User talk:PianoDan

Good article

This user helped promote Show Boat to good article status.

.

Good job. --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi PianoDan! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, New article moved before Did You Know review, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cyclotron

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclotron you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ScientistBuilder -- ScientistBuilder (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the suggestions for Good Article for criteria helped.

Other than that, I think its meets the criteria. ScientistBuilder (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Courant–Snyder parameters

On 11 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Courant–Snyder parameters, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the Courant–Snyder parameters in accelerator physics are often referred to as "Twiss parameters", Richard Q. Twiss had no idea how his name came to be associated with them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Courant Snyder parameters. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Courant–Snyder parameters), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPF article check-in

Hi PianoDan. I thought I'd drop by and make sure you saw that I responded to your questions on Talk:National Park Foundation. Have a good one! Annie at NPF (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for all your assistance. Sorry for tagging you. I could think of no other way to get attention to requests made weeks ago. I will use {{edit semi-protected}} as you indicated, but I never used it before and will probably mess up the first few times. 65.88.88.45 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! The good news about using the template is that will add the article to a list, which is checked regularly by various editors. If you want to look at the list and verify that yours has been added, (it'll take a little while after you apply the template) it's User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable PianoDan (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to suggest that List of centenarians (scientists and mathematicians) be renamed to List of centenarians (engineers, mathematicians, and scientists). Seems like an appropriate place to add "engineers". What do you think? How to go about it? Thanks. 65.88.88.45 (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a process for that: WP:RM. It's also worth noting that if you create a named account and then make a certain number of edits, you'll be able to edit semi-protected pages yourself. PianoDan (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template problem

Both User:PianoDan/Infobox particle accelerator and User:PianoDan/Infobox particle accelerator/doc are showing up in Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags, and I can't figure out what the problem is. I thought it might be that, in your example infobox for the Large Hadron Collider at the bottom of the doc, you omitted the N and E parameters after the latitude and longitude; but adding them doesn't appear to fix the problem (and the coordinates still don't appear in the displayed infobox, which suggests that the trouble is in the coding of the template itself). Being useless when it comes to template coding, I'm unable to spot the error, but this is probably something that you'll want to fix before taking the infobox live. Deor (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first template too, so I appreciate the heads up! For now, I'll just comment them out, since I'm going to be soliciting feedback from more experienced templateers. Thanks~ PianoDan (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point: A number of infoboxes are set up to automatically specify the coordinates' "type" (city, landmark, waterbody, or whatever), so that it doesn't need to be in the {{coord}} templates that users add in particular instances. (For a particle accelerator, it would presumably be "type=landmark".) I don't know how to do this either, but it might be something that you could bring up in discussions with "experienced templateers". Deor (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cyclotron

The article Cyclotron you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cyclotron for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Atavoidturk -- Atavoidturk (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cyclotron

The article Cyclotron you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclotron for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Atavoidturk -- Atavoidturk (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Cyclotron

Hello! Your submission of Cyclotron at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cyclotron

On 26 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cyclotron, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in March 2020, there were nearly 1,500 medical cyclotrons (example pictured) in operation worldwide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclotron. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cyclotron), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 22,610 views (942.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

"Eddings" here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated the bit of comic relief in a very, very long deletion process. :-)

On an unrelated note, I recall you did some improvements on the Lagrangian mechanics page a few months ago. Have you taken a look at Noether's theorem? It seems to have big blocks of material from the days before citations were invented — you know the stuff: written by a physicist or at least a grad student in 2004, probably technically correct, not necessarily organized. XOR'easter (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. Not my area of expertise, but you aren't kidding that it needs work. My available time comes and goes, and is likely to be in a "goes" phase for a bit, but I'll bear it in mind. PianoDan (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm spread amazingly thin myself, and I'm afraid that's only going to get worse. There keeps being one Featured Article Review after another where it seems like I'm one of the few people who have relevant expertise... and with the semester starting up again soon, I can't imagine I'll have more time and energy for this place. XOR'easter (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schenker talk page

I'm going through the Schenker talk page out of morbid curiosity (having just made an edit and seen that it's now partly restricted), and oh my goodness — thanks for all that you've done there! I'm also glad to see that you helped bring Show Boat into "good article" status. :-)

(FYI, the edit I made was adding a quotation from Philip Ewell's article demonstrating that he may not have been making the claim that McWhorter assumed he was making. Also adding complete page range for the Agawu quotation, since it drives me nuts when I don't have those and I need to place an ILL request to get something.) AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AskohlerOpus111 - thanks for the positive comments. It's an ongoing struggle to try and maintain any sort of reasonable tone on those pages, rather than false equivalence or worse. PianoDan (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

music in physics

Thank you for quality articles such as Show Boat and Cyclotron, Ellie Hisama and Courant–Snyder parameters, for service since 2008, for assessing and maintaining physics articles, including page moves and adding references, for Yes, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2804 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electric field intensity issue

Discussion topic — If electric field intensity diserve a seperate topic from electric field

In my point of view it certainly deserve; it is because of confusion between electric field an electric field intensity,most people believe both are same but they are totally different . And to break this believe we have to make a seperate section for electric field intensity. AryanpateI (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably better discussed on the talk page for Electric field rather than on my personal page. That said while "electric field intensity" is indeed a different quantity from field strength, the relationship between the two is trivial: Field = Intensity / unit charge. A single sentence defining the relationship (in proper English, with a citation to a valid source) is all that's required, not an entire subsection.

PianoDan (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I requested you

i requested you to change color of INDIA bloc Jack deGrasse Tyson (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to develop a consensus for that alteration on the appropriate talk page, and not send messages to random editors. PianoDan (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanyakubja Brahmin

Hey @PianoDan, i saw you rejected my edit request when it's backed by a reliable source. Please check that source thoroughly and mention that whole information in Occupation section of that article. 223.189.201.228 (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modified "primorial" method, called nabla-deltorial

A modification of the "primorial" method was created, called nabla-deltorial, symbolically designated as ∇Δ(pₙ), and although the initial measurements of the "primorial" were ambitiously aimed at breaking (among other things) also cipher codes, it is still far from that. However, factoring large numbers with divisors of "intermediate" size, i.e. not too high - is supposed to go "surprisingly" smoothly.

The "paper" is available here: https://www.1universe.gpe.pl/prime/deltorial.html

I will soon start writing an entry about it on Wikipedia, its name will be nabla-deltorial ∇Δ - I recommend it to your attention, and greetings to the titans of work...

BaSzRafael (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OR carefully. None of this belongs on Wikipedia until it is covered in multiple reliable, secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A wikiminnow for you

Plip!

Hi, please remember to change the |answered= permeameter to yes after answering an edit request. That's all, happy editing! GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 21:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Earth's ambipolar electric field"

Good catch - I only searched online on August 29. 2001:2020:355:B15E:FD06:7DB1:FA2B:16EA (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request about the Wikipedia Page on Cyclotrons.

Dear Sir,

I think the other user is right. Actually along with the notable examples,there should be mentioned about Superconducting cyclotrons as there are only 8 or 9 of them in the entire world.

So I request you to not reverse the edit.Instead we should add the other 7 or 8 of the superconducting cyclotrons. This would yield valuable information to the page. Thank you. 2409:4060:2E16:2901:0:0:134B:D708 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the list is NOT to be a comprehensive list of all cyclotrons or all superconducting cyclotrons. The point is to list cyclotrons with some particular superlative or historical importance. The place to have this conversation is not on my talk page, but on the talk page for the article. I'm going to revert your edit and start a discussion there. Please don't re-add the information until a consensus is reached on the article talk page. PianoDan (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May i ask you

Do not ever approve Anonymous User without their IP adresses! on Talk:Miss Universe 2024... 77.77.219.225 (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Show Boat

Show Boat has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]