User talk:Peterlewis

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please remember to write edit summaries (I am refering to your recent work in

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

About the

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Peter, I see you just added William Smith to the summary list of past presidents in

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Hi Peterlewis!
We thank you for uploading

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Peterlewis!
We thank you for uploading

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

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)[reply]

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.

talk) 06:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

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)[reply]

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 {{

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I edited the text to remove (or so that it would at least contain less)

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Here from

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, I have the book, but I can only copy and scan the copy afterwards. That's not improving quality. My email is [email protected] . Regards Wandalstouring (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Would you like me to archive your talk page?--

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It certainly is. Please take a minute to read

WP:MOS. Ford MF (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

If you're going to rewrite it, please don't blank the existing content and leave a blank page:

WP:REVERT) Kylu (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Preview button

talk) 09:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

License tagging for Image:ConverterB.jpg

Thanks for uploading

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tedickey (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

talk) 20:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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!

talk) 12:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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.

talk) 22:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

247 06:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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).[reply]

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.

247 08:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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.

247 19:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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.

247 06:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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.^[1]

--

247 06:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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.

247 19:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

March 2009

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)[reply

]

Courtesy notice: SPI

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

August 2009

247

10:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC) ==Please specvify your objections to my edits. Peterlewis (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I will do my best below:
  • Here the additions were clearly
    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,
  247 11:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Revert at CFL

Please see

247 08:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

Looks like the econazis are out in full force ;)

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

NowCommons: File:ConverterB.jpg

talk) 16:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 07:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

File copyright problem with File:Wolverton1.jpg

Thank you for uploading

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)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

See

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

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,

talk) 02:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

October 2009

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)[reply

]

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.

talk) 02:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Original research

Please do not add your personal opinions to articles, as you did earlier with

reliable source should be cited for any information you add to an article. Thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Peter, whether or not it's all a scam or not doesn't make you a

(t/c) 11:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pentonville Prison image

Hi Peterlewis, I'd be interested to know why you changed the image of Pentonville Prison in the

Wcp07 (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Christopher Booker

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

I've found out that the recent IP's edit on

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Every time a

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Did you look at the link that I deleted in

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

I already did, I was just interested in your logic. --

talk) 16:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reported at

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)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:GAN without canvasing. Pyrotec (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]