User talk:PianoDan
Good article
This user helped promote Show Boat to good article status. |
.
Good job. --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
Hi PianoDan! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
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)]
DYK for Courant–Snyder parameters
On 11 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Courant–Snyder parameters, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the Courant–Snyder parameters in accelerator physics are often referred to as "Twiss parameters", Richard Q. Twiss had no idea how his name came to be associated with them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Courant Snyder parameters. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Courant–Snyder parameters), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
NPF article check-in
Hi PianoDan. I thought I'd drop by and make sure you saw that I responded to your questions on Talk:National Park Foundation. Have a good one! Annie at NPF (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for all your assistance. Sorry for tagging you. I could think of no other way to get attention to requests made weeks ago. I will use {{edit semi-protected}} as you indicated, but I never used it before and will probably mess up the first few times. 65.88.88.45 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)]
- Also, I would like to suggest that
Template problem
Both
- 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)
- 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)
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)
DYK nomination of Cyclotron
DYK for Cyclotron
On 26 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cyclotron, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in March 2020, there were nearly 1,500 medical cyclotrons (example pictured) in operation worldwide? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclotron. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cyclotron), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
Typo
"Eddings" here.
- Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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)]
- 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)
- 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)]
- Yeah, I'm spread amazingly thin myself, and I'm afraid that's only going to get worse. There keeps being one
- 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)
- 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
Schenker talk page
I'm going through the Schenker talk page out of morbid curiosity (having just made an edit and seen that it's now partly restricted), and oh my goodness — thanks for all that you've done there! I'm also glad to see that you helped bring Show Boat into "good article" status. :-)
(FYI, the edit I made was adding a quotation from Philip Ewell's article demonstrating that he may not have been making the claim that McWhorter assumed he was making. Also adding complete page range for the Agawu quotation, since it drives me nuts when I don't have those and I need to place an ILL request to get something.) AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
Precious
music in physics
Thank you for quality articles such as Show Boat and Cyclotron, Ellie Hisama and Courant–Snyder parameters, for service since 2008, for assessing and maintaining physics articles, including page moves and adding references, for Yes, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no.
Electric field intensity issue
Discussion topic — If electric field intensity diserve a seperate topic from electric field
In my point of view it certainly deserve; it is because of confusion between electric field an electric field intensity,most people believe both are same but they are totally different . And to break this believe we have to make a seperate section for electric field intensity. AryanpateI (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
Precious anniversary
One year! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I requested you
i requested you to change color of INDIA bloc Jack deGrasse Tyson (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)