User talk:Mbeychok/Archive4

Template:Thermodynamic cycles

That doesn't work; you've turned it into a template which appears under an empty instance of Template:navigation. At that point you might as well ditch the other template.--Father Goose 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Goose, I don't agree with you. The only difference between the version I proposed and the prior version by Glen is that (a) There is no border around the entire template and (b) the extraneous braces have be removed. Which would you rather have: removal of the highly visible extraneous braces or a border which very few will even notice?

However, if you can come up with a version that has a border and gets rid of the extraneous braces as well, why not do so? I will applaud you for doing that. Cordially, - mbeychok 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it outside the border disables the [hide] button as well, so it's not a permanent solution. I've tried an alternative approach by switching from template:navigation to a table with "navbox" css formatting. I think it would look better (and be more compact) if the headers were on the left side, but that's more than I'm willing to tinker with at this time. Anyhow, I took a stab at it.--Father Goose 04:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you have done. Now if only someone could get those small links at very top left (v d e) into it as they are for the "Navigation" formatting. Thanks for your work. - mbeychok 05:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal power station-condenser and deaerator images

I feel for the specific article the images you have replaced appear to be primitive which probably have to be in the respective general articles. I feel my earlier images with more details go with the present article, with slight change in text, though these images require reworking for improvement. Excuse me if this hurts you. Please opine.

--Dore chakravarty 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dore, I think the images which were replaced were excessively detailed and too oriented toward certain specific plants in India, so that they simply were not appropriate for a more general audience. And if you will excuse me for saying so, they were very crudely hand-drawn sketches, virtually unreadable and unworthy of being in an encyclopedic article. I regret having to be this blunt, but you have raised this same point many times previously and I have tried to explain this to you a number of times.

Dore, you must learn to accept how Wikipedia works. The original author of an article does not "own" the article. Others are permitted to revise it, expand it and improve it. They are also permitted to change any drawings or diagrams or replace them with more suitable ones. From that process, an improved article will emerge. - mbeychok 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil fuel power plant

I don't see anything on Ghetsmith's talk page. Do you mean his contributions page? OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 05:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, saw it now. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page}

I have a feeling that Jbntj and Ghetsmith are sockpuppets. Check their contribution pages, both are actively acting articles related to energy production, renewable energy, and fossil fuel power plant. Not to mention that they keep reverting the templates. Do you think they are sockpuppets? OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 05:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reported both users to suspected sock puppetry at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ghetsmith. Both of us should be best to stay cool, and leave everything to admins. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 06:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to disappoint you that I can still see their userpage and talk page. Something's wrong with your browser (or your setting in Wikipedia). Try check out their talk pages from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ghetsmith and let me know to see if you can read their talk pages. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 16:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at what Ghetsmith has done to the Talk page of Fossil fuel power plant

He reverted User:OhanaUnited's very recent change from Class:Stub to Class:B for the WikiProject Environment template. It is now back to Class:Stub.

He also replaced the WikiProject Climate Change template which OhanaUnited had very recently deleted.

He then archived selected portions of the Talk page comments so that it now contains mostly just discussions of the environmental aspects.

It seems that some user (or some group of users) is bent on turning the Fossil fuel power plant into propaganda about the environmental and global warming evils attributable to power plants. I find it difficult to believe that it is just coincidental that users User:Jbntj and User:Ghetsmith happened to come along at about the same time.

Take a look at User:Ghetsmith's Talk page. Is there anything that can be done to stop this behavior? - mbeychok 05:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mbeychok, just looking at the article the logic for assessing the article as b for energy and stub for environment could be due to the fact there is not a huge amount of information regarding the environment in the main article. I was under the understanding however the rating scale was for the article on the whole, although I confess I am not fully up to speed with the rating proceedure. I would think their edits should be followed. If you believe they are sock puppets for one user and you have some proof it should be reported to an adminitrator to take up. Hope this helps --Alex 07:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that User:Jbntj presently has a suspected sock puppet tag on his user page.Alex 07:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

Hi there. With regard to this edit, applying the tag does not perform any level of protection to the article, which is something that only an administrator can do. Requests for page protection can be made at WP:RPP, and the protection policy is described at WP:PROT. Regards, — BillC ^talk 01:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anaerobic digestion article peer review

Hi MBeychok, if you have time I would appreciate you taking a look at the anaerobic digestion article. I have spent a lot of time today improving it and making it more technically accurate. I would appreciate your views from the chemical engineering point of view on how to improve it further. Thanks --Alex 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Milton. I have refined the article further based upon your suggestions. I have also created the section regarding the history of anaerobic digestion using a couple of online references.--Alex 09:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Infobox Book

That's something you'll have to discuss first on Template talk:Infobox Book and reach a consensus before that change can be made. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil fuel plant and deaerator comments

Put the comments on the talk page, not my comments page. No one else is going to see them there. I'm not going to change the pages without a discussion first.Wefoij 21:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I had already done what you suggest. Since you seem to be un-registered as a user, I wanted to be sure that my comment reached you. Regards again, - mbeychok 21:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Logo-CEEES.png

Did you happen to get an OTRS ticket number when you sent the permission emails to permissions-en@wikipedia.org? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was about 6 months ago and to the best of my memory, I didn't receive a reply of any kind from Permissions. Is there a problem of any kind? Please let me know. Regards, - mbeychok 14:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask someone who has access to the permissions queue (I don't) to look into it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The permissions people say they don't have it. Do you still have the email? If you send it to me, I'll take care of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't aware that I would need to keep it and I did not. With all due respect, I think it is rather unneccessary to worry about it after all this time. CEES is a very small organization and the officers are volunteers who change quite often. I don't even know the names of the current officers. If you will look at my image gallery at User:Mbeychok/MRB's_image_gallery, you will see that I have uploaded a good many images. I would have no reason to be telling you anything but the truth. - mbeychok 16:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, we can still use the logo under the fair use provisions of the copyright law. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Asbestos quote

Arguably the most notorious environmental polluter in history, W.R. Grace (A Civil Action), again showed its malice for human health with its failure to make public an internal study conducted by W.R. Grace, subsequent to its purchase of the Libby, MT Asbestos Mine in 1963.

"Malice" is a strong word and I believe generally requires a source to be used in this type of context. Looking more broadly at the quote, it obviously needs a source that they intentionally concealed the report, otherwise it undoubtedly fails WP:V. As for NPOV concerns, I think that if the information is true that the company was a heavy environmental polluter and there is proof of this (with a source), then I don't believe there are any real issues with the statement's neutrality. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

Hi Milton, just a quick message to say that I received your email. My apologies for not responding sooner. Things are extremely hectic at the moment! I have been on holiday in Ethiopia for 2 weeks and before that Estonia so I have not been active on Wikipedia. I have also started a new job today and over the next two weeks I am relocating from Bristol to Manchester. Once I have a bit of spare time I will get more involved in wikipedia again. I hope that your health problems improve and you are feeling well soon.

With kind regards --Alex 09:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major Petroleum Products in Oil refinery

Milt,

Recently, an unregistered editor removed the List of Major Petroleum Products and a Leffler reference in the Oil refinery article. Was that you by chance? I reverted his edit keeping your subsequent edit intact. You then removed the List of Major Petroleum Products (plus the Leffler reference) again. Did you not want want the List of major petroleum products in the Oil refinery article? H Padleckas 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry,I made a mistake and didn't close the multiple use <ref name=Leffler/> properly. As for the Leffler reference, it is till there... both at the Major Petroleum Products section as well as in the lead-in section of the article.

I believe that I've now corrected my mistake. I've really got to learn to Preview...Preview...Preview! Thanks for alerting me to my mistake. - mbeychok 01:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've re-inserted the List again, and I think that's good. H Padleckas 01:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Spammer

Yep, I call that spam. Thanks for pointing it out. In the future, if you see someone do that, leave 'em a little warning on their talk page and if they continue, report them to WP:AIV and we'll follow up with a block. Good catch. - Philippe | Talk 03:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why {{db-bio}} tag was removed from my user page by Timotab

Earlier today, Smuschiano215 went on a vandalism rampage. For that, he was indefinitely blocked by administrator Fuhghettaboutit.

During that rampage, Smuschiano215 posted a {{db-bio}} tag on my user page. That tag was then deleted by user Timotab.

All of this occurred while I was otherwise occupied and it has taken me about an hour and half to unravel what happened. If anyone knows of any action that I must take regarding that {{db-bio}} tag now that it was deleted by user Timotab, please let me know. - mbeychok 21:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It's permitted to have a little bit of biographical information on your User page, as long as the primary focus is on Wikipedia stuff. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 21:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distillation

Hi,

Just wondering wondering why you have removed my comments as spam - do you go look at the articles listed?

Thanks Karl Kolmetz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkolmetz (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cooling Tower

Hi,

Just wondering why you took down the link that I posted to my article that was in Chemcial Engineering Progress.

Thanks Karl Kolmetz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.115.227 (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Kolmetz, the major problem with the "External links" that you added to four Wikipedia articles is that you did not take the time to learn how to use Wikipedia and become familiar with the various Wikipedia policies regarding the editing of articles. I would like to point out that the History section of each of the following articles shows that all of the "External links" you added were links to your own website, namely www.kolmetz.com. The four articles were: "Cooling tower", "Distillation", "Industrial Water treatment" and "Vacuum distillation".

Wikipedia has a policy against adding "External links" that point to one's own website. When an anonymous user like yourself, enters Wikipedia for a few hours and adds "External links" to four articles all pointing to his/her own website, and then leaves Wikipedia ... it is assumed that his/her only motivation was to advertise his/her website, and that is called "spam". I am sorry that seems to have offended you, as you made clear in your three phone calls and in our subsequent phone conversation, but that doesn't change the facts of what you did. In fact, you did it two days in a row.

If you will note, I did not delete the written text that you added to the "Vacuum distillation" article, because I thought it was quite useful and appropriate.

Most technical subject articles in Wikipedia have an "External links"section and a "References" section. And there is very specific way of creating a proper Reference, of which you seem to be unaware. As I told you on the phone, if you will send me the following information about the published articles involved, I will make proper References about them for you and install them in the pertinent article:

(1) Exact title of the published paper

(2) First and last name of all authors

(3) Name of the journal in which the article was published

(4) Exact date the of the pertinent issue of the journal (day, month, year, volume number if applicable)

If the article was presented at a conference (rather than being published on a journal), then I need:

(1) Exact title of the presented paper

(2) First and last name of all authors

(3) Name of the conference

(4) What city , state/province) and country where the conference was held

(5) Exact date of the conference (day, month, year)

I want to stress that I am willing to do this for you this one time. In the future, you should take the time to learn how to do it yourself. I would also urge you to create a Wikipedia User page and Discussion page so that other Wikipedians like myself can easily communicate with you. - mbeychok 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir

Thanks I will go learn Wikipedia rules and repost my comments from the published Hydrocarbon Processing and Oil and Gas Journal Articles. I would think that content from Hydrocarbon Processing and Oil and Gas Journal would improve the level of distillation content in Wikipedia.

As a source of knowledge as Wikipedia is trying to be, I would think that improved content should supersede all other concerns. The more difficult you make for people to post, the modern distillation principles will not be added, like CFD Modeling than was in my vacuum tower article.

I decided to go look for wikipedia rules and principles. I googled "Wikipedia rules" and fould the anwered to be very interesting.

Thanks

Karl Kolmetz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkolmetz (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, your comments about how hard it is to post correctly are exactly the same as mine were about two years ago! But that doesn't help ... as I found out. You just have to buckle down and learn how to edit in Wikipedia.

Google is not the place to look for Wikipedia editing guidance. Instead, just scroll down the left hand side of Wikipedia Main Page (or any other page) until you see the word "Help". Click on that and you will find all of the Wikipedia editing guidance, tutorials and policies. Be prepared to spend at least a week or two studying them. Also, studying the "Edit" pages of other articles will be most helpful. Regards and welcome to Wikipedia. - mbeychok 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have my own very successful website, that I program myself - as an engineer I was taught fortran and basic. I have spent well over 8 hours trying to improve the distillation pages and it all got deleted - I doubt I will try again in the near future to help.

Thanks, Karl Kolmetz

Replied

I have replied to your request on my talk page. :-) - Philippe | Talk 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 4 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article relative volatility, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boiling point article

Milt, Are you going to work on the Boiling point article? If so, I will leave it alone for the near future. If not, I may take a look at it. I was thinking similar things as you when I read it before, but I did not have time then to fix anything. H Padleckas 22:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry, please do work on it. I've got too much on my plate at this time. That article really needs a complete work-over! The more I see articles like that one (and there are many), the more discouraging it is. That's why I finally "boiled over" on the article's Talk page. - mbeychok 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

air heater article

Do you think that my article about air heaters could be improved upon? Any suggestions would be appreciated. air heater thanks Mlrusch 16:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article called Air preheater. Why do you think we need another article? Perhaps, you should consider merging your Air heater article into the existing Air preheater article. I don't believe there is anything gained by having two articles on the same subject. Regards, - mbeychok 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've created a horrible mess!!

This edit of yours created a horrible mess. In the first place, when you move a page, you're supposed to hit the "move" button so that the edit history gets moved, rather than using copy-and-paste. Now there are two separate edit histories. Merging them will be unpleasant. In the second place, the new title you used was simply incorrect. Page titles are singular by default. For that reason, I tried to use the "move" button to move the plural back to the singular and couldn't because of the separate edit histories.

Please, please, please: Help clean this up!! Michael Hardy 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and this was just two days after someone had correct the title in the proper way by using the "move" button to move the plural title to the singular. Michael Hardy 14:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy, I very much regret that I may have created a problem. That was a year ago and I have no memory of what I did or did not do to the article. I do know that the proper way to re-name an article is to use the "move" button and, if I did not do so, then I apologize.

I haven't got the faintest idea of how to go about cleaning up the problem. Not to make excuses, but does it really matter that much if one article title is plural rather than single? It has been that way now for many months. My apologies again, - mbeychok 15:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the page and put in a request at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. I'd do it myself if I were adept at this sort of thing.

Of course it matters. Wikipedia's conventions protect against creation of multiple pages whose authors do not know of each other's work, and other problems. Michael Hardy 15:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anaerobic digestion featured article nomination

Hi Milton, I hope you are well. I have been in the process of working on the anaeorbic digestion article improving pictures, peer review and good article nomination. I would now like the article to be considered for featured article status. I have nominated the article for consideration as a featured article. Please take a minute to look at this here Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anaerobic_digestion leaving feedback and suggestions for improvement where relevant. Many thanks --Alex 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex: It looks darn good to me. However, I have no specific comments other than those I gave you a few month ago when you asked me to first look at it. Good luck with your efforts to get it recognized as a Featured Article. I apologize for not being able to reply sooner. Regards, - mbeychok 01:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milton, thanks for the info. I am currently working towards getting it as a featured article but following some suggestions have withdrawn it from nomination at this stage. Its coming along well however.--Alex 13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air heater and preheater

Hi, Mbeychok. Nothing really needs to be done unless it is a job you (or the other people he asked) would like to get involved in. It would be just another merge that needs to be completed (there were many hundreds of articles in the "to be merged" category last time I checked). If it is something you want to do, you can go ahead and make the changes yourself if he does not respond after a while. Since people's participation on Wikipedia can be erratic, it is best to wait a while before making a controversial change. I suggest leaving one more message on his talk page, stating that you will go ahead with the merge if he has no objection. You can tell if he is aware of your message if he edits Wikipedia after you posted to his talk page. If he has continued editing the air heater article since receiving your guys' responses, it would, of course, be an indication that he disagrees with the advice. If there is a disagreement, then the parties should work it out on a talk page. Finally, I recommend that the final name be "air heater" rather than "air preheater", since "heater" would seem to cover heaters and preheaters. This is unless the "air heater" article is actually about devices that are also called "air preheaters". In that case, whatever name is most common should be used. All of this is just my advice, not policy or anything (except for the most common name being used for the article title, which is the main naming convention). If I have failed to answer your question, let me know. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distillation for Veropedia

Hi mbeychok

I've recently joined the Veropedia team, and I understand their goal to be collating the "best of Wikipedia" into a resource for students and teachers.

I worked with you on distillation in the past. I think the article's in pretty good shape, how about you? I was thinking of uploading it onto Veropedia. Before that, a few things need to be done — most are stylistic, making sure the article conforms to the MoS, etc. The article should also not contain fair use images (no issue here), and should not contain any unreferenced assertions. In this case, there is one {{cn}} to be fixed.

What do you think? If you do agree, perhaps we can spend a week cleaning it up for upload?

p/s Nice work with Image:Trickle_Filter.png - I never knew you could do such a nice picture with MS Paint! --Rifleman 82 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helpdesk question

Regarding you question on the help desk concerning the popups, here is a link to where you put the script in order to user it. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore above message, you seem to have found the correct area already. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

I see you edit a lot of power/refinery article and you are a retired Chem E. If you need a hand with an article or would like someone to work with you from time to time let me know.

If you see me editing your articles from time to time, don’t think I am stalking you, I just had the “pleasure” of writing, reviewing, and editing some fossil OMM and procedural manuals in a brief former life. You have done some pretty good work. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 19:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer and, when I need help, I will take you up on your offer. You made some very good edits to Fossil fuel power plant. However, why did you add some incomprehensible edits (which I have since undone) to that article at 11:15 this morning? This is one example of what you added "?UNIQ44ee6cdc6508798a-math-0000000A-QINU?". Was it simply a mistake on your part? If so, do you not know how to correct such mistakes or what? If that was the reason, let me know and I will try to show you how to correct such mistakes. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy

		The Power Engineering Barnstar
		For loads of hard work on an electrifying topic DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposed: Control valve cavitation → Flow control valve

It has been proposed to merge the content of Control valve cavitation into Flow control valve. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 14:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NatGasProcessing Image

Hey. I noticed your flowchart while reading about natural gas. It's great! I especially like the detail in each box including the names of chemical processes used at that step. What would be nice is if the names of those processes could be wiki-linked inside the image? So that one could click on a certain name in a certain box and read about it immediately. I'd gladly do the necessary work, if you could point me to something about how to do this (what it is called,etc.). Thanks 128.32.225.98 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there just is no way of doing that. In any event, the unit processes which can be linked to an existing Wikipedia article are already so linked in the accompanying text of the article. For example, amine gas treating, Claus process, pressure swing adsorption, molecular sieves, Merox, etc. are linked in the text. - mbeychok 03:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]