User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 1

Welcome message
Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Bhadani 13:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Time
Request for citation for Time edit

Hello. Can you please provide a citation for the information you added to the Time page, specifically the part on circular time that reads "This concept necessarily requires the existence of fifth and sixth dimensions, within which the hypothetical circle of space-time might exist." You may want to have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you. Mike Peel 10:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mike: I have added a diagram that illustrated why it is axiomatic that the circle of space-time must exist in at least two additional dimensions. Thank You Geologician 14:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message
Im glad someone has given me pointers on how to edit the wikipedia site thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 0555 (talk • contribs) 19:53 26 July 2006 (UTC)

NUMB3RS
Hey, Mike. I noticed you just edited the NUMB3RS page at the same time as me. I already added the DVD information into the episodes page. I am going to remove the DVD section on the main page. If you have any problems with that, I'll be happy to talk to you about it. Sorry. -- Ladida 14:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just got your reply. I agree with you on that but in the future the summary for the seasons might get longer and shouldn't the longer articles be in their separate pages? I will try to expand on those summaries tomorrow. It's late now and I'm off to bed soon. So... do you mind if we leave the pages the same for now? I will try and put more information onto the "list of episodes" page tomorrow. Thanks for the reply. :) I was worried about removing your modification. -- Ladida 14:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, just to let you know I think you're right. I am going to merge it to the main article so everyone can see how it looks when it's done. It can be undone if the others don't like it but judging by their replies so far, I think they agree with you. :) I'll reply to the Talk:NUMB3RS as well. Regards, Ladida 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

neutrino oscillations
Hi Mike,

Why did you cut out the entire section that I had just written on the experimental evidence for neutrino oscillations? Was this the result of both of us having the article out at the same time, or do you feel that there is some reason not to cite any of the evidence? Whoops - guess I see that you just put it back in, thanks. But I think that the experimental evidence should come before the theory section, the average reader is probably more likely to understand the experimental section. Flying fish 20:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I should go do some real work now... The page is looking way nicer, by the way.

Feist books
Can you do that for the rest of the Feist books? It looks awkward on only two of them. Also, the first release should be noted first, not second, IMO. I have a copy of Flight on my book shelf. &#151;Lady Aleena talk / contribs 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, my eyes crossed when I read the release date in the UK. Sorry. - LA @ 09:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great work on Raymond Feist! WOW! I hope that I helped a bit with the dates and ISBNs from my books. I wish that I could do the rest of them, but all I have are paperbacks and/or book club editions. I just looked hard at my copy of The King's Buccaneer and found that while it is a first edition, it is not a first printing. I am mildly upset about that. What are your plans when those tables are complete? - LA @ 09:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

numbers again
from Talk:Numb3rs: ''The move has been reverted by Elisabeth2 (talk • contribs). LadyShelley (talk • contribs) mentioned the last time that this happened (#title in capital letters) that she could obtain the official word on this; I have asked her if she can do this on her talk page to get a final decision on the title of this page. Please do not rename the article, or its sub-articles, again until we either get the official word, or consensus is established on this page. Mike Peel 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)''
 * is this a joke? who gives the offical word? imdb.com AND tv.com use Numb3rs and wiki is no blog! what about ALL THE EXAMPLES mentioned in my post?? i revert kernitou talk 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * i don't understand your point about contacting the creators?!? are you going to contact all the creators of the shows i mentioned in Talk:Numb3rs... be serious! by the way, have you noticed that both imdb.com and tv.com don't use capital letters?!? interesting, huh?! kernitou talk 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome message
Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Bhadani 13:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Time
Request for citation for Time edit

Hello. Can you please provide a citation for the information you added to the Time page, specifically the part on circular time that reads "This concept necessarily requires the existence of fifth and sixth dimensions, within which the hypothetical circle of space-time might exist." You may want to have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you. Mike Peel 10:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mike: I have added a diagram that illustrated why it is axiomatic that the circle of space-time must exist in at least two additional dimensions. Thank You Geologician 14:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

NUMB3RS
Hey, Mike. I noticed you just edited the NUMB3RS page at the same time as me. I already added the DVD information into the episodes page. I am going to remove the DVD section on the main page. If you have any problems with that, I'll be happy to talk to you about it. Sorry. -- Ladida 14:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just got your reply. I agree with you on that but in the future the summary for the seasons might get longer and shouldn't the longer articles be in their separate pages? I will try to expand on those summaries tomorrow. It's late now and I'm off to bed soon. So... do you mind if we leave the pages the same for now? I will try and put more information onto the "list of episodes" page tomorrow. Thanks for the reply. :) I was worried about removing your modification. -- Ladida 14:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, just to let you know I think you're right. I am going to merge it to the main article so everyone can see how it looks when it's done. It can be undone if the others don't like it but judging by their replies so far, I think they agree with you. :) I'll reply to the Talk:NUMB3RS as well. Regards, Ladida 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

neutrino oscillations
Hi Mike,

Why did you cut out the entire section that I had just written on the experimental evidence for neutrino oscillations? Was this the result of both of us having the article out at the same time, or do you feel that there is some reason not to cite any of the evidence? Whoops - guess I see that you just put it back in, thanks. But I think that the experimental evidence should come before the theory section, the average reader is probably more likely to understand the experimental section. Flying fish 20:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I should go do some real work now... The page is looking way nicer, by the way.

Feist books
Can you do that for the rest of the Feist books? It looks awkward on only two of them. Also, the first release should be noted first, not second, IMO. I have a copy of Flight on my book shelf. &#151;Lady Aleena talk / contribs 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, my eyes crossed when I read the release date in the UK. Sorry. - LA @ 09:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great work on Raymond Feist! WOW! I hope that I helped a bit with the dates and ISBNs from my books. I wish that I could do the rest of them, but all I have are paperbacks and/or book club editions. I just looked hard at my copy of The King's Buccaneer and found that while it is a first edition, it is not a first printing. I am mildly upset about that. What are your plans when those tables are complete? - LA @ 09:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

numbers again
from Talk:Numb3rs: ''The move has been reverted by Elisabeth2 (talk • contribs). LadyShelley (talk • contribs) mentioned the last time that this happened (#title in capital letters) that she could obtain the official word on this; I have asked her if she can do this on her talk page to get a final decision on the title of this page. Please do not rename the article, or its sub-articles, again until we either get the official word, or consensus is established on this page. Mike Peel 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)''
 * is this a joke? who gives the offical word? imdb.com AND tv.com use Numb3rs and wiki is no blog! what about ALL THE EXAMPLES mentioned in my post?? i revert kernitou talk 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * i don't understand your point about contacting the creators?!? are you going to contact all the creators of the shows i mentioned in Talk:Numb3rs... be serious! by the way, have you noticed that both imdb.com and tv.com don't use capital letters?!? interesting, huh?! kernitou talk 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome message
Welcome!

Hello,, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Bhadani 13:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Time
Request for citation for Time edit

Hello. Can you please provide a citation for the information you added to the Time page, specifically the part on circular time that reads "This concept necessarily requires the existence of fifth and sixth dimensions, within which the hypothetical circle of space-time might exist." You may want to have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you. Mike Peel 10:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mike: I have added a diagram that illustrated why it is axiomatic that the circle of space-time must exist in at least two additional dimensions. Thank You Geologician 14:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

NUMB3RS
Hey, Mike. I noticed you just edited the NUMB3RS page at the same time as me. I already added the DVD information into the episodes page. I am going to remove the DVD section on the main page. If you have any problems with that, I'll be happy to talk to you about it. Sorry. -- Ladida 14:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just got your reply. I agree with you on that but in the future the summary for the seasons might get longer and shouldn't the longer articles be in their separate pages? I will try to expand on those summaries tomorrow. It's late now and I'm off to bed soon. So... do you mind if we leave the pages the same for now? I will try and put more information onto the "list of episodes" page tomorrow. Thanks for the reply. :) I was worried about removing your modification. -- Ladida 14:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, just to let you know I think you're right. I am going to merge it to the main article so everyone can see how it looks when it's done. It can be undone if the others don't like it but judging by their replies so far, I think they agree with you. :) I'll reply to the Talk:NUMB3RS as well. Regards, Ladida 00:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

neutrino oscillations
Hi Mike,

Why did you cut out the entire section that I had just written on the experimental evidence for neutrino oscillations? Was this the result of both of us having the article out at the same time, or do you feel that there is some reason not to cite any of the evidence? Whoops - guess I see that you just put it back in, thanks. But I think that the experimental evidence should come before the theory section, the average reader is probably more likely to understand the experimental section. Flying fish 20:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I should go do some real work now... The page is looking way nicer, by the way.

Feist books
Can you do that for the rest of the Feist books? It looks awkward on only two of them. Also, the first release should be noted first, not second, IMO. I have a copy of Flight on my book shelf. &#151;Lady Aleena talk / contribs 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, my eyes crossed when I read the release date in the UK. Sorry. - LA @ 09:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great work on Raymond Feist! WOW! I hope that I helped a bit with the dates and ISBNs from my books. I wish that I could do the rest of them, but all I have are paperbacks and/or book club editions. I just looked hard at my copy of The King's Buccaneer and found that while it is a first edition, it is not a first printing. I am mildly upset about that. What are your plans when those tables are complete? - LA @ 09:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

numbers again
from Talk:Numb3rs: ''The move has been reverted by Elisabeth2 (talk • contribs). LadyShelley (talk • contribs) mentioned the last time that this happened (#title in capital letters) that she could obtain the official word on this; I have asked her if she can do this on her talk page to get a final decision on the title of this page. Please do not rename the article, or its sub-articles, again until we either get the official word, or consensus is established on this page. Mike Peel 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)''
 * is this a joke? who gives the offical word? imdb.com AND tv.com use Numb3rs and wiki is no blog! what about ALL THE EXAMPLES mentioned in my post?? i revert kernitou talk 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * i don't understand your point about contacting the creators?!? are you going to contact all the creators of the shows i mentioned in Talk:Numb3rs... be serious! by the way, have you noticed that both imdb.com and tv.com don't use capital letters?!? interesting, huh?! kernitou talk 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

SS Great Britain pic
Hi, Thanks for improving on my picture of the SS Great Britain propellar. I'm not much of a photographer & was being hassled by my kids at the time. If you have other photos of Bristol attractions you might want to see the WikiProject Bristol where there is a challenge to improve (or provide in the first instance) images for Bristol attractions. I seem to have done most of the submissions so far & as you've noticed my photography is not very good. &mdash; Rod talk 20:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Grigori Perelman
I have cleaned it up a second time; does it rate A in the latest version by myself? ---CH 22:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's an unexpected volte face: now I say, demote it to a C at best. Seriously misleading, many factual inaccuracies (since based upon poorly researched newspaper articles; the New Yorker piece seems to be by far the most authoritative account and it paints a very different picture). I have just left a long message at Talk:Grigori Perelman summarizing what I learned from the New Yorker piece and what I feel about what I read there. Pretty sad, really. Everything good and true, it seems, is soon perverted into something ugly. ---CH 06:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

ArXiv citation template
Mike, I replied on my user page. The arXiv and journal citation templates are completely different and serve different functions. Getting the arXiv citation template was one of my finest achievements at Wikipedia, so please don't delete it!!!!!! ---CH 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

List of misnamed theorems
Arghgh! Sure enough, I have munged something and don't see where. Can you find my grammatical goof? The problem is that all but the last footnote suddently "duplicated" (ab in the references section) after I added one more. ---CH 21:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I accidently fixed it. But we need to draw up a itemized list of common syntax problems and put it somewhere where prospective editors cannot miss it. ---CH 21:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, the mysterious error is back. Never mind the never mind. Alarm! Alarm! Looks like this is running away with endless duplication of references which will grow exponentially. I hate to think what that might do! ---CH 21:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 28th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lebedev
I was looking through the Mikhail Lebedev page and it seems to be vanity and non-notable to me. First of all, there is hardly any information about him on Google. Then, none of the publications seem to be news-worthy and notable. Finally, the scientist does not have many 1st author publications and seems to be non-important in his field. If you agree with me, can you please help me nominate Mikhail Lebedev for deletion? --GoOdCoNtEnT 08:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a neuroscientist, so I can't say how notable he is in his field. A Google Scholar search shows that he hasn't got many highly-cited articles (the best I could see was circa 100 citations on a paper he co-authored), so he probably fails notability requirements there. Your best bet is to get in touch with WikiProject Neuroscience and ask for their comments and help, as they're in the best position to figure out the notability of the article, and nominate it for deletion if needed. Mike Peel 08:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

General relativity
Thanks for fixing the bug at General relativity Mike. MP  (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 11th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

200 (Stargate SG-1)
Hello. Since you're the one who added the OR banner, could you please list your specific thoughts, point by point, concerning the article (like adding the "Citation Needed" tags, where applicable) or remove the banner? I'm trying to strengthen the article, but if you check out my talk page, you'll see my efforts have hit a critic. --Bark 14:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. We'll see what he says now.  --Bark 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium
You've re-added the AfD. According to the talk page this was discussed and rejected long ago. Who is right ? Greglocock 23:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Total number of physics articles
Apropos a comment you made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics a couple weeks ago, do you have a more current figure for the total number of physics articles? How does one go about finding that number anyway? (I've been around here an astonishingly long time without learning the details of how bots work, which is a defect I should remedy someday.) Anville 18:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Particle infobox
I started on a particle infobox as well here: User:Ravedave/ElmParticletest and you can see a sample here: User:Ravedave/ElmParticleInfoBox. I like the style of yours better in that its light, but its lacking any sort of division. Can you hold off on spreading it around for a bit till we get it totally worked out? Lets setup a sandbox somewhere and get a nice version going then push it out to as many particles as we can. What do you think?-Ravedave (help name my baby) 21:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for holding off, I'd just hate to have to update like 30 pages. I can understand what you mean about blending in. The infobox I have now is quite bold, literally. I can't figure out why all the text is bolded... I'm about to go pull a motorcycle engine out so I don't have much time. I will list out some of the paremters I would like for the template. As long as the parameters are set chaging the style is no big deal. I might get back to it in 6 hours or so, aka 11PM Minnesota time. Thanks!! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 21:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I dropped some comments on the template talk. Happy editing! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 22:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks muchly!
Hi, Mike, thanks so much for the Barnstar and your help in shepherding Photon to FA status. I had to leave again for a few days on a serious family matter, and I was admittedly nervous about what might happen to jinx the FA. So it would be hard to describe my happiness when I returned last night and found that Photon was an FA, thanks to your stepping in and answering those criticisms. Your work with Ravedave on the Template:Infobox Particle was wonderful, too. Wikipedia is as full of good, smart people as a pomegranate is full of seeds. Willow 10:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Classical mechanics
I really think that classical mechanics has Top-importance in physics. After all, it is the foundation of all our physical theories, even (unfortunately) quantum mechanics. It's impossible to know anything about physics without knowing classical mechanics. So I changed the importance – I'm not sure if it is OK to just go in and change it or not. If it doesn't work that way, please revert and leave me a little explanation. Thanks. –Joke 16:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your sorting effort
Wow! This will raise the number of assessed articles substantially. Do I understand the process correctly, that once tagging is done, a bot will generate overview and stats pages.

One minor caveat: Award articles, like Wigner medal, all seem to get the "stub" category, per "auto", allegedly because of a stub template. But:
 * 1) To the best of my knowledge those articles never had a stub template
 * 2) IMHO there is no big potential for expansion, either they
 * 3) should be considered list-like and excempt from article assessment
 * 4) be rated somewhat like "short, but no need to grow" -- a seemingly missing assessment grade

Only a nitpick in the grand scheme, but I'm just watching a number of those articles, so I was wondering.

Pjacobi 22:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jacobson density theorem
The Jacobson density theorem is abstract algebra, not physics (not that kind of density). Charles Matthews 22:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess
You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Template-happy fools
You've got to be kidding me? Slapping a WikiProject Physics tag on Zentner, an old unit of mass used in commerce in Germany and Austria, but long-since fallen into disuse and rarely seen in the last century or century and a half or so, one which was never used in physics? Get real. That isn't helpful to the WikiProject, nor to the article. Gene Nygaard 22:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I took that approach because with semi-automated processes, that's the best way to get a little reconsideration in case it is a widespread problem.


 * Part of your difficulty may have resulted from a failure to understand that categories are not just a straight line downward from somewhere, with only one parent for each subcategory, but rather are intertwined in many and various ways, and many of the categories which have Category:Physics somewhere in their parentage also have many other categories unrelated to physics above them. Gene Nygaard 22:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that a few will slip through, and you seem to be taking reasonable care to avoid that.
 * I see you've gotten the crushed ice, but I suppose you haven't gotten around to the Jim Beam or Coca-Cola yet. ;-) Gene Nygaard 15:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We just have to appoint some volunteers to WikiProject Metrology and assign them -- amongst others -- all articles below Category:Units of measure. Could also create some spectacular WikiQuarrels, look at all the pastel boxes in Metrology. --Pjacobi 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Crushed ice
You objected to my tagging Crushed ice with physics-stub tag. Crushed ice has interesting physical properties. --- Skapur 22:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

infobox particle
I am submitting the Template:Infobox_Particle to a "peer review" at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics. If you have any comments they would be appreciated. Thanks -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Physics tag
I see you have added the tag to a lot of articles that are on my watchlist. That is great. However I also think they should be tagged for the Chemistry project. Most of them are methods that were developed by chemists, e.g. NDDO, MINDO, SINDO, etc. If you come across any like this, perhaps you could add as well and save effort. I'll add it those you have taged. --Bduke 22:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you have removed the Physics project tag on Talk:Semi-empirical quantum chemistry methods. That is fine. To be consistent it should be removed from all articles that are about such methods, e,g, NDDO, MINDO, etc. I see you have removed it also from some talk pages about ab initio programs, such as Talk:JAGUAR. Again to be consistent, it should be removed from all talk pages of articles about ab initio programs. Can I do this as I add the Chemistry Project tag? --Bduke 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, and greetings from murky England. I'm responding here as per your instructions at the top of your talk page. I'm using AutoWikiBrowser to auto-tag batches of physics articles, and I set it going on Category:Quantum physics stubs with the (naive?) viewpoint that as the category has "physics" in the name, all of the articles would be about physics. Near the end of the run, I found out that there were some chemistry articles in the category too. The next thing I'll be doing with my tagging is to go back through the category and remove mistaken tags, and as per your request I'll add chemistry tags as and when I spot chemistry articles (both now, and in the future). If you do spot any mistaken physics tags, please feel free to remove them. Thanks. Mike Peel 07:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. Sorry about England being murky. I got back from there only three weeks ago. It is real spring here - cold one moment and hot the next. OK, I understand what you are doing. A lot of quantum chemistry stuff has a physics tag on it. I do not think there is any harm in those articles being in both Projects. I would like the projects to work together more. I'll take it off semi-empirical methods and chemistry codes however, as I suggest above. --Bduke 08:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for changing the tags on the semi-empirical and code pages. I've just run through the other articles in the category than still have tags, and they all look fine to me - some are on the boundary between physics and chemistry or computer science, but they have enough physics in them to count under WP:Phys in my mind. Thanks again. Mike Peel 15:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello
thanks for any comments and editing you have done to my article. Senators 5:27pm, 05 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Peelbot
Hi Mike Peel, I've added Peelbot to the AWB approved users with the auto setting disabled; when Peelbot gets full bot approval from a member of the bot approvals' group, Peelbot can be given the right to use auto-save. — Mets501 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is now in the bot section, though please restrict your edit rate to 2-3 per minutes until it is being flagged or it will flood recent change. Thanks --WinHunter (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My Windows install isn't too fast atm (the computer it's on is fast, but it's a PowerPC-based mac so I'm having to emulate), so a low edit rate shouldn't be a problem. I'll probably only be able to reach one edit a minute or so. I'm getting a new computer; when I've got things set up on that, they should run at up to the 6 edits per minute I requested. Mike Peel 07:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike. Per Voice of All's final approval, I've granted the bot flag to Peelbot.  Cheers,  Redux 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Mike Peel 19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark II
Nice article. Enjoyed the read -- Samir धर्म 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Guenter Wendt
You tagged this article as being physics-related, which I think is incorrect. Wendt was an engineer and pad technician, not a physicist, so unless engineering is considered to be a physics field, I think that the tag should be removed. MLilburne 09:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your comment
Thanks for your input. Serendipodous 19:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your posting of a tag
Mike, you or your robot just posted a   tag on the Talk page of the Standard conditions for temperature and pressure article which is completely incomprehensible! It asks readers to rate the article and has a post "here" link. When one presses that link, one is sent to a blank comment page with absolutely no instructions on how or where to provide one's rating. If you are going to go around posting this tag, then you should also post detailed, explicit instructions on how we can rate the article and where to do so. Just referring us to Wikipedia articles or FAQ defining certain ratings is not enough. You must tell us how and where to rate the specific Standard conditions for temperature and pressure article.

If you don't provide that information, then I will be sorely tempted to just delete your tag. - mbeychok 03:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. Sorry for the confusion. The linked-to page is for leaving comments; you rate the article by editing the talk page of the article and changing the template to something like . I've refined the text to make this a little clearer, and I'll put together a How-To guide for the template this evening. Thanks. Mike Peel 08:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. But if I change the template to Class A, Importance High, then how does someone else rate the article? Does that someone else merely overwrite my rating? That means the rating will always represent the opinion of only one person. That's rather meaningless. isn't it? - mbeychok 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right that they are changed by overwriting the old rating. I don't expect that the ratings will be that controversial, though, so once rated they should only be changed when the article's improved enough to need to be changed. Technically, I don't think there's much that can be done to allow multiple people to rate the article, although the history of the talk page will preserve the history of ratings. Note that the comments don't need to be overwritten. The ratings are intended only to serve as a guide, though, and I'd say that the more important parts of the template for work done on the article are the links to WP:Phys and the physics portal (which I think everyone should know that they exist, and can be asked to help on specific things), as well as the comments that are left. From an admin side, the ratings allow the easy selection of the "best" WP articles, which can then be included in WP1.0 - which I believe was the original motivation behind this type of template. Mike Peel 17:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A how-to guide now exists at Template:Physics/usage. Mike Peel 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just read your how-to guide and it is very good. I just wish that all templates would include similar guides ... many of them have no guidance of any kind.


 * However, the actual template tag still does'nt tell readers where to find the how-to guide and a great many people don't know how to find the templates much less find their usage guidance. The actual template tag should include an explicit link to the how-to guide. - mbeychok 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. I meant to do that, but then got distracted. It's now been added. Mike Peel 20:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mike, you finally got it all corrected and much more helpful! Now if you could only find some high-level administrator or computer guru who could do the same type of corrections with all the dozens of other incomprehensible templates and there truly are dozens of them that need it. Regards and Happy Thanksgiving, - mbeychok 22:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fixed points
Your bot added this category to the physics project. I'm not a physicist, so I don't know really how useful fixed points are in physics. But many of those articles are purely mathematical, and probably should not be in the physics project. I just noticed you tagged Lefschetz zeta function, which I'd be very surprised to see in physics (though I could be wrong). Staecker 01:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right; I've removed the physics tags from them now. Thanks for pointing them out. I was thinking that the zeta function was mentioned in one of my undergraduate classes, then I remembered that it was the Riemann zeta function ... probably... Either way, they all fall best under Maths. Mike Peel 08:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can the Peelbot be made a bit more intelligent and discriminating?
Mike, in the last few days, I have been amused by how many articles that the Peelbot selects to tag as an article for the WikiProject Physics. The latest one I've noticed is the Units conversion by factor-label. For the world of me, I cannot see how any serious, real world physicist would have the slightest interest in such an elementary, simple article (even though I wrote it). Would you please remove that tag? Regards, - mbeychok 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While what you say is probably true, the article does seem to me to fall under WikiProject Physics. The article falls more under the teaching of physics than physics in practice.


 * With respect to the subject of this discussion, Peelbot is currently working through categories for the first time, so is doing bulk tagging. So far, the signal to noise ratio seems to be pretty good. Once I've finished running through all of the categories - within the next few days - I'm hoping to be able to compare lists of articles within categories with the list of already-tagged articles, picking out those that aren't tagged, then going though checking whether they are physics. Those that are will then be tagged with my bot. Mike Peel 19:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OVV quasars tagged as part of WikiProject physics
Could you please tell me why you marked OVV quasar as part of WikiProject Physics? It looks like it would be better handled by WikiProject Astronomical objects. Dr. Submillimeter 18:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My thinking was that individual astronomical objects were covered by that wikiproject, while types of objects fall under astrophysics, hence physics. Mike Peel 18:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Welding articles
Welding articles probably shouldn't be tagged with physics&mdash;there's the much more appropriate Metalworking WikiProject. --Spangineerws (háblame)  03:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'd agree. Gas tungsten arc welding and Plasma arc welding were tagged while I was going through Category:Plasma processing. In retrospect, I shouldn't have tagged that category. I'm now reverting the edits my bot made to articles within that category where appropriate. Thanks for letting me know. Mike Peel 08:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Peelbot put depleted uranium in physics
Which branch of physics would DU be in? I removed the notice, twice. LossIsNotMore 05:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work
I noticed your work on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Portal:Physics pages and I would like to thank you very much for your effort.

--Meno25 02:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects
Hello Mike. Your query about archiving the project talk page using Werdnabot seems not to have received a clear response in either direction. How would you feel if I did a conventional manual archive? At 114K the page is too big. EdJohnston 20:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I keep thinking that it needs doing, but I always end up being distracted by something else before I actually do it. Mike Peel 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hypernovae
Please see my responses to deleting Category:Hypernovae at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects and Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 29. Hypernovae are a real class of objects, as shown by an ADS Abstract Search on the term. Moreover, several individual objects have been identified as hypernovae (including SN 1998bw, which I added to the category). Moreover, plenty of papers on individual hypernovae have been written (see the references on SN 2002ap in the supernovae section of Messier 74, for example), thus providing more material on these objects than many other astronomical objects within Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 21:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Case of shortcuts: too bad it matters!
Yes, trying WP:PHYS certainly is a failure for me. However I find I get correct results with wp:wpm. It's hard to figure the general rule. I recently created a shortcut CAT:INVALID for which cat:invalid also works. A mystery! 'wp:wpao' doesn't go anywhere, though I could create an explicit shortcut for that. Have you read anything about this behavior? The only thing I know that I read is that the case of the first letter in the 'Go' box doesn't matter. EdJohnston 21:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always used the shortcuts to manually write the URL of the page. That method seems to have different rules from when it's entered into the "search" box on the left. There, it doesn't seem to matter what case you use, except mixed-caps names such as WP:Phys don't work when you mess around with the cases.


 * wp:wpao won't work, as WP:WPAO doesn't yet exist.


 * Info on shortcuts seems to be given at Shortcut. I'm tempted to either raise the issue of the address bar shortcuts not working properly, and the mixed caps (e.g. WP:Phys) issue, with them there, or on the Wikimedia Bugzilla. I'll wait until I'm more awake before doing that, though. Mike Peel 22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussion at WT:WPAO.

Werdnabot reliability
Hello Mike. Looking at the Werdnabot log, it seems it ran on just four days in December and not at all in November. At present the server at www.epstone.net seems to be down. The idea of Werdnabot is great, it's only the day-in day-out service that seems less than perfect. Of course it's a volunteer effort. Do you have access to a computer that could run Werdnabot or equivalent? It seems that there could be an opening for that if you are interested. Another idea is a 'personal archiver' that could be run locally under manual control on a person's own PC or Mac, but employ the Werdnabot algorithm. EdJohnston 04:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The werdnabot log seems to be a bit off - have a look at Special:Contributions/Werdnabot to see that bot's edits. Also, have a look at the history of Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Physics and/or this page.
 * I am tempted to set up my own, proper bot (User:Peelbot just uses AWB with a plugin, and isn't really that adaptable), but the problem is finding the time to code it. I'll try to get around to it at some point, but it'll probably take a while. I think it is a job best done by a bot, rather than having a personal archiver, as there's negligible point to that compared with manually archiving stuff. Mike Peel 07:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)