccupied with this, 'cos I write about African topics which are woefully under-represented in the literature – hence difficult to reference, creating a vicious circle. Clearly I'm spreading it around! Many apologies... For the True Word, check out Wikipedia:No original research. Happy wiki-ing! Cheers, JackyR 17:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes you guessed correctly, I am an engineer working on falures (mainly) : hence my interest in the Tay and Dee bridge disasters. The Ironbridge is all mainly in compression but parts have unfortunately been tensioned by movement in the abutments, and so cracked. There are some 70 cracks in the structure and if you look closely, much repair and reinforcement. However, the structure was grossly over-engineered. A longer bridge was built upstream at Buildwas by Telford (130 ft span) using less than half the amount of cast iron. Even more impressive is the Coalport bridge nearby , which also uses much less cast iron, and it still takes vehicular traffic! Peterlewis 18:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

P.r.lewis?

Is user:P.r.lewis a pseudonym of user:Peterlewis? See Talk:Tay Rail Bridge. If so, why are you using two usernames? DFH 18:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I keep losing my password and then have to sign up again!

The Dee Bridge Disaster

Hello, thanks for your reply. Don't add a reference to your own book, as wikipedia has a policy about No Original research (WP:NOR), which I think is a bit over the top, but which is rigorously enforced. It is why I have never edited any articles about my own areas of scientific research and specialty, even though the existing articles on the subject are quite poor. Get someone else to add your book as a reference. I don't unfortunately, see this policy as evre changing really, which is very very sad.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

The article I wrote orignally for Wiki is hardly "original research"! The Chester jury verdict was published widely in both the Times and the Chester Chronicle in 1847. An encyclopedia must reflect what is out there already, so I am merely adding links to what exists in the publc domain. I understand this to be entirely within the guidelines for Wikipedia, and is true not just of my articles on railway accidents but also the many other articles wrtten by likeminded eds. You are misinterpreting the policy! Peterlewis 21:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion of my reversion (The Great Global Warming Swindle)

Could you give a reason why you re-deleted the text in this edit? I can't see anything factually incorrect about the deleted paragraph. Could you enlighten me? -- Hux 15:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence appeared to have no grammatical sense and was out of context in an introduction. It introduced the idea that the programme was contrary to scientific thought, which I think inappropriate for an intro. That argument should be introduced later I think: it is a question of producing smooth text at the start, rather than a POV.

Peterlewis 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the reply. I'll see if I can incorporate it in a more appropriate manner/place as I do think it's worth mentioning. -- Hux 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Compact fluorescent lamp

Hi Peterlewis. Could you let me know why you reverted my edits on [[Compact fluorescent lamp]? You didn't provide an edit summary, and its a little galling to have my attempts at properly citing references and requesting sources for assertions backed out without a reason being given. Thanks, WLD^talk|edits 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the later edits to restore my own contribution which was deleted. Since I am raising serious issues which must be aired in this article, I think deleting my efforts should be challenged.It is especally important that Wiki articles be NPOV, and not promote a particular POV. Neutrality and balance are surely the mainstays of Wikipedia! Peterlewis 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll take that to mean that means you have no problem with my edits. I note you have been reverted again. I'll take the opportunity to go back to the version I put in. Could I politely request that you cut and paste yours in without removing mine again - I don't think they are necessarily incompatible. Please be careful about getting into an edit war - it might be better to take the issue to the talk page for a while. Regards, WLD^talk|edits 14:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have no problem with your edits and my apologies for the confusion. I will do as you say and add a comment on the talk page. Peterlewis 18:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

James Valentine

I notice there is a page for James Valentine (photographer) and another for Jamers Valentine (photographer) with similar content but more recent edits have been done on Jamers Valentine, surely should be one page for James Valentine. ColinBoylett 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake! There should be only one entry

for James Valentine. How do I delete the Jamers Valentine?Peterlewis 05:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What I did was make it into a redirect page. Just add #REDIRECT [[pagename]] to a blank page. KeithH 08:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wind power/global warming

I've reverted your text that "CO2's role in global warming is controversial" (paraphrasing) in Wind power. I'm not attempting to impose an answer on global warming, but the current text is quite neutral on that issue ("may impose costs" does not seem to me to be too strongly slanted), and the wind power article is already probably too long. It seems to me the global warming articles are the best place for this discussion. Best regards.--Gregalton 10:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS

Please don't re-add links to copyvios, which the youtube of the film undoubtedly is William M. Connolley 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't readers be allowed to watch the video? Is this another example of censorship? Peterlewis 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking. ~ UBeR 19:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You're blocked for incivility [1] guv William M. Connolley 09:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the incivility lies in your attempts at censorship.Peterlewis 09:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You may think that, but WP:CIVIL thinks otherwise; please conform to it or you will not have a happy time William M. Connolley 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lord Browne of Madingley

It's not true to say he hasn't attended any debates as he has spoken in the House on at least three occasions [2]. Therefore I've removed that statement from the article. JRawle (Talk) 22:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

William John Macquorn Rankine

Instead of reverting my edit, perhaps you could a) clarify the sentence you added to it, and notice that b) there was a minor spelling error. --MacRusgail 22:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what I said about Rankine's fatigue work is quite clear! He published a paper in 1842 showing that sudden failure of axles was caused by growth of brittle cracks. There was then a widespread belief that such sudden failures were cause by some mysterious change in the microstructure of the metal. It was totally wrong and misleading, while Rankne was absolutely right, and if more engineers had listened to him (and his observations on stress concentrations), the problem might have been tackled sooner than it was. Peterlewis 06:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be clear to you, but the phrasing was ambiguous to some of the rest of us. Sorry. --MacRusgail 18:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Why unclear? Rankine said that fatigue of axles was caused by growth of brittle cracks. Many other said that it was because the metal recrystallised. Is that a problem? Peterlewis 20:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth

You can't characterize a film as "controversial" without supplying serious evidence for it. Please tell me what serious evidence do you spot in the reference provided: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-05/2006-05-31-voa23.cfm

The movie has been well criticized by many scientists and others for misrepresenting information. An example I researched is the alleged plight of the polar bear. Contrary to Gore's assertion, the polar is not an endangered species at all, and in fact is thriving in Canada and Alaska for example. Gore also grossly exaggerates predictions of sea level rises, going way beyond the IPCC predictions. Many of these points are shown in the Wiki article, so saying it is controversial is no more than summarising public attitudes to the film. All Wiki articles should of course be NPOV. Peterlewis 12:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Trains

Hello and welcome to the Trains WikiProject! Thank you for adding your name to our project membership list. Our goal is to build the most comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. As a project member, you may add the project membership userbox to your user page if you wish.

If you haven't done so already, please add our main project page to your watchlist and take some time to review the Trains project manual of style where we have collected guidelines and suggestions on notability and style for a consistent representation of rail transport related material. If you're curious about where to start, we've gathered a few suggestions in the Trains project to do list. If you'd like to specialize in a particular area of study within rail transport, take a look at the current Trains project task forces.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the project talk page or on my talk page. Again, welcome and happy editing! Slambo (Speak) 10:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nanny state

If you look at the last section on the nanny state talk page, you will see a discussion of the section in question. Most importantly, as-is it violates wikipedia's policy of no original research - if a reporter has called the ban on mercury nanny-statism, cite the relevant article. Otherwise, it looks like whoever added the paragraph (I'm assuming yourself) is putting the idea of Nanny state together with the banning of mercury, thus making it original research. In addition, the paragraph has a very critical tone which seems inappropriate to me, and if the information is to be added back to the page with a citation, it should be re-written. WLU 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pipes article

According to RFCU, Grumpyrob was also Drpipe and Pipeup, as well as a few others. That explains the mess (and a few very interesting edits). I don't see a lot of value in the article, so I would value your opinion on the Talk page as to whether to keep it or toss it. MSJapan 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Angola Rail Crash

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Angola Rail Crash, by Andyjsmith (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Angola Rail Crash is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Angola Rail Crash, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of The Angola Horror

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to The Angola Horror. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://catskillarchive.com/rrextra/wkbkch02.Html in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:The Angola Horror with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:The Angola Horror with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:The Angola Horror saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you want to edit constructively, take a look at the welcome page. Thank you. . Copying someone else's transcription of an original source is a breach of copyright, even if the original source is no longer copyrighted. andy 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As I explained in the article's Talk page, a transcript can be copyright even if the item that's been transcribed is not in itself copyright. You appear to be using text that has been prepared by someone else. You need their permission to do so because it's their transcription not yours.

The copyright can come about in several ways. For example in the EU there is the concept of Database rights which means that if you select material and place it on a database (as is often done on the internet) you have automatically rights pertaining to the selection. Another example is Domesday Book, which has been in the public domain since the time of William the Conqueror. But when a digital edition was made the UK Government and the publisher shared the copyright.

Probably of more relevance in this case is that the person who transcribed the original source (a) invested time and effort and (b) may have used their judgement to make selections and edits to the original text. These two factors may well be sufficient to make the transcription a derivative work that is automatically copyrighted. In the UK it's likely that they would get a 25 year copyright, according to the British Library. I don't know about US law but since the website you copied from carries a copyright notice it's a reasonable starting point to assume that they at least think their work is protected. It's clearly up to you to either obtain their permission to use the material or to prove that it's not protected (or, easiest of all, rewrite it). Otherwise you're simply ripping them off.

andy 22:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is not a "transcription" or a translation but a word-for-word copy of the original book of 1879. That cannot be a copyright work or a dervative work since no-one at Catskll archives has modified the work at all. The value of the text is precisely that it is a facsimile copy. The Domesday book is not copyright, only the form in which it is presented. You cannot copyright ideas or words that are an exact copy of the original. Neither do database rights apply to old books, which means that I or anyone else is free to copy original text without fear of infringng anyone's rights. This is why Google and the Gutenberg project have copied the original texts of many old and out-of-copyright works. I have edited the text down in any case. Peterlewis 06:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter, came here incidentally. You are totally correct with respect to copyright. WP operates under US ;law, since the servers are located in Florida. The EU copyright on databases does not apply at all in the the United States, where this principle has been firmly and consistently rejected by court decisions-- in the US copyright does not arise from "sweat of the brow", but from intellectual activity. Andy's arguments are, to put it simply, just plain wrong. DGG (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

MWP

Peter, I liked your remark about the Orwellian history-rewriters of the MWP. Currently I am trying to correct the misinformation about English wine. Paul Matthews 12:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Photography

What's with this diff? I removed an piece of unsourced content, which is essay-like and goes off on a little tangent in the middle. Why'd you put it back? Gscshoyru 18:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It looked reasonable and interesting for the topic. So why remove? If we removed unsourced material, Wiki would not exist. Peterlewis 07:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Railway Accident at Sonning Cutting

Hi Peter. I've added some external links to this article, all pointing to Google Books. This looks to me like a very good resource for research on railway history (I expect you know all this already, but I thought I'd mention it). Regards, Nick. Nick (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made great use of this excellent resource in my recent book on the Dee bridge disaster and my forthcoming book (with Alistair Nisbet) on the Shipton rail crash near Oxford (1874). The Google resource is revolutionising historical researches! Your links in the Wiki article are super. I only wish that the copyright problem can be cleared so more Victorian works are made available. Peterlewis (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, Peter. Did we ever hear anything from the vicar at Sonning? He never replied to my emails. Regards, Nick. Nick (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a thing! Its a pity we don't know where the victims were buried. Our new book is due to be printed next month where we tell the Sonning story (among many others). Peterlewis (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Four of them are definitely buried at Sonning, my wife found the records at the Berkshire Family History Society, details on the discussion page. Regards, Nick. Nick (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide should not be considered a pollutant

Peter, reason and logic will not prevail with those who close their minds to whatever they have decided is "the truth". Especially those who have only been on the Wikipedia about 3 months and have yet to read or learn about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) or most other policies for that matter ... such as the Wiki policy on civility (WP:Civility). Perhaps that is why he uses phrases like "weasel worded" and "any moron".

You might try informing Gabriel that that Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Science (USA), thinks that global warming theory is based on flawed ideas (See Petition Project). In fact, he has sponsored a petition to have the United States government reject the Kyoto Protocal ... and the petition now has 19,000 signatures.

If he needs hard, scientific evidence that the global warming theory is flawed, ask him to read this article:

A.B. Robinson, N.E. Robinson and Willie Soon, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 78-90. A copy is available online at Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

Keep the faith and keep trying. I thoroughly agreed with the sentence that you added to Air pollution which was deleted by Gabriel. - mbeychok (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. The basic philosophy behind Wiki must be to retain a neutral stance on everything. It cannot be used to push special pleading, and especially redefining words like pollutant. It is a scientific fact that CO2 is vital for all life, but especially plants. Peterlewis (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Peterlewis

Why do you object to ALL parts of my edit in corrosion to revert it? I strongly disagree with some of what, or some of the way it is said there, namely:

• Corrosion is a physical, physico-chemical process, not just a reaction
• Loss of electron is not a common usage but a chemistry usage
• Weakening of iron is a bit of a loose term (it can be better put, that is why I put iron structure, but in my view an iron bar, or object would have been also better)
• electrochemical corrosion needs dissimilar metals to contact, it is a special form of corrosion,
• rust and electrochemical corrosion are NOT interchangeable terms, but the result of electrochemical corrosion maybe rust, red iron oxide, Fe₂O₃, or iron oxide-hydroxide FeO(OH). In a sentence you write about electrochemical corrosion and the next one you say this is rust. Sorry, being pernickety, but rust is not corrosion, although the result of iron corrosion is rust. (We are writing an encyclopedia, and being concise does not hurt)

Best regards, LouisBB (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I was taken aback by the first change which announced that corrosion was a kind of wear! This is a very misleading thing to state at the head of an article. Wear implies mechanical force between two contacting surfaces, but corrosion is much more general than that. Let see if you can come up with a better form of words Peterlewis (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry that I've surprised you, but the word wear does not imply exclusivity to mechanics, as there exists such a thing as chemical wear as well, which indeed is corrossion.

Directly from the article on Tribology:

The subtitle 'Fundamentals of Tribology says:

The tribological interactions of a solid surface's exposed face with interfacing materials and environment may result in loss of material from the surface. The process leading to loss of material is known as "wear". <quote>Major types of wear' include abrasion, adhesion (friction), erosion, and corrosion<Unquote>. Corrosion can occur on its own or combined with other sort of wear. It is true, if you think of it. (I have not written the article) Kind regards LouisBB (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Peterlewis,

As I said above, I have several misgivings about the current introductory text, because I think several parts of it are sloppy, and because of my arguments above I intend to change it again. However,

1. Unlike you, who have not given me the chance to argue my points, I am letting you know in advance, and offer you this chance, before I alter anything.
2. I am happy to do a common edit to find something which we both find acceptable, and something that we can prove being correct.
3. I would not revert to the previous state anyway because there are a couple of further improvements/corrections that I wish to include.
4. One good way of doing such a thing is: in a sandbox, either on your userpage or on mine. (There are precedents for such cooperation on other scientific subjects as well) Please chose what you prefer, but if you decline, then I shall edit the article where it is and copy my above objections onto the discussion page of Corrosion (You cannot carry out a scientific discussion in the edit summary). Kind regards, LouisBB (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it absurd to classify corrosion as a kind of wear. That term is rightly restricted to removal of material by two surfaces in contact. Corrosion may be at work as well, but to describe corrosion as wear is distorting the meaning of simple terms. Peterlewis (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See also section in Archimedes

The usual rule in See also and External links sections is to give additional information that is not already in the article. For the sake of consistency, it is not necessary to add wikilinks or references that have already appeared. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The point here is the emphasis on the Eureka story, so that a major ref is needed, not a byline in the main text. Rules should be used wisely, and not rigidly as you propose. Peterlewis (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Writing edit summaries

Please remember to write edit summaries (I am refering to your recent work in Thermoplastic elastomers). Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Dolaucothi diagram

Hi, Peter. You blanked the image's page, which resulted in it losing all of its source and licensing information. I've restored the good revisions of the image and made sure it's still located in the article. All the best, east.718 at 10:08, March 9, 2008

OK, I don't know how I blanked the image, but I may replace it with a better quality diagram. Thanks for replacing the picture. I also have some more diagrams to add because I found a new archive of my drawings earlier this morning. Peterlewis (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you madeto Forensic science: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ArcAngel (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrosion

Hi Peter

Why did u undo my change in the Corrosion definition?? I think mine is much better, i'm a Corrosion Engineer and i can assure u that the current definition is inaccurate.

Regards

V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittorio6 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the original and your change was ungrammatical. Why not discuss if you feel so strongly about your ideas? I also work in the field. Peterlewis (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

water wheel

Nice page on reverse water wheel. There is a comment on the Archimedes screw that needs clarification. Why does the incline of the Archimedes screw make it more difficult to operate?Granite07 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the overall incline, then the problem is one of balancing on a steepening slope. I'll have another look at the article and see if I can clarify the point.Peterlewis (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I have clarified the point and also added another image which shows an individual wheel in detail to show how it works. Peterlewis (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Greekhse1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Greekhse1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mining in Roman Britain

Hello, Peterlewis. First of all, I'd like to thank you for your work on the Mining in Roman Britain article. I don't want to make a fuss or anything, but I don't think that the sources you added are valid per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper), based on the information you gave about them and your username. I may be wrong, but I think that you wrote several of them, and therefore, they are not considered reliable for here , no offense. The rules are odd like that... Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

1.The refs are quite acceptable because they are mainly co-authored and others are involved who have confirmed our results (for several years now).

2.The refs are from creditable journals in archaeology such The Antiquaries Journal, Journal of Roman Studies and Britainnia, or well known books, such as Burnham's book from 2004. Any encyclopedia must try to keep abreast of the results of agreed research, which are non-contentious, unless you disagree with them. If you do you must give the grounds on which you disagree, and revert my edits and then we can debate the issues of concern. The article as it stands still needs more work in any case for more refs! Peterlewis (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything, and I certainly agree with their use, but I'm just trying to play by the rules. I took them to mean something else. Thanks for responding, I agree more work needs to be done. I actually started this article to get in some hours for an independent study for Latin II, so I didn't figure it would go far beyond stub. Thanks for your work. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 21:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK then. I will try to improve the article from my own collection of references and papers in this important area of work. It is much neglected by historians! Peterlewis (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Welsh Gold Reference

Just a little note to enquire as to why you felt that my replacement Calzaghe Welsh-gold reference needed to be reverted? Granted the execution of the ref was clumsy but I thought the citation gave credence to the statement and was an effective replacement for the previous dead-link removed by Greatestrowerever. Many thanks, --John Gibbard (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And what relevance does your input have to welsh gold mining or the metal extraction therof? Sport refs should surely go to the sports section, otherwise you could be misleading readers. Peterlewis (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair the article contains no 'sport' section to which this content should be moved. The section where the edit took place relates oddly to "royalty" but expounds generally at points on the scarcity of the gold. While the reference to Calzaghe's belt remains in the article it needs to be referenced/cited. As it stands the article is poorly treated in that respect. I can see no reason why the previous User's edit was controversial in that sense. If you don't like the Calzaghe information then delete it, but to revert the addition of a clean cite but leave the statement seems somewhat daft. 203.9.73.203 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't really trying to be controversial or defensive about my edit. I would agree with 203.9.73.203 (v. supra) in that the Calzaghe content is designed to bolster evidence for the desirability and scarcity of Welsh Gold (this article is about the gold itself, not specifically the extraction) and exists in a section which details others (notably royalty) who have revered this metal. I shall re-instate the reference correctly but concede that the article itself does need an improved structure. Reference to this discussion will be made on the article's talk page. --John Gibbard (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of etiquette you should not simply 'undo' users' (non-vandal) edits as you did here, without discussing your issue with the previous edits on the Talk page. As an apparently experienced editor I expect you are aware of Wikipedia policy (including the Three Revert Rule and urge you to take 'strategic distance' from the article in question. The user had raised valid issues at the article's Talk page, which is where the content debate should take place, it should not be overridden by unilateral bloody-minded reverts. 124.170.76.131 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you listen to other editors with valid objections. Perhaps you should put this item in its own category called "Trivia". Encyclopedias have a reputation to maintain. Peterlewis (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged in wikipedia. I'm not sure why such a plain and relevant edit has generated such a frosty debate.--John Gibbard (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Following a further revert on the Calzaghe content I have added material to the article's talk page to develop a solution.--John Gibbard (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pliny's encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Encyclopedia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AnnaJGrant (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to my editing as being described as vandalism. If you look at the article on Pliny you will see much new material which helps update the article from its original state dating to the Britannica of 1911. Readers expect up-to-date articles on Wikipedia! Peterlewis (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Vitruvius

Peter, I liked my version of the Ch7 into. We went around on the final sentences wording and I thought you were satisfied with the revision. This is a request that you revert back to the previous version. The reference to individuals is written to more closely reflect the Morgan translation. If you truely think it must be changed then leave it.Granite07 (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is still long-winded and needs polishing to make the text clear. Have another go if you like. It would also be good if you could get Lost work into the text. Peterlewis (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this ok "it is apparent that there are many ancient texts and individuals works that are lost due to the fact that many listed are unheard of", you can replace the word lost with the phrase lost works? Granite07 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

California Gold Rush edits

Thanks for your quite interesting contributions about the Roman Empire's extensive use of water in gold extraction. If I'm understanding the Roman method, they set up a reservoir, and released the water in a wave. This wave of water removed overburden, and exposed the bedrock. The gold was then extracted manually from the newly-exposed bedrock, using fire and other techniques described in the article. Am I understanding that correctly? NorCalHistory (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The method depended on the deposit. If alluvial gold, they directed a stream from an aqueduct against the soft strata, first to remove large amounts of over burden and to reach the gold-bearing strata, and then used the stream at lower volume to wash the deposit over riffle tables. The method is best shown by Las Medulas where the strata are gigantic and many hundreds of feet in thickness, but there are other sites not far away where the same methods were used to work thinner alluvial strata. At the same time, they also worked placers in river beds, and in one case diverted the river through a tunnel to expose the bed itself. Just as in California, they then traced the gold back to the mother lodes, and used water again in hushing the ground to expose the veins. This is where intermittent waves of water released from holding tanks was important. If a vein was found then fire-setting was the way they attacked the surrounding rock (sluiced away by yet more water). Then they went underground. The methods were described the Pliny the Elder, and the many remains of their aqueducts and tanks found in several different mining areas, especially Spain and Wales. The successive gold rushes in Spain, then Britain and finally Dacia (modern Roumania) helped finance their territorial expansion through Europe. Their technology was probably (yet to be proven though) was used by the Spanish when they invaded Peru centuries later, and certainly was widespread in Britain by the Middle Ages (especially in Cornwall for alluvial tin deposits). I hope this helps: most of the research was done 20 years ago and had been confirmed by others as the literature shows, helping to re-evaluate the role of water power in large-scale mining from the Roman period. I have seen some of the massive aqueducts (around Paradise, Butte Cty, especially) in California your miners built, and they reminded me of the Roman sites I have seen. Peterlewis (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, quite interesting! These Roman mining articles are an elegant and valuable contribution to Wikipedia! I'd love to see the reference material on the riverbed diversion project - has that been published anywhere? Also, I think we can agree that the Romans did not use hoses and nozzles to direct continuous high pressure jets at alluvial deposits? Do you suppose that they didn't have the metallurgy to create the nozzles that could withstand the continuous pressure? I can't imagine that canvas hoses would have presented a problem.NorCalHistory (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Id be happy to send you a copy of our article from the Journal of Roman Studies on the Spanish mines if you can send me your mailing address. We show there the site at Montefurado where the entire river was diverted through a rock-cut tunnel, presumably to attack the placers in the bed of the river. I am not sure about hoses, because they did have fire-engines using force pumps, and certainly had the capability of casting bronze or even forging iron nozzles. They used bronze nozzles for example to regulate water flow on their many aqueducts. We will never know until someone finds one at a gold mine. Peterlewis (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that would be great; you can send the pdf to my gmail address -- - with your permission, I would like to delete even this oblique reference from this page after you have sent the article).

Regarding the use of water in mining, can we agree that there is no evidence of the use of hoses and nozzles to create jets of high pressure water directed at gold deposits, during Roman times (or other times pre-1848)? All of the reference works I've read indicate that the combination of those particular elements was pioneered during the California Gold Rush. Please let me know your thoughts! NorCalHistory (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed the article to you, and agree that the current state is that there is no evidence they used hoses in hydraulic mining, although they did have the capability of developing the method. Peterlewis (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

About the California Gold Rush article, the sources I am aware cite the California use of hoses, nozzles and continuous jets of water as major advances in gold-recovery technology. The current language in the article reads

"In hydraulic mining (which was widely used in California at this time), a high-pressure hose directs a powerful stream or jet of water at gold-bearing gravel beds."

I'd like to change the text and add a reference as follows:

"In a modern style of hydraulic mining, a high-pressure hose directs a powerful stream or jet of water at gold-bearing gravel beds.<ref> Use of volumes of water in large-scale gold-mining dates at least to the time of the Roman Empire. Roman engineers built extensive aqueducts and reservoirs above gold-bearing areas, and released the stored water in a flood so as to remove over-burden and expose gold-bearing bedrock, a process known as hushing. The bedrock was then attacked using fire and mechanical means, and volumes of water were used again to remove debris, and to process the resulting ore. Examples of this Roman mining technology may be found at Las Médulas in Spain and Dolaucothi in South Wales. The gold recovered using these methods was used to finance the expansion of the Roman Empire. Hushing was also used in lead and tin mining in Northern Britain and Cornwall. There is, however, no evidence of the earlier use of hoses, nozzles and continuous jets of water in the manner developed in California during the Gold Rush.</ref>. This type of hydraulic mining was invented in California at this time, and its use later spread around the world."

Please let me know your thoughts! NorCalHistory (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a fair summary of the current position. There are many more sites to examine though, which may change the picture we have of Roman technology! Peterlewis (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your hard work in setting up this very interesting information! NorCalHistory (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It was work we did 20 years ago but most historians tend to shy away from anything technical or technological, so little has been done since (apart from my Spanish colleagues, who have done excellent work at Las Medulas and elsewhere). Yet such hydraulic methods lie at the heart of progress, are they not? I have recently taken up the subject of mining history again, just to see what can be done to clarify the many problems still to be resolved. There are hundreds of old mines which would yield further information on the way they used hushing and other methods, and some Wiki friends are doing just that on Dartmoor for example, where the traces of hush gullies and the many long leats are so widespread (for tin this time rather than gold). Is there a good technical history of the California gold rushes which charts the development of hydraulicing? Peterlewis (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll look through my books to see if there is one that is especially focussed on mining history; one that comes readily to mind is Rawls and Orsi (eds.) A Golden State: Mining and economic development in Gold Rush California; Univ. of Calif. Press; Berkeley 1999. This is a collection of essays about the economics of the Gold Rush, and many of the essays deal with different parts of the California "hydraulicking" - but no one essay is devoted only to that topic. If you're familiar with Google Books, you'll find extended excerpts of the book available here. For example, you'll likely enjoy the photograph on p. 95. I'll see if I can come up with some other(s)! NorCalHistory (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good one: Hill, Mary, Gold: The California story; Univ. of Calif. Press; Berkeley 1999. Chapter seven acknowledges the Roman history and mentions Pliny's account, and then contains a detailed discussion of the initial creation and development of the technique. Ever helpful, Google Books has the entire chapter set out here. Enjoy! NorCalHistory (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that chapter, really useful, especially for the environmental problems. Pliny also said that the coast of Spain had grown into the sea as a result of hydraulic mining, just like the sediments in San Francisco Bay. I might add her book to the biblio in hydraulic mining. Peterlewis (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Gully

I wrote you a reply on the discussion page. Thank you. 92.113.140.188 (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Leats & things

Hi - saw the query on the leat talk & answered there. Not really an en wp user - more of a Commons contributor but I am getting out & photographing aspects of the moors at present. If you think of anything that might be useful to get a pic of feel free to nudge me - not a brilliant photographer but some of mine are better than nothing :) This shows a leat line as does this. I tried one or two actual leat pics but nothing that is worthwhile so far. I am also trying to get mine related ones too. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Loved your pictures! Presumably you will upload to the leats article with a short description of where you found the leats, and possible any comments about their age etc. I know the Vitifer mine leat is actually marked on the OS Tourist map of Dartmoor. Do you have any pics of Vitifer? There is one already from near the Warren House Inn, but more would be welcome. Peterlewis (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have is to be happy using "my" photos objectively. To me most of them are not that good (I took a couple of one of the leats feeding Hooten Wheels workings but they weren't that good. I've been out today & have (I hope) a photo of the Devonport leat + some more workings - I'll likely upload them tomorrow. I'll look at Vitifer again soon I'm sure but this is literally over the hill from it. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My last five uploads may be of interest? Not brilliant but a flowing leat at least? I will certainly try & add to the stock when I can, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

They are all good: will you upload them to leats? Where is the water used now by the way?Peterlewis (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you have already used them which is fine (the advantage of Commons - no need to upload elsewhere so use all you like!). The leat now feeds Burrator reservoir - I guess maintaining it with growing development around Plymouth would not have been practical but as yet I've not found when the change took place. I'll certainly try and get some more "leat" pics when I can - thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't resist the urge to use your pics, they are so photogenic. I hope you don't mind my choice. I have also added a section of the Dolaucothi leats from work which is now 30 plus years old. There is clearly much more which could be done though on all the many other leats on Dartmoor. Thanks for your great work here. Do you know the gradient of the leat? Peterlewis (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hemery isn't specific neither are any of the other books I have. Looks to me as though it comes off the West Dart at about the 400 metre mark though & Devonport was sea level basically. Length was 34.2km. Obviously now the distance & drop would be different. Hemery quotes a daily flow of 4.5 million litres daily btw - while doubtless some of that came from feeders below Burrator it still looks pretty substantial (Hemery - Walking the Dartmoor waterways, David & Charles 1986 which looks like first publication for info). Hope it is of interest - I would not call myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination but you kind of pick up some knowledge as you go through life :) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Geological Society

Hi Peter, I see you just added William Smith to the summary list of past presidents in Geological Society of London. This would surprise me given the history - do you have a date? I can't spot any gaps in President of the Geological Society of London#List of Presidents. Pterre (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right, and I have deleted him from that list (which I mistook as "distinguished previous members"). He deserves more than a passing mention somewhere in this article though, especially as they hold an original copy of his famous map. The way he was treated by the early society should perhaps be written up for the article, perhaps under a new section "early controversies"? Peterlewis (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his story certainly shows the early members up in a very bad light, though perhaps typical of the 'Gentlemen v Players' attitudes of the times. I agree that a section on Smith and perhaps other controversies would be good. One that springs to mind is Kelvin vs Huxley (and I think later Rutherford - I remember reading that an aged Kelvin attended a lecture by a young Rutherford, but perhaps this was elsewhere) on the Age of the Earth. For balance this should probably be a general historical section on happenings at the society. Pterre (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Friction

So sorry about that. I fight vandal and sometimes make mistakes, no matter how hard I try to be careful. Please forgive me. Oda Mari (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your blanking of the page at Friction is not an appropriate edit. In view of your editing record I'm assuming this was a mistake, or that you thought it was another article (thanks to the recent move vandalism). You might want to make sure your password is secure. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't blank the page on friction because a vandal had changed the title to Our guide to friction. I blanked that page saved all of the article and restored the original title! Peterlewis (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Sorry to bother you. For future reference, when move vandalism like this occurs it's usually better to just let an Admin know so they can move the whole article back. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hydraulics

Thanks for the beautiful extensions to the history of hydraulics. For your information: hydraulics is applied hydrodynamics, see the article lead. So, if you intent to add more, perhaps you can keep that in mind. Happy editing, Crowsnest (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on modern theory needs more development I suppose? I have made a start with Poiseuille, but Stokes should be added as well as numerous modern uses. Peterlewis (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mills

Would you be interested in a proposed WikiProject on mills? Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Yes of course. Peterlewis (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Thanks for the reversion of vandalism. However, when you undo a single edit, it's also worth checking the history of the article to see whether the user has made other edits, and undoing those too. See Here for one example you missed, and Here for another you missed on the 23rd March. I find Twinke very useful. Stephenb (Talk) 08:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

Hi there. You may have mistakenly added some vandalism to the radiocarbon dating article. I've removed the text that you added. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that happened! The version I reverted was precisely that which appears under my edit, so well spotted. Are the vandals getting more skilled at it? Peterlewis (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is I reverted the vandalism just before you did. No need to worry about vandals getting better, just other editors getting under your feet :-P Nev1 (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ozone cracks in tube1.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Peterlewis!
We thank you for uploading Image:Ozone cracks in tube1.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hushing

Can you give me a page number please for Hansford Worth where he uses the word "hushing" so that I can verify your citation. The term is not used on Dartmoor at all as far as I can determine. Equally I cannot find the gully you refer to on that website - kindly make the link one that gets to the correct place. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion page for hushing, where I provide a reference to mining in Cornwall where hushing was used in the 1580's. I have put the external link on the Great Dun fell hush (one of the largest in Britain and a landmark for walkers in the Pennines) with advice to use the search engine on the site.Peterlewis (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - however you reference Dartmoor via Hansford Worth - I can find no mention of Hushing in any of the books I have. Page number please (edition should be an issue I have more than one) or it must be removed, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will have another look at my copy of Worth, and report back. However, the new reference justifies keeping the mention of hushing in Cornwall in the current article. It is a good reference, and might be worth quoting for the allusion to destruction! Peterlewis (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Perplexing revert

Hi Peterlewis. I'm a bit puzzled by this revert of yours. Why do you think it is necessary to have two links to Herculaneum in 'See also'? Surely one is enough? Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I could only find one ref as a main pointer although you are right, it is mentioned many other times in the same article. Perhaps I reverted too quickly! Peterlewis (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry! It's very easy to misread, at least on my computer, because the "Garden of the Fugitives" image interferes with the alignment. But here's the relevant part of the 'see also' list:

• Herculaneum
• Pompei, the modern town
• Herculaneum

Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have excised the extra ref but added another about the aqueduct. Peterlewis (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, that's what I was looking for when I first read the article. So thank you twice! Jakew (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the aqueduct mainly because I am reading Harris's book about the eruption. He is quite good on the technicalities and the aqueduct is the main character, followed by the engineer who works on it. Trevor Hodge has a section on the details of the terminal reservoir in Pompeii. I have added Trevor's book as another reference. Peterlewis (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-JPEG graphs

Hello, Peterlewis. I noticed you recently uploaded Image:Spec1.jpg‎ and Image:Crack2.jpg. These are nice graphs, but they are saved in the JPEG format. When an image like this is saved as a JPEG, some of the quality of the image is permanently lost, so you get compression artifacts in the image (which show up as "fuzz" around sharp edges, such as the text in these graphs). It would be nice if we could get versions of these graphs which have never gone through the process of JPEG compression. Do you have these graphs saved in a different format? —Bkell (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have questions, or if I can help you, please let me know. You might also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload, especially the section called "Do not save diagrams as JPEG". —Bkell (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any loss of definition in my jpeg downloads of diagrams, and my scanner won't save in png or other lossless formats. Is there a way of overcoming the problem? I certainly would be interested for other publication purposes. Peterlewis (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are using Windows to scan these images, I think you can go to the Control Panel, choose "Scanners and Cameras," and then double-click on your scanner to use the Windows scanning wizard (rather than the scanning software provided by the scanner manufacturer). This gives you the option to save the resulting image in several formats, including PNG. Higher-resolution images are also preferred here on Wikipedia. After uploading a high-resolution image, you can scale it to any size when it is used in an article. You might try about 300 dpi. —Bkell (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SBSstructure.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Peterlewis!
We thank you for uploading Image:SBSstructure.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Neolithic

I've reverted your edit as there seemed to be no reason to delete stuff. see my edit summary.Doug Weller (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. I didn't delete anything but added points about the importance of polished stone tools, which is pretty central to the New Stone Age. Peterlewis (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. This cold is hitting me worse than I thought, I misread what had been done and it looked to me that you had deleted text. Can you get a reference for that though? I agree with it.Doug Weller (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It hardly needs a reference because the use of polished stone tools is central to the concept of dividing prehistory into various periods depending on the type and sophistication of the tools used. The neolithic is so named because of the "new" technology of polished stone tools (lithic). As a matter of interest I have been editing up this aspect of prehistory because such key information seems to have been lost in many articles. The division of prehistory in this way goes back to the Victorian period, where there are many refs, if needed. Peterlewis (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GWR truck.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:GWR truck.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:GWR truck.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:GWR truck.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Popular science

We don't include images in articles just because they're "inspiring". Images included in articles must help illustrate a point in the text somehow. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just added text to make the point. Images in Wiki articles are its strength not its weakness. Peterlewis (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Images are not just for decoration; the image you added doesn't illustrate any point in the text. Please see Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity for Wikipedia's guidelines on image use in articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Read my contributions again please before jumping to conclusions. Peterlewis (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I did... Let's start with this: Why do you think this image belongs in the article? Equazcion •✗/C • 11:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Animations are another form of communicating a message which cannot yet be used in scientific papers, and there is a similar problem with the scientific literature over colour pictures. As a working scientist myself I know directly of these problems. Wikipedia is making a substantial contribution itself to popular science, by using many different media to educate the general public. If you argue that Wiki for example, is just another encyclopedia on a computer screen, I suggest you think again. This article is also, I notice in the history of science project, to which I have made many contributions. I also observe that many of the articles simply do not make enough of Wiki Commons, which is there I think to help editors improve articles.Peterlewis (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I agree it is great that animations are possible on this site, and I'm not against using them. My concern is that Wikipedia has rules regarding when images and animations should be used. Any media content in an article should help illustrate the point described in the text. I'm just failing to see how this image helps illustrate what's being described in the text. Could you elaborate on that? Equazcion •✗/C • 11:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well read my last message again about the scientific literature and Wikipedia. I can add text to elaborate in the article why the medium itself is important in the issue of popular science. Perhaps some of these issues should be aired more widely because they go to the heart of the Wiki philosophy. And why remove my text about scientific controversy. I was trying to address the query which someone had put against the point later in the artcile about over-simplification. These issues should be aired and discussed with pics if needed. The article at present is devoid of examples, which reduces its credibility. Peterlewis (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited the text to remove (or so that it would at least contain less) original research and be more neutral. I agree that animations can be useful, but I'm just still in the dark on how this particular image is useful to this article. If you mean animation in and of itself is useful in the field of popular science, then perhaps you could leave the image out of the article until there's some text describing that point? Otherwise the image is really just irrelevant. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not original research at all, and you deleted my contributions before I had a chance to make several points! Do you want to improve this article or just start another edit war? Peterlewis (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To say that "Some popular science can be misleading" [3] is a personal opinion, so yes it's original research and not neutral. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Research misunderstood

You misunderstand the research embargo on Wikipedia. To say that "Some popular science can be misleading" is a provable fact and not POV, as perusal of many articles will show. There are numerous articles entitled "Controversial ----" which should be brought into focus in an article on popular science. Otherwise you are misleading the general public, which I would have thought is antiWiki per se. Peterlewis (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If "Some popular science can be misleading" is a fact, you need to provide a source that says so. Otherwise it shouldn't be in the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you deleted my text where I gave examples, without any discussion or thought. Are you interested in improving the article or not? Peterlewis (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm interested in ending this conversation. I'm going to let someone else deal with you. Cheery-o. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Image_at_popular_science -- Feel free to comment there. Ta. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Here from WP:3O; I'm going to leave something on the article's talk rather than here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

New polymer degradation articles

Hi Peter, I've seen your name come up in connection with a recent group of new articles related to the main Polymer degradation article. Many of them, like Photo-oxidation of polymers, were written by new editors. Now don't get me wrong, this activity is fantastic! Out of curiosity, do you know what's going on? Perhaps these are students of yours on a class project? Melchoir (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the new additions are nothing to do with me or any of my students. I have sugested merging some with the main article, but to no avail. Some of the titles are too long as well, and much of the material is repetitive. Peterlewis (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that mystery lives on then... I agree that there's repetition; some of the articles will have to be merged with each other, if not to the main article. Melchoir (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dolaucothi and gold mining

Hi Peterlewis

I like your illustrations on the goldmining at Dolaucothi. I'm an archaeology student and have to create a presentation on the topic of Roman gold mines. Are there any further illustrations I'm not aware of (because they are hidden somewhere in commons)?. Thank you. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many more in our publications. If you can give me a mailing address, I will put them in the post to you. Peterlewis (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC) I haven't uploaded any more to Wiki because they tend to be more detailed and rather more abstruse. Have you had a look at Barry Burnham's book from Oxbow of 2004? Peterlewis (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have the book, but I can only copy and scan the copy afterwards. That's not improving quality. My email is kurt.scholz@gmx.de . Regards Wandalstouring (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed you a copy of our JRS article but it really only deals with the Spanish gold mines. Please email a reply with your mailing address and I will post copies of our Dolaucothi articles. Peterlewis (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi PeterLewis, I'm glad someone took up this part of the pages I started on Gold Mining and this arrea of Wales in Gereal. My brother lives in Llanrhystud which isn't far from here. Great Job User:RebelScum

I have many more pics which I will upload when I get time. Peterlewis (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Literary forgery

I reinstated the edit you reverted here and explained my reasoning on the article's talk page. If you still think it's vandalism, feel free to revert me again, but please explain your reasoning on the talk page. Yours, Huon (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Creeping flow

Hello Peter. I changed the section name to creeping flow on the Stokes article. I very much like the info you have added, but if possible, can you add some years or other references, especially w.r.t. the claim that Stokes found why droplets and ice crystals stay suspended? Regards, Crowsnest (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to do a little research to find the details. Stokes is rather neglected as a major scientist, but has for long been of fascination to me personally ever since I demonstrated the creeping flow experiment to students. I have often used polarized light in my own work, and his other work on blood flow suggests a man of very broad vision. It may take time to fill out the details because his work is rather scattered through the literature. I have definitely seen refs to his work on clouds, so I will start there. Peterlewis (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Would you like me to archive your talk page?--SRX^--LatinoHeat 17:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes thats fine by me.Peterlewis (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ozone Structure

Hello Peter. I was wondering why you chose to revise my edits to the section on the structure of Ozone. I had written "A Lewis dot structure would describe the bonding as a single bond on one side and a double bond on the other side, but these bonds are blended to become known as resonance structures. The bond order is 1.5 for each side." I admit to not being an expert on Chemistry, but I found the phrasing of the current description of the structure unsatisfactory. It makes the two bonds appear to be of different lengths, and describes the bonds as single and double bonds while they are really of some sort of intermediate 1.5 bond order resonance bond. I have found that beginning Chemistry students are easily confused on this subject and thought the section could use a rephrasing. If you have any suggestions I'm all ears. Dragonjimmyy2k (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But I haven't edited your contribution at all, so I wonder who has (presumably under my name)? Your contribution looks very sensible to me. I added a section on ozone cracking but have done very little else to the article. Peterlewis (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Natural History (Pliny)

Did you or did you not read my edit summary? It states:

According to Wikipedia Images and Manual of Style, lead images should be placed on the right and either set to a default of 180px or 300px in order to conform with user preferences.

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images:

Start an article with a right-aligned lead image...

Image size is a matter of preference. Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for the overwhelming majority of readers), and a maximum of 300px. It is recommended that lead images be no smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences.

So tell me, PeterLewis, what compelled you to work against Wikipedia guidelines? On those grounds, yes I do object to your edit and I will be reverting it based on Wikipedia's own Manual of Style.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to dislike the size 300px so much, I have reduced it to the default of 180px (by just stating "thumb" and "right"), which is acceptable.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Only my own design experience. I don't believe in bureaucratic or Stalinist attempts to impose a uniform style on editors. There are many excellent articles which start with a left lead image and so break your rules. The rules are there to guide and suggest not to be imposed as a dictat. Look at Joseph Priestley for example. Peterlewis (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Having seen your revert, I think you need an exercise in design editing. Your current revert has been reverted, but if you insist on grotesque images, then it would be better to delete the picture entirely. Peterlewis (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Flint tool

My reply to your question is on my Talk page - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have further replied to you on my Talk page - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Titus

Go ahead and shrink it down to whatever size you think apropriate. I was just moving it to the right side of the article, where it belongs. Ford MF (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of moving it to the right. It sits much better on the left to balance the pic of the book. Page design is surely important for all articles. Peterlewis (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is. Please take a minute to read WP:MOS. Ford MF (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I known this manual and it suggests guidelines not rigid rules. Many articles start with images on the left such as Joseph Priestley. Peterlewis (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User page

I wikified your user page. I hope you don't mind. Nephron  T|C 04:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Tay Rail Bridge

As you are a major contributor to this article, I wanted to make certain that you were aware of its GA Sweeps review, which can be found here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Muchenstein rail disaster

Can you provide any references for this article? Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course. I am in the process of writing the article. Peterlewis (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to rewrite it, please don't blank the existing content and leave a blank page: It's considered vandalism. I've undone your blanking again, please cease. You may also want to note that reverting the edits of others is only for obvious vandalism. (See WP:REVERT) Kylu (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I misspelt the title which is why there is already another article. Read the discussion page! The easiest thing to do is to delete the original. This is not vandalism but correct editing. PS There is no such place as Muchenstein, but ther really is somewhere called Munchenstein! Peterlewis (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Timothy Evans, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

More leat stuff!

Hi - I managed to get some more pictures over the past few days including some relating to the Devonport leat. Specifically I have a photo of the off take on the West Dart, the aqueduct at the base of Raddick Hill and the pipe feeding from the Meavy. I also have a photo of the ironwork on that with the date 1915. Do you feel these would be of interest anywhere? Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Brillaint: can you put them in articles about those leats in particular or the larger one on leats in general? Peterlewis (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This one is already available. I'll get the others uploaded as soon as I can & drop you a note. Feel free to make use of them as you see fit. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK - more Devonport leat stuff. There is a view along the aqueduct & the supporting bridge. Almost adjacent to that is the inflow from the Meavy and the date on the ironwork there. Hopefully something of interest. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Olmec

Hi Peter Lewis

I did an unfinished GA review for Olmec. I think it really needs someone familiar with archaeology to check the article and the sources and set some things straight. Do you know any archaeologist on wikipedia who would be interested? Thank you. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You could but try Colin4C (Talk | contribs): We have clashed on other subjects but he says that he is an archaeologist, so it is worth trying him out. Peterlewis (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Antioxidant

Hi Peter, thanks for the addition. As you can probably tell from reading the article, I only really know the biological side of these compounds. Would it be possible for you to add a general reference for the material you added? I'd try to add one myself but I'm sure you would find this much easier than I would! All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I will try to find a recent source for the article. I will also expand that section since it is important for many industrial polymers and other substances. Peterlewis (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tay Bridge Disaster

Peter, hi. I note that you've reverted my recent changes to the Tay Rail Bridge article with the comment "revert poor edit". Can I ask which of the changes you consider to be a "poor edit" - the image placement, the rail accident infobox, and/or the wording change? I feel that all three changes, none of which affected the actual content significantly, were an improvement to the appearance of the article, but you obviously disagree: can we come to a compromise on what might be acceptable? We can continue this discussion on the article talk page if that's more appropriate. Tevildo (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I did revert because you left a big hole in the middle, and the format of pics was also poor. Try again: I have no problem with good formatting, but it becomes difficult with so many images. Peterlewis (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As I see the page, it has a big hole in the middle as it stands, and my edit was an attempt (which appeared successful to me) to fix it. :) I've proposed a more radical solution (splitting the page); I'm sure I don't need to actively solicit your comments. Tevildo (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:ConverterB.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ConverterB.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The image is in the public domain since it was published in 1867, and I have tagged the image with an appropriate marker.

Buckingham Palace telegrams

On Talk:Supercentenarian you posted a list of a list of how many cards are sent out by the Queen for each birthday. Is this information available online somewhere? SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. My son phoned the palace for the figures but I wonder if they may be on the Buckingham Palace website?? Let me know if you find anything.Peterlewis (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics Article

Hi, I see you reverted my recent edit to the Eugenics article. Could you please tell me here on what grounds you object, and what (if any) edit to the opening paragraph you would consider acceptable. Regards Hadrian89 (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism article

Peter, I reverted a statement I think you added to this article about reuse being justified to protect public health and safety, because the statement was added to material quoted from a specific source and is not mentioned in that source. At first thought it looked like vandalism. But on reflection, thought maybe you didn't notice it was part of material from a cited source (Samuelson article).

Anyway, if you have a different source for the statement about public health and safety, you might add it back with that source. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't need any refs for something which is self-evident! I work in the area and frequently re-publish my research when public safety is at risk. I will revert because it is too important an issue to be ignored. Peterlewis (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Plagiarism. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Tedickey (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

John Prebble

I note that you reverted my edits to the John Prebble article since I did not explain them. Essentially, I was trying to redirect the focus back onto the subject, John Prebble, which your edits were undoing, IMHO. The article on the Tay Bridge disaster, I think, is the place to be adding to the story, not the bio page of one of is chroniclers. Verne Equinox (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, his book was the first to put the disaster in context, so it is worth saying something about it in the article. Much more detail is given in the Tay bridge disaster article itself. The Prebble article is in fact very thin at the moment so you could add some more on his other books perhaps. Peterlewis (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Roman technology

Hi Peter. Just wanted to point out that we have now have two links each for Pliny the Elder, Vitruvius and the Traianus site. Not sure whether this makes sense, particularly since we could post so many other internal and external useful links instead. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed them! Revert my edit. It comes from starting work too early. Peterlewis (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

NDT Revision

Good day! Thank you for your review and revision of the NDT article. I particularly appreciate your comment regarding the value of NDT in forensic engineering. However, I have a few questions concerning the content you removed from the 'Background' section. I understand that the material may have been a bit abstract, but I was seeking to explain the principles behind NDT before presenting large lists and paragraphs of real-life examples. After your revision, the remaining paragraph is essentially a paraphrase of the abstract at the beginning of the article. Please see the 'discussion' page for the NDT article for more details. Thanks! Tythos Eternal (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Terror bombing Blitzkrieg

See my comments on the talk page. Your inputs are misleading in the extreme, are uncited and use POV style language. Terror bombing was not a part of the Blitzkrieg doctrine and has nothing to with it. Yes, they bombed civilians during the course of campaigns, but that was improvised. According to your logic one could say the British practised Blitzkrieg. I have now added James Corum to a section on "Air power". Dapi89 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Bridge failures

The list of bridge failures is a sortable wikitable so that users can sort by any field including date. Thus it doesn't matter in which order data is added as it is always re-sortable using the arrow buttons in the header rows. Let me know if this is a problem. Velela (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work on my list. Some disasters still appear out of order, and there is some duplication as well. Could you fix it? Peterlewis (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Curious. It works for me on Firefox, Opera and IE6. I've spent the best part of 2 days in total over the last couple of months improving this article but would be very happy for you to further improve - bridge accidents aren't actually any interest of mine, I was just doing my social duty and improving where I could! Velela (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted one superfluous entry but I think you should integrate your new entries in correct order! Peterlewis (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

To start with they were not my entries - I was just concatenating a list into a table as per consensus; and secondly I find it extremely curious that one editor should be assuming that it is possible to instruct another what to do. I have never encountered it before on Wikipedia and hope not to do so again. Velela (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Luftwaffe 1939-45

As you will note, the dates do not coincide with the German involvement Spanish Civil War which was withdrawn by January. I am planning on adding another article covering 33-39 in which that would be applicable. The article is already far too long and is in need of cutting down. Secondly, German war crimes has its own article. If you check the discussion page you will see this ground has been gone over before. Ideally, Luftwaffe war crimes should have its own article. Thirdly, all the information you posted is unsourced. As an editor who has been around for a few years (and a lecturer no less!), you should know uncited material can be removed at will. Dapi89 (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

None is unsourced, as you will see from the editcopy articles. They need links if you are reverting. Otherwise the article, even in its new form, is unbalanced. The article reads like a panegyric rather than an unbiased and neutral contribution. Are you suggesting that my additions are figmernts of my imagination?? Peterlewis (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If they are anything like your edits to the Blitzkrieg article, which were totally false, then yes.

I suggest you read my comments again. A lecturer should be capable of simple reasoning. They are unsourced in the article in question. Being sourced elsewhere doesn't count!

So the article is not NPOV is it? I suggest you read it. As I have said already, it was discussed before, and I added a red link for Luftwaffe War Crimes, but the other contributor refused to take up the challange of creating such an article. Maybe you are up to it, which is why I am suggesting it. Dapi89 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is completely not-neutral and lacks important aspects of Luftwaffe's activities. Right now Dapi89 they are two editors with disagreement with you. An example of what should be included. [4]

Not true Molobo, I'm finding common ground with Peter, because he can compromise and use common sense.

Peter, I fully agree with your latest suggestion as an interim solution. I would like your comments on my reply. Dapi89 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

History of Luftwaffe

I tried changing that article as well. Will contact you when I have time to perform a major edit on that. You have my support for introducing war crimes information there.--Molobo (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you would. It can't have been that important, because you refused to create on article based on this subject. This is the sound logical step. Dapi89 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Creating a seperate article will be justified once the content here on war crimes will reach satisfactory level--Molobo (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. If anything it should be the other way around. War crimes is just one tiny faction of an infinite number of topics. The problem with you is, you think it should dominate the article and giving it undue weight in what is a huge subject. Dapi89 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

War crimes are an important facet of the way Germany behaved in the last war, so need mention. To treat the Luftwaffe during this period as just another airforce is misleading and a biased view of the true situation. Peterlewis (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't important, or that it did not warrant inclusion. What I object to is having a huge section on this subject that dominates it. Mobolo only contributes to war crime articles on wikipedia, so in his (biased) opinion, he wants a huge section on it. War crimes aren't the only thing people want to read about. So my position is not biased, at all. I also wanted it to include published literature, not self-published websites by individuals who can say anything they like, much less including an unsourced information that can be removed instantly. The Luftwaffe was the same as another air force controlled and directed by a dictatorship. Will you be contributing to the war crimes of Bomber Command, the Red Air Force, the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force, or the Regia Aeronautica? There are plenty of them. Dapi89 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are already expressing a biased opinion by accusing the RAF of war crimes, by which I mean crimes which have been identified by a major trial. The war crimes of the Luftwaffe were described and specified at Nuremburg, and there is good documentary evidence for them at Dachau and several other concentration camps. The RAF certainly didn't use prisoners for cold water immersion experiments for example. Peterlewis (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again Peter, you fail to understand. I am not defending the Luftwaffe, so, stop referring to me as bias. Your opinion and your logic is extremely flawed. I could say you are bias for refusing to entertain the idea that the RAF committed a war crime. Try applying your own principles.

Are you saying just because Harris or BC didn't stand any sort of trial, that what they did doesn't count as a war crime? What is your deinition of a war crime? I suggest you look up War Crime and read the first sentence. Applying it to BC fits doesn't it?

If you are trying to goad my be making suspect accusations it isn't working. You're only highlighting your own childishness and lack of any proper and sensible argument. Dapi89 (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverse overshot water-wheel

Hi Peter. Just curious, but what is the difference between an overshot water-wheel and a reverse overshot water-wheel? Do the wheels turn in the opposite direction? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The former is rotated by falling water while the latter is a device for raising water, so works in the reverse direction (hence the name). There is a well preserved example in the Roman gallery of the British Museum. It was found in the Victorian age by opencast mining at Rio Tinto in Spain. If they could use these devices so widely, it seems taht conventional water wheels were probably quite common in the Roman Empire. More examples are being found in Britain by inference (water channels etc). Peterlewis (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

So you mean basically a noria? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes in terms of function, but not in design. The noria is I believe, based on pots while the Roman water lifting machine was much more carefully constructed with boxes for the water. The example in the BM was also pre-fabricated from numbered parts (each wooden component is carefully numbered) so a kit could be sent where needed and then easily assembled by an unskilled workman. The design is much more similar to the overshot water wheel than a noria. Peterlewis (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI on Medieval Warm Period

Accidently rolled you back, I swear I saw "me so horny blahblah" in the diff. Sorry about that... I reverted it back once I saw my mistake. Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Liability problems section?

Are you sure the Liability Problems section really belongs in the James Crosby article? At first I wondered if you were enjoying a bit of POV, but then I saw your other diligent contributions.... Anyway, you might want to take a fresh look at it - feels a bit out of place to me. - Pointillist (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the news item is so shocking that it ought to go here, as well as in HBOS. This is clearly a developing story: change the title by all means. This is not POV but factual information about banks and the legacy of Crosby. Peterlewis (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

CFL

Your revert of my removal seems to indicate that you didn't read my edit summary. First off, the wording used by the IP who posted it doesn't make sense. Secondly, what was said is inconsistent with the article (I've read it). If it were truly NPOV, it would highlight what the article did say, ie consumers were partially to blame for their own perceived frustration as they weren't installing them properly. Also the article made a simple mention about mercury issues when criticising the government's Energy Star program. The way it's worded is POV and therefore removed. If you wish to fix the wording so that it's consistent with what the cited article actually says then by all means feel free to do so. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly did read your edit summary. So consumers are to blame for not installing CFLs?? Explain please how a user can misinstall a simple bulb.\ the claim is cle3arly nonsensical. The wrv makes good sense, and ensures taht this artcile provides balanced opinions. Peterlewis (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

This has nothing to do with who I think is to blame, it has to do with what the cited article actually says. If you re-add the text in its current state, thereby continuing to breach inclusion policy (and 3RR), then you will be blocked for continued disruption to Wikipedia. However, if you take the time to read the cited article and then wish to fix the wording of the text I'm open to discussion. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing you actually have read the cited article because if you had you would notice that the text as is is not what the article says. I really don't know how else to tell you this? Shall we go through it line by line together? You're not new here so please don't waste time and let's sort this petty issue as I'm sure we both have better things to do. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read the article and think the article is a fair reflection. It cites consumer problems with CFLs and this is what the text says. If you want to impose your own ideas that is a POV. Peterlewis (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We can go back and forth but it won't change the fact that the text is rubbish and cannot be re-added to the article without discussion as it was not a fair reflection at all. We'll go through it line by line if need be mate. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a possible NPOV version with clarifications that weren't present, ie the NYT article cited poor labelling as a factor. Further note that the NYT article said nothing of "increased use of mercury to lower costs", which is why the original text was rubbish.

--

Reliability: A March 2009 article found consumers saying that CFLs had sometimes failed to work, or had worn out prematurely. Experts say the issue is compounded by poor packaging instructions that leads consumers to install the bulbs incorrectly which greatly shortens their lives. The Federal Trade Commission has begun to study whether it should force improvements in the labels of the bulbs. Further it was suggested that the US government's push to lower the costs of the bulbs has led to the utilisation of cheaper components. Consumers are supposed to be able to protect themselves by buying bulbs certified under the government’s Energy Star program, however experts and environmental groups warn that those standards are weak, as they allow low-quality bulbs with too high a level of mercury.

-- Nja²⁴⁷ 06:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yo, this NJA dude sent me a banning threat too when I tried to report my original cite to the NY Times article. Is this guy some kind of cyber vigilante, or what?

Why doesn;t he just rewrite the damm thing himself if he doesn;t like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.194 (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what constitutes a cyber vigilante, but I reckon I'm not one, unless of course it's someone who's unbelievably fabulous in every way, then that may be an appropriate description. Anyhow, if you bothered to read the NYT article in the first place this wouldn't be an issue, but further if you had bothered to read this section you would have noticed that I did re-write the thing myself. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert ruleat Compact fluorescent lamp. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: SPI

Your name was mentioned in this SPI case. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry Bessemer

Referring to your recent edit to Henry Bessemer. I believe there are many railway bridges still exsting of wrought iron, as opposed to cast iron or steel. There are also I believe many wrought iron structures - Olympia in London is one I think. I'm a bit pressed for time ar pres, so I'll have to leave the ball in your court. Chevin (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, but how should that fact change the edit?? Peterlewis (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It does give the impression that the problems are with wrought iron as well as cast, when that is far from the case. We tested a number of wrought iron bridge girders in the sixties that had been removed during electrification (for instance) and they were completely sound. Chevin (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rio Tinto article

I have reverted the addition of "dictatorial" to a sentence in Rio Tinto Group. For an explanation please see the article talk page. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Further, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Please review these policies, thank you. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC) ==Please specvify your objections to my edits. Peterlewis (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I will do my best below:
  • Here the additions were clearly weasel words that caused issues with WP:NPOV.
  • Here, whilst the text may be true, you failed to cite a reliable source.
  • And here, the article admittedly has many citation issues that need addressed. However, your additions further added to the problem by adding in more unsourced text and an occasional weasel word.
• If you could provide cites from reliable third party sources for all of your edits, then there wouldn't be an issue at all. These policies apply to everyone, so I'm not trying to be picky with you. If you can find some cites I'd be happy to work with you to get things included in accordance with our policies. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 11:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert at CFL

Please see User_talk:Nimbow7 for the justification for the removal. If you wish to address the concerns then the content may be re-added to include the complete findings given within the citations provided. We can discuss any queries about it here, or on the article's talk page. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Longest-lasting light bulbs, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk) 15:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Longest-lasting light bulbs. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk) 15:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the econazis are out in full force ;)

Nimbow7 (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:ConverterB.jpg

File:ConverterB.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:ConverterB.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:ConverterB.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Archscrew.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Archscrew.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Wolverton1.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Wolverton1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

See WP:EDSUM. Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, I mean it. I'm going to start reverting your edits if you don't say what they're about. Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read my addition to the discussions! The macro photography article needs good examples of where the method works best, but is rather vapid at the moment withour context. Peterlewis (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War

Hello, Peterlewis, you stepped into the middle of an edit war (and intense discussion on the talk page of this article) with this edit. [5] and the summary "(rvt bias)." I have not seen you at this article in the last month or so, nor at the talk page. I have been going through the archives as well and did not notice you there either (though with almost sixty pages of archives I may well have missed you). I would just like to ask how you happened upon it? I would urge you to check out the talk page before you put up such edits in the future. I have put a POV tag on the article so as to alert others. Thanks, Stellarkid (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For your interest, I became involved some time ago over the White phosphorus issue, when attempts were being made to delete a graphic image of phosphorus burns (from this conflict). The article has become far too politicised, and thus detrimental to the truth. These edit wars are highly detrimental to Wikipedia, and any way of limiting them should be tried. Peterlewis (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)(UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Photography. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit to engineering article

Regarding this edit, is it because Andrew Schlafly brought it up on Conservapedia? Personally I think the Watt steam engine is historically a great example of engineering. I'm currently a first-year computer engineering college student, and in my intro to engineering class, I had a wind turbine construction project, so a turbine is definitely a relevant example contrary to what Schlafly asserted.

Anyway, I removed that image altogether, since that image seemed out of place in the history section. Besides, the article already has an image of a turbine under construction on the methodology section. Its caption also explains that turbine requires collaboration. Thus I deemed the offshore turbine photo redundant, out-of-place, and unhelpful. But thank you for changing the lead image though. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Please do not add your personal opinions to articles, as you did earlier with Climatic Research Unit. This breaches Wikipedia's no original research policy. A reliable source should be cited for any information you add to an article. Thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a personal opinion but a matter of fact. The data had been requested by many other scientists, and they were refused access to what should be in the public domain. Peterlewis (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The latest comment on the CRU article talk page makes exactly this point for your information. Your comment is quite clearly biased, but if you object, then discuss on the talk page rather than attacking me. Peterlewis (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between your personal speculations and reliably sourced facts, you really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Please go and read Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The ongoing crisis is clear evidence of your problem. Don't you know anything about scientific data denied to other scientists? It is you who needs to come to terms with reality, and also read up about the use of scientific evidence. Peterlewis (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter, whether or not it's all a scam or not doesn't make you a verifiable source. You can't just type your opinion onto an encyclopedia and expect people to accept it. You don't need told this, but you must WP:CITE things with verifiable sources. NJA (t/c) 11:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

McGonagall

I've deleted the reference to McGonagall in the 'Innovation' section in History of Dundee. He was a lot of things, but he doesn't belong in that section. (Just in case you were wondering where it went!) Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

He deserves more than the catcqalling he usually gets! He also helps put Dundee on the map, and I notice that his poetry compilations still sell very well. I have added some new comments to his article. Peterlewis (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Pentonville Prison image

Hi Peterlewis, I'd be interested to know why you changed the image of Pentonville Prison in the John Christie (murderer) article. Do you think the new image is more accurate? Cheers, Wcp07 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes,I thought it was informative. Peterlewis (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Booker

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Christopher Booker, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

I'm notifying you because I've just added the article to the probation--somebody did a whole batch recently and for some reason this article was omitted.

This isn't related to your recent edits on the article, which are unproblematic and unrelated to climate change. I'm just being thorough. --TS 11:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

weathering

Just to point out your last edit contradicts the earlier portion of the paragraph. The earlier statement is sourced; suggest yours should be too.Dankarl (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no contradiction at all: water expands when it freezes, as is more fully explained in the ice article. No ref is needed for the statement, which every householder with burst pipes will know about first hand. Peterlewis (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, the contradiction is with footnote 2. Your answer is the obvious, commonsense explanation most of us learned in science class. It appears there is some science which contradicts that explanation.Dankarl (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have therefore removed that ref, which is not a true ref at all, but a misleading and wrong footnote. Peterlewis (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

steam locomotive article

Thanks for reversing my "misguided" contributions (to the steam locomotive article). Do you really think that sentences in which the same noun is used three times are good examples of encyclopedic style? I was tempted to write something uncomplimentary about you but have (only just) managed to refrain. --90.216.242.187 (talk) 11:46 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Unexplained reversion.

I've found out that the recent IP's edit on Black Propaganda was true, but you reverted it, without explaining why you reverted it in the edit summary. The IP was clearly trying to improve the article. I know you made some good reversions, but next time you revert, could you possibly add a reason for any revert in the edit summary? (Sorry that it seems a bit wordy) Thanks. Minimac94 (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

are you sure? The words I reverted sounded very doubtful: something about America not using black propaganda! Peterlewis (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pachauri

Please have a look at the discussion on Pachauri's alleged conflicts of interest.

At the moment, the error of the Himalayan glaciers is a story about the IPCC. Pachauri did not play a central role; he was just a bad-tempered fool. That's not noteworthy.

On Sunday and Monday, two periodicals will publish pieces that show that Pachauri's institute benefitted from the error in the IPCC. That's the time to add glaciers to Pachauri's article. Richard Tol (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just been reading the long Guardian article and it shows a serious problem with the way IPCC docs are edited. Pachauri should surely shoulder some of the blame for the problem, and it should be reflected by the W article. At the moment there is nothing at all!Peterlewis (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. You won't get anywhere until a sufficient number of "respectable sources" share your concern. That'll happen soon, so you can either waste your time in an edit war or be patient for a few days. Richard Tol (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the problem. I am a little concerned that W is lagging behind the news and the reality. It does its reputation no good at all with users. Peterlewis (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Faraday

Hi, no objections to the reversion [6] , but I don't think it was vandalism, just enthusiastic youth. Faraday did work in a bookbinder's as a boy. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right but the comment seems out of place there and ill structured. Add it in with improved grammar and spacing? Peterlewis (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just checked what ODNB says about his youth (which is not a lot) - "In 1804 he became an errand boy, delivering among other things newspapers, for the bookseller George Riebau of 2 Blandford Street. In October 1805, at the age of fourteen, he was indentured for seven years to Riebau as an apprentice bookbinder and moved into Blandford Street. Faraday's parents moved in 1809 to 18 Weymouth Street, where the following year, James Faraday died.", so the specifics of the removed edit weren't quite right. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I knew about the bookbinder job because F read voraciously from the books he was supposed to be binding. It probably got him into deep trouble! It is worth looking at some of his bio's and adding to the article? Peterlewis (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I should think so - I have a very distinct memory of reading the Ladybird book about him when I was about 7, and thinking how lucky he was to spend his days surrounded by books! DuncanHill (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Goring and bombing images

Can you stop adding Nuremberg images of him in places that are not relevant. You seem to want 'war crimes' and his trial to be the dominant theme in Luftwaffe articles. If people want to see pictures of Goring in the dock or Guernica, then they will look at those articles. Dapi89 (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to deny the historical truth? This issue has been argued before and the consensus is that the problem of war crimes mentioned. Peterlewis (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Yes we have had this conversation before, in which you agreed giving War Crimes undue weight in Luftwaffe articles was inappropriate. You have sufficiently sourced the War Crimes section, which is why it stands - although the picture maybe deleted owing to copyright reasons. There is no consensus Peter on this issue of the pictures Peter. Who are you trying to kid? Dapi89 (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed: another user has removed the WC image (I havd not) on exactly those grounds. Dapi89 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files and rationales

Every time a non-free file is used it needs a separate, detailed, named rationale. That is why I removed an image from History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945). My edit was not meant to imply that the image was not relevant. If you look on the image's page, you will notice that there are only 2 rationales, but it is used on 3 articles. If you want the image to be used in History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945), you have to add another rationale on the image's page.--Rockfang (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Please self-revert your removal of my edit at Pachauri. It was not vandalism - here is the source.

Thanks in advance. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies! Peterlewis (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

South Wales coalfield

Hi. We appear to share an interest in improving this article, and it would be great if this could be done co-operatively. As stated in discussion, I want to see the introduction of authoritative references and greater reliance on citation than what may otherwise seem WP:OR. There is actually a great deal of reliable source material around online and in museums, etc, which also shows that there's much more to be said on this subject in Wikipedia. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy to collaborate. My own father was a collier in several mines near Llanelly (all long gone). He is now 106, and still remembers the hard graft in those pits during the first war. Many of my relatives also worked in the west wales coalfields, and I think the article could be greatly improved by updating it with the latest news on coal extraction. There are several open cast pits which are simply not mentioned at all for example. I have been developing articles on pit accidents and disasters, but much morem could be done here. Peterlewis (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Chipping Campden

Did you look at the link that I deleted in Chipping Campden before you reverted my edit? I didn't delete a link to a church, only a link to a map of the Baptist church, which is already linked. --Simple Bob (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK then revert my edit. Peterlewis (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I already did, I was just interested in your logic. --Simple Bob (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming warning

Please assume good faith and do not use accusatory language like "censor" in edit summaries. [7]. Thanks --BozMo talk 19:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "censor" is quite neutral and describes activities where good faith views are deleted without any recourse to rational argument. There appear to be determined efforts by a few Wiki editors to delete any criticism or counter views to the alleged consensus on global warming. Presumably you are aware that major inquiries are being undertaken about the scandal of some climate scientists to censor opposing views. Peterlewis (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that asserting that someone else is censoring is not assuming good faith about their edits. And now that I have told you, you are aware of this too. None of the rest of it is relevant, do not use this kind of language on Wikipedia edit summaries please. --BozMo talk 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia is losing credibility, when editors like yourself take this patronising line with authors like me who dare to criticise topics of direct public interest. Small cliques of editors take control of a topic and anyone questioning their arguments are decried. I use the word censor very clearly, and it is obvious that the same clique are trying to extinguish all criticism, despite the growing public and academic anger at their activities. I suggest you patronise some else. Peterlewis (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of good form I point out you should also read Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation, which covers several articles you have edited including your recent 2RR with AGF violation edit summary on Global Warming. You may well already be aware of it, but there is a lower tolerance than usual for assuming bad faith, edit warring and disruption on these articles so please take extra care. --BozMo talk 21:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read some George Orwell about censorship and the thought police. Peterlewis (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Grwyne Fawr

You've added an image of Rhos Dirion to this article. Good to see articles illustrated with images but this simply shows a part of the north face of the hill which does not form any part of the catchment of the river in question. An alternative image which does depict a part of its catchment is to be preferred. Thanks Geopersona (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Do you have a more appropriate image then? Peterlewis (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There may be something on Geograph that's suitable - take a look for instance at http://www.geograph.org.uk/search.php?i=11654542 Geopersona (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will follow it up when time permits. There is much to be done on the Welsh sites! Peterlewis (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling me a vandal and promulgating slur against a living person

Your reversion of my reversion diff is highly problematic!

1. You called me a vandal
2. You re-instated a clear violation of policy into the encyclopedia.

Please apologize or it will have to be reported. ► RATEL ◄ 01:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You referred to the previous contribution as vandalism, which I think was fair comment. Blanking out fair comment is usually called vandalism. Peterlewis (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Reported at wp:GS/CC/RE ► RATEL ◄ 12:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee

Hi Peterlewis,

I have nominated The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee. As someone who has not contributed to the article (or at least has made a very insignificant contribution), I am writing to ask you if you would be willing to review it. Thanks in advance for your help, and at the same time I'll understand if you're too busy. All the best, Jprw (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Be happy to...What's the next step? Do I have to read the book??Peterlewis (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not a stipulation, I believe)) Just leave your thoughts here. Thanks, Jprw (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter, you've been through the GA process (and FAC) so I'm more than happy to concede that your review is credible (and under different circumstances I possible would have concurred), however the nomination is not the "personal property" of the nominator, nor is it their gift to hawk the review around to editors of their choice to review. I've raised this incident at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA1. In the circumstances, i.e. the appearances of reviews on the /GA1 at the direct request of the Nominator, I've failed the nomination. I have advised the nominator and the Reviewer (chosen by the nominator) that they can appeal at WP:GAR, but I would hope that common sense prevails and that the article is renominated at WP:GAN without canvasing. Pyrotec (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Per the outcome at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Peterlewis you are hereby warned that you need to do a better job of explaining rather than reverting without explanation, and warned in general that improvement in your approach is needed, or there may be sanctions imposed. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bunding

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bunding. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunding. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wigan railway crash

Hi there, just spotted your edits to Samuel Smith's Brewery...and also that you have an interest in railway disasters. Have you come across one at Wigan North Western railway station on 2 August 1873? There is some more information here...which is all that I know about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigan_rail_crash

Just thought that you might be interested. Darkieboy236 (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, I know the disaster quite well, because it still remains a bit of a mystery, especially regarding the points where the train derailed. I have added a minor fact to the existing article and do have a complete set of prints which I will probably add when time permits. There were quite a few celebrities on the train including many aristocrats travelling north for the grouse season! Peterlewis (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mining in Roman Britain

Hi. I am going to post soon some interesting stats on Roman metal extraction on Roman metallurgy, Roman mining and Roman economy. Yeah, I know lies, damned lies, stats, but still, the order of magnitude cannot be too far off and is simply impressive. Do you know by chance some good scholarly treatment of the scope of Roman iron production? The cited 82,500 t per annum for Roman iron production appears quite high, perhaps implausibly so? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be too low! It depends what year: if the Empire was at its height, I think it might be an underestimate if taken across a very large area enclosed by the Romans because iron was so well used by the Romans...for weapons first and foremost, then for tools and I think there is a ref somehwere to iron tanks and girders in buildings. It was widespread for nails some of which could be a foot long or more. One important industrial site is a the fort of Lanchester in the north of England, where they probably had industrial sized forges for the metal as well as simple furnaces using local ores.. there are sevral large aqueducts (waterwheels to work trip hammers?) plus a dam, but unfortunatelky the site has never been excavated. There was also a large industry in the Weald of Kent with old mines and forges using local charcoal...again little explored. The best ref is O Davies Roman Mines in Europe (OUP, 1935) I ahve a proof copy but the work is long out of print. I will have a look and report back. Modern textbooks rely on him and theer is a little modern literature. Peterlewis (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought: where did you get your figure of 82500 tons pa?? Peterlewis (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

From Craddock 2008 (who gives 2,250 t for Roman Britain). Check out the table in Roman economy (duplicated in Roman metallurgy). One of the two sources which Craddock cites I checked, but it gives no such number. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made a first attempt to editing both those articles, which were not only poorly written but also misleading! Much more could be done with both to improve them. Peterlewis (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, Gun Powder Ma, or 'Tibet Libre' of CHF has been discussing the validity of the Roman metallurgical estimates of 80k tons on CHF forums. If you could input some knowledge, that would be great.

• http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/34145-the-pre-industrial-economies-of-western-europe-and-china/
• http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/13206-han-vs-rome-military-comparisons/page__st__1365

So far, I'm sensing that the problem is the source is using outdated estimates and a high estimate at best, and nobody really knows the actual iron output of the empire. And the 80k tons figure comes from a high estimate of Romano British production, and not representative of the empire at a whole. Intranetusa (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism issue at Bombing of Guernica

Hello! At Bombing of Guernica, you reinserted an unattributed quote with your edit at [8], claiming it "fair use". Fair use would never apply to text which could be rewritten, since the text could be rewritten in one's own words, providing free content rather than fair use. This would render it replaceable, failing nonfree content criterion #1, replaceability with free material. Additionally, use of exact text from another source without placing it in quotation marks and indicating it as a direct quote is plagiarism, which is also unacceptable. Hope that helps clear up why it was removed, and happy editing!

If you would like to rewrite the section in your own words, using the source as a basis, please feel free to do so. Please note however, that it may not be reinserted as is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman total iron output

You are invited to take part in a discussion on a scholarly estimate of total Roman iron production here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of The History Press for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article The History Press, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The History Press until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Dolaucothimap4.jpg

Hello Peter, you are given as the original uploader of this file, which is now at Commons but was originally on English Wikipedia ... you created it in 1970 and gave it to the public domain. Just thought I'd mention that it appears in Jones & Mattingly's An Atlas of Roman Britain (1990, reprinted 2007, ISBN 978-1-84217-06700), page 183. Looks like they traced it and used a printer's font for the annotation, but it is quite clearly your drawing. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thats fine. The other copyright holder is now deceeased, and so I decided to put it into the public domain. Peterlewis (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Phil Jones (climatologist)

According to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log, you have already been warned about reverting without discussion. May I ask if you plan on commenting at Talk:Phil Jones (climatologist) any time soon? NW (Talk) 18:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I too came here to complain. Drive-by reverting really isn't a good idea, especially in these troubled times William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Roman sculpture

Thanks for improving Roman sculpture. I hope to work on this one more, because when I linked to it the other day, it was an unsourced stub. Now it's a hastily done placeholder, equally unsourced, so since I know you do quality work, pride and conscience compelled me to note that I don't usually do that and hope to make it better when I can. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it could be improved greatly, especially as there is much that could be said using existing Wiki text and images. I was going to add some of the important images of machines and the very famous one of a vallus from France. Everyone used to think that Pliny was wrong when he wrote about harvesting machines, but then someone found a sarcophagus relief with one shown very clearly just as Pliny had described. The much more recent discovery of the waterwheel driven sawing machine is almost as exciting, and I wonder what more can be discovered? Peterlewis (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Condor Legion

The image has no fair-use rationale for the article as is required by our non-free content criteria policy and so it fails criteria #10c. It also does not significantly increase the readers understanding of the military unit, the Condor Legion, and so it fails criteria #8. It is also not being used for critical commentary of the artwork itself, as is the case for example at Guernica (painting). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I should note that if you disagree, you are welcome to list it at Wikipedia:Non-free content review for others to provide their input, but I should point out that it was the result of consensus there which removed it from this article previously. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The human reaction to the atrocity of Guernica as symbolised by Picasso's painting entirely justifies its inclusion. It is fully discussed in the text. You should not try to hide behind bureaucratic dogma. The Condor Legion is now remembered mainly by this atrocity, especially by the Spanish people. Peterlewis (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Condor Legion. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. As I have repeatedly explained why this is against policy, and you have made no attempt to discuss the matter other than to accuse me of hiding behind bureaucratic dogma, I must assume that you are being deliberately disruptive. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Condor Legion. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit was entirely legitimate, as the picture is referred to in the text alongside. What is your problem? Peterlewis (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Condor Legion, you may be blocked from editing. The image explicitly fails WP:NFCC#10c as it has no fair-use rationale for that article. It fails WP:NFCC#8 as it does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the Condor Legion. As such, it was previously removed by consensus at WP:NFCR. If you wish for the image to be included, start a new discussion at WP:NFCR or an RfC and see if consensus has changed. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Gold mining

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Gold mining. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please advise on unsuitability of the images. They are from reliable sources and are directly mentioned in the text. You should remember that this is an encyclopedia and needs good images to show the mines discussed. Peterlewis (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've not said anything about images. I don't know what you're talking about. Yworo (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made some new changes to the article. You shouldn't rush to judgment. Peterlewis (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Reverse" water wheel

I was reading the article reverse overshot wheel, but I can't find anything about the "reverse" part. Can you expand this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this, perhaps, what the main article calls a "Backshot wheel"? If so, should the article be renamed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The drainage wheel works in the reverse direction to a conventional waterwheel, and lifts water up rather than being driven down by the weight of water. Peterlewis (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhh! A noria? This is a pump instead of a power source? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a Noria, but rather a tympanum, afetr Vitruvius. Peterlewis (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. But not a water wheel. Wheel, yes. Water, yes. Water wheel, no. I think we need to have a separate section for these pumps. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your revert at Wikileaks

Regarding [9]: My reversion of that edit was in accordance with policy as laid out at WP:BAN. That content was added by a banned user, and as the checkuser who blocked that user, I was going through and removing their edits. This is not censorship. Please do not revert these edits. If you have independent editorial reasons for adding this content you may do so, however I do ask that you provide a full edit summary when doing so, so that the edit is claimed as your contribution and not that of the banned user's. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Met Office

I'm not sure if you understand probabilities, but there is no right or wrong by definition - it is a chance of happening, not a statement that something 'will happen'. The public misunderstanding of probability forecasting due to media reporting and ignorance is already covered in the following sentences. Nuttah (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A 65% chance that something will happen makes it more likely than not, so I suggest you consult a dictionary. You can't use weasel words to excuse the Met Office, and neither can they. The public also know what probabilities are and are not. Peterlewis (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

More likely than yes, not a certainty. The Met forecast says, given the same starting conditions, where we were last year will end up in a harsh winter every 1 year in 3 on average, the other 2 years will be better. A dictionary is not needed, this is basic GCSE maths. Nuttah (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So how did they arrive at a misleading figure like 65%? Are we still being misled by the Met Office? Peterlewis (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

They understood probabilities. I can predict my car will start 99% of mornings. The day the battery dies does not make that prediction wrong - just confirms that it is a probability, not a certainty. Nuttah (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not using the correct terminology. I have not accused the Met Ofiice of being wrong, but being misleading: if they predict a 65% probability of a mild winter then they mislead the public if the winter turns out to be hard. You should address the issue of how they arrived at their figure of 65%, and what they are doing to improve their performance. Peterlewis (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

as other editors are now discussing I'll continue this on the article talk page. Nuttah (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945), may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 06:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This image is placed in the article because it shows illegal experiments on a prisoner at Dachau, and is highly relevant to the article. There is no known copyright holder, and all participants are dead. Rascher was apparently executed by the SS in 1945, and the prisoner probably died as a result of the experiment. It is placed here for educational reasons. It already resides in two other Wiki articles, so you objection is irrlevant. Peterlewis (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review the non-free content policy. further violations will result in you being blocked. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the policy and it complies fully, so I am reverting since your opinion is clearly wrong. It is an importnat historic orphan image of great educational benefit. Peterlewis (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Auschwitz concentration camp, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Bridge_fig5.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bridge_fig5.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have amended the file details to show that the image is in the public domain since it was engraved and published in May 1847 (Illustrated London News). I scanned my own original copy of the print and release it into the public domain. Peterlewis (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg

This image does not comply with WP:NFCC #10c for the uses you are attempting. Please stop restoring it to Sigmund Rascher, History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) or any other article without providing the required rationale. See WP:FURG. Also note it is unlikely a valid rationale can be provided for the latter case, as the main article Nazi human experimentation can be linked. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also applies to Structural failure. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The image is directly relevant and complies with Wikipedia policy on orphan images. Peterlewis (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NFCC #10c. Also, in most cases where the image was used it was inappropriate non-free usage. The image is hosted on a main article regarding Nazi human experimentation. It is appropriate there. Using it whenever such experimentation is noted violates WP:NFCC on minimal use. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. It is highly appropriate for the Luftwaffe article since they organised human experimentation. There is already an excess of nazi symbols and insignia in this article, and fair balance of content needs to be addressed. Peterlewis (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• And you can't adequately justify that under our WP:NFCC policy, when the image is already in use on the Nazi human experimentation article, where it belongs. That is exactly what is happening in the picture. Within History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945), it is a sub text of the entire article and is not needed to convey the material. If you feel it should be used on the History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945), then take it up at WT:NFC or Wikipedia:Non-free content review. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• And again you've restored the image [10] in violation of WP:NFCC #10c policy. I've once again removed the image for failing that policy. Please stop restoring the image in violation of policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Balvano train disaster

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Balvano train disaster, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.trivia-library.com/a/railroad-disaster-on-the-balvano-limited-part-1.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Balvano train disaster and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Balvano train disaster, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Balvano train disaster with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Balvano train disaster. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Balvano train disaster saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Regregex (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a copyright problem since I only used the information in that article. Copyright does not apply to the facts , only the form of presentation. In any case, fair use allows some copying and the current limits are far in excess of what I used.Peterlewis (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

These edits [11] [12] paste a paragraph and a sentence with trivial changes, and arguably more derivative work, from the page. This is a rather large proportion of the short original; in any case fair use should have attribution (as opposed to citation) which was not provided.

See WP:Cv101 where old edits are treated specially: I think the admins are worried about "tainting" when possible copyright infringements are subsequently expanded on. – Regregex (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As the administrator closing this copyright listing at the copyright problem's board, I've come by to make sure that you've been advised of our copyright policies. I see that you have, but that there may be some lingering confusion. Except for brief, clearly marked quotations in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline, you cannot copy content from any source unless you are able to verify that the material is public domain or compatibly licensed. Even then, you must properly attribute (which requires more than a citation) to avoid Wikipedia:Plagiarism. In this case, there is most definitely ample creativity for copyright to convey. For instance, this paragraph is by no means uncreative:

Many city dwellers--unwilling to go without butter, eggs, poultry, and dairy products--joined the increasing number of black market opportunists. They bartered with servicemen for cigarettes, candy, and gum, then exchanged these commodities for farm products that brought tremendously high prices in Naples. To reach the farmers they stole rides on freight trains that were forbidden to carry passengers. But hundreds of people rode these trains every day, another fact that went unnoticed, officially.

Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste.

This content, of course, was added quite some time ago. If you are aware of any other articles into which you may similarly have pasted text, please make sure to bring it in line with our policies and guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hushing

Descriptions under photos claim that photography depicts reservoir. Unfortunately nothing like this is visible (there is orchard and woman - OK But reservoir?) Is it possible to include information where the reservoir is visible on the photo? Bulwersator (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The woman is standing in the tank, but it has eroded with time (ca 2000 years). I will amend the caption.Peterlewis (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain this edit before you make any further edits to the Wikipedia mainspace. NW (Talk) 14:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Any small group of scientists will claim various theories as true, especially if there is a lack of critical appraisal within the group. It was certainly true of those who supported Eugenics in the 1920s, now widely discredited. Others, such as Wegener developed ideas on continental drift which were discredited and scorned , but yet turn out to be correct. I argue that W should be sceptical of accepting theories as being correct when the theories lack experimental proof of cannot be tested directly. It certainly applies to scientists such as climatologists who say that they understand everything about the climate of the earth. There are huge unknowns in climate science and the computer models used to mimic climate. They include the problems of water vapour, aerosols and dust in the atmosphere. Peterlewis (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere here, but I think the issue is changing the wording in a direct quotation. You can't do that. You have to introduce the quote or follow it up with a qualifier of the sort you propose. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Action 14f13

Regarding your revert of the word "murder", I actually thanked the previous editor for changing that. It's a hot-button issue and murder is a provocative word that inflames strong passions. As a writer, I feel strongly that you often get the point across more forcefully when you don't bang people over the head with a hammer — and that's just in general. You don't have to use lots of superlatives to describe how big the mountain is when it's standing right in front of you. It's already obvious. The Nazi evidence is right there, the article details it pretty well. It's clear that the people did not die of natural causes (that if Jews survived the Holocaust at all, it was against all odds). Sure, there are deniers, but calling it "murder" instead of "killing" will not change their minds, though it has high shock value and is therefore distracting and thus inefficient for getting a message across. I write as someone whose family lost a good number of people in Auschwitz, with only a few survivors. Marrante (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a spade is a spade without the need to worry about provocation or inflaming passions. The nazis were after, all, masters of the use of the euphemism, and always used them in the context of the Holocaust: final solution, night and fog, protective custody, and so on. Peterlewis (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Killing" is not a euphemism. I'm not worried about inflaming passions. I'm concerned with communication and I find that inflaming passions is not the best way to go forward. The terms you mention are insidious and deserve to be rightly highlighted, but the Nazis don't have the corner on that market. Not by a long stretch. Reagan had a missile named "peacekeeper" and ketchup was listed as a vegetable for school children, just to name two. More recent are the "enhanced interrogation procedures" and next to that, the new interpretations of what constitutes "war", "hostilities," and "extrajudicial killing", etc. It's a continuing problem, but none of it makes the word "killing" a euphemism. It was also the word used at Nuremburg, so I think it has a good precedent and can be used here without feeling one has done a disservice to those who perished before their time. Marrante (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it does have the character of a euphemism in this context. There is a hint that the deaths may have been accidental or unplanned, and perhaps not deliberate at all. It is a term used sensibly about natural disasters or even industrial accidents, but in the context of the nazis, misses the point about the nature of their actions: the deliberate, planned murder of thousands of innocent victims. Peterlewis (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In this context "Killing" is the neutral term. "Murder" should generally only be used in the legal context, "convicted of murder" and so on. I think killing is a good neutral middle ground between "Murder" and "euthanize" which is the euphemistic term.. As Marrante said it is not our job to instill emotion into the topic, using neutral language and letting the reader draw their own conclusions is preferable. 98.209.39.71 (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC) That was me, sorry, for some reason on this internet connection likes to log me out spontaneously HominidMachinae (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads, and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media Copyright Questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 15:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of non-free image File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg on History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

The non-free image File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg was recently restored to History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) by you after it have been removed for failure of our non-free content criteria policy, specifically item #10c which requires a "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". The image still fails the 10c policy requirement and has been removed from the article again. Please do not restore this image to that article again without complying with the requirements of that policy. For more information on how to write an appropriate non-free use rationale, please consult Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. If you have questions about this, please ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page

Peter, you should consider archiving the older posts on your talk page. You can do it by: Create a page called User talk:Peterlewis/Archive 1 (with link brackets around it) and cut and paste most of the posts over to the page. Later, other archives pages can be named, User talk:Peterlewis/Archive 2, etc. Most people don't move their barnstars or they create an awards page (but, I don't know how to do that). If you have any other questions about it, here is the instruction page link: Help:Archiving a talk page. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the picture

Life unworthy of life is a harrowing subject as are all the worst aspects of Nazism, still it should be exposed as a warning about what extremism can lead to. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was one of the most insidious and deeply disturbing aspects of Nazism, leading directly to murder and worse (human experimentation for example). Peterlewis (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hitler himself as a young man for a time lead a life close to the concept of Lebenunwertes Leben. Were his views a case of Psychological projection? What did Hitler think of his own life? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

John Christie (murderer)

Sorry, but the sections that I tagged and that you untagged make some pretty bold statements, none of which are supported by a citation to a reference. – ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

They are fully referenced in the books by Kennedy and Eddowes, which receive full references throughout the article. Those "bold" statements were made many years ago now, which is why capital punishment was abolished in the UK. Peterlewis (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

In that case appropriate citations should be added referring to those books as they have been elsewhere. – ukexpat (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dissolution

I see you have modified the dissolution article. It would be good to support your additions with references - even tho' the article has none. My background is in geology so I tend to think of dissolution in terms of breaking down a solid releasing the component ions into aqueous solution. The term may well apply to gases dissolving in liquids, but just not familiar with that usage. In my mind dissolution ≠ dissolving, but I'm willing to consider other viewpoints. I suspect the term dissolution may lack rigorous definition and usage may vary in various fields. In this instance you are changing an article to support a disputed usage elsewhere -- so it seems references are needed. (...and please archive this page.. my slow connection is suffering :) Vsmith (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course I will supply refs to standard chemical textbooks, such as Hildebrand. The subject is an inetrseting one and more complex than supposed generally, involving thermodynamics and bond types. Hildebrand devloped the idea of the solubility parameter which I think I may introduce, whicch summarises in a single number the influence of both themes. Gases are of course included (remember Henry's Law?). I will develop as time permits. The term is a generic one: dissolution, the process of one substance dissolving in another, so gases must be included. And metallurgists also refer to solid solutions! Peterlewis (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Global Cooling

Alas, your edit is not only a reinsertion of scibaby material, it also goes against what the main body of the article says. I accept you may have been there, but this might jog your memory a little ;-). Climate change articles have been scarred by edit wars - I hope you can see your way to undoing your revert. All the best.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiki articles should be balanced, and the article you kindly gave me attempts to rewrite history (perhaps from a US perspective). Books were written by eminent scientists in the UK predicting a new ice age. It seems to me to show the problem of the credibility of climatology and climatologists, and scepticism is a wise atitude to their often conflicting theories. Peterlewis (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Balance does not mean giving fringe authors 50% of the space. As you should be aware by now as a wikipedia editor, your own opinion on the quality of a piece of peer-reviewed research can only matter if it is backed up by reliable sources. The good news is that your edits have led to the article being protected with your own edits reverted.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Hi Peter, I'm not sure if you are aware but the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming has some pretty hefty general sanctions linked to it. If I may suggest the editor who reverted your removal suggested WP:BRD and that it maybe better to revert your edit and take it to the talk page first, as some of the editors on these pages have a somewhat combative approach to discussions. Regards ^Khukri 07:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The diagram seems to me to be quite irrelevant for facts which are headlined in the intro to the article. It is spurious information which we should not sanction. Many articles already have too much information which just gild the lily. Keep additions factual and relevant: is this not the essence of good editing? Peterlewis (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one who needs convincing, bring up your point on the talk pages and see where it goes. Regards ^Khukri 07:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I have started a discussion of the edits you made to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming on that articles talk page.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

You're right to question that chart. On that matter, some info of note:

The study referenced at http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf based its 97.4% consensus claim on just 2 questions, on 75 of 77 respondents (among a minority choosing to respond) in the relevant category in an internet poll answering ‘risen’ and ‘yes’ respectively to the following 2 questions:

Question 1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Question 2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Regarding question #1:

1550 A.D. to 1850 A.D. was the Little Ice Age, which everyone agrees was relatively cold. Is question #1 comparing temperatures to way further back like the warm age of the dinosaurs or more likely to shortly prior to the 1800s, like the 1700s? I’d interpret it as the latter. So basically it is asking do you believe we are still in the midst of the Little Ice Age, if current temperatures are no warmer now than they were back then.

Just about every single skeptic scientist would get counted as included in the “consensus” if answering, by agreeing that current temperatures are not the same cold they were in the Little Ice Age. It is not a good question, utterly unintelligent as a choice to determine meaningful consensus on mainstream global warming views – unless the authors are trying to be dishonestly misleading. Such shows nothing for what portion of the temperature rise afterwards someone views as from anthropogenic causes versus non-human influences, nothing about the magnitude of global warming they expect, minor or large, and not even so much as whether they expect global warming to be of more harm than benefit.

Like Dr. Lindzen noted in another context, “differences between expectations of unmeasurable changes of a few tenths of a degree and warming of several degrees are conveniently ignored.”

Regarding question #2:

Again to note the skeptic view, in the words of Dr. Spencer, “to a scientist, “significant” often means non-zero” (where he notes he himself would technically be part of the consensus under the poll’s questions but it was asking the wrong question). For instance, if you believe Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects exist, then you must answer yes here so far as a non-zero significant effect. The existence of UHI isn’t in dispute among skeptic scientists, nor is effect of land use change (e.g. irrigated agriculture versus original wilderness or day versus nighttime temperature readings), etc. Actually even CO2 having a technically non-zero effect isn’t really a focus of dispute, rather such as feedback versus water vapor and cloud shading.

It is a very transparently slanted poll. Probably some portion of the many respondents not answering the poll at all could have refused from seeing its misleading agenda. (Really there is more going on, such as http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/sensitivity.pdf or http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-I discusses). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.194.197 (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversion sanction

You are forbidden to revert edits in the climate change topic area without discussing on the talk page. This sanction may be ignored for indisputable violations of policy (such as the copyright or vandalism policies). This action is being taken pursuant to WP:ARBCC. NW (Talk) 03:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)