User talk:Peterlewis

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

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

Welcome!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peterlewis 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peterlewis 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

My mistake! There should be only one entry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 (WP:NPOV) or most other policies for that matter ... such as the Wiki policy on civility (WP:Civility). Perhaps that is why he uses phrases like "weasel worded" and "any moron".

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

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

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

Keep the faith and keep trying. I thoroughly agreed with the sentence that you added to Air pollution which was deleted by Gabriel. - mbeychok (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[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 Thermoplastic elastomers). Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

Hi Peter

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

Regards

V. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittorio6 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[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 Image:Greekhse1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Encyclopedia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AnnaJGrant (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[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 California Gold Rush article, the sources I am aware cite the California use of hoses, nozzles and continuous jets of water as major advances in gold-recovery technology. The current language in the article reads

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

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

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

Please let me know your thoughts! NorCalHistory (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[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 Geological Society of London. This would surprise me given the history - do you have a date? I can't spot any gaps in President of the Geological Society of London#List of Presidents. Pterre (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Twinke very useful. Stephenb (Talk) 08:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[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 {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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

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

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

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 kurt.scholz@gmx.de . 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?--SRX^--LatinoHeat 17:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: It's considered vandalism. I've undone your blanking again, please cease. You may also want to note that reverting the edits of others is only for obvious vandalism. (See WP:REVERT) Kylu (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[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]