User talk:PianoDan

This user helped promote Show Boat to good article status.

.

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

Hi PianoDan! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, New article moved before Did You Know review, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

I hope the suggestions for Good Article for criteria helped.

Other than that, I think its meets the criteria.

talk) 17:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I would like to suggest that

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

]

There's a process for that:

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

]

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

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

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

The article

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

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

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

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

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

"Eddings" here.

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

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

On an unrelated note, I recall you did some improvements on the

talk) 00:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Yeah, I'm spread amazingly thin myself, and I'm afraid that's only going to get worse. There keeps being one

talk) 03:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

music in physics

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

You are recipient no.

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

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

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

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

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

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

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