Here is some general information you may find useful: click here
Be Bold with your edits but also be moderate, check out the policy on NPOV, or neutral point of view and remember to cite your sources. Proper Wikiquette suggests it is a good idea to make a suggestion first on the discussion page of a controversial article before making substantial edits, if you wish to avoid an edit war. We do not own the material we contribute, so be prepared to have your entries edited mercilessly— the thought "but it's my article" should never cross your mind.
You can find help with editing at How to edit a page including how to do special characters and formatting, and the Manual of Style is also strongly recommended.
When most of us start working on Wikipedia or its sister projects we think of them mainly as information resources, but Wikipedia is also an international community. It is a way for us to share and collaborate as we work towards the elusive goal of consensus. Check out the Community portal at the left of any page to find many opportunities to work together.
You should place new entries on Talk (discussion) pages at the bottom, and sign with four tildes like this:~~~~ (there is also a sig button at the top of the edit window), and you can indent your entry in a discussion thread by putting a colon (:) or several (:::) as needed in the left-hand margin. If you put a space as the first character on a line that line will remain unformatted (not recommended).
Thank you for your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia. Your experience will be very welcome here. There are a few things to pick up on working in and with the community. The great thing about it is you can learn as you go, no waiting to be "certified". Section titles typically only have the first word capitalized. The graphic you placed in the article is not appropriate for the reasons I cited on the talk page. I know it was probably a lot of work, but most of this type of information should be formatted as an editable table rather than a graphic. I hope you will add to the section, elaborating on the importance of stack gas cleanup, dispersion, etc. The main article should contain a summary, with much of the additional material in other article linked to from the main one. I see you have already started several of these. Some Wiki markup language is simpler to use than HTML, and you will pick this up as you see how it is done in other articles.
One other thing. Direct links to websites that advertise things, even books, are frowned upon. As you can see in Fossil fuel power plant, I replaced your web link with an ISBN number auto-link. That way people can find the book in a library or bookstore of choice, without favoring one source. I realize there is also much good information on your website. Perhaps you can find a way to organize it so that we can still link to it for the additional information without having it appear to be so promotional, more like a university web site for example. Of course we work together, and my opinion is only one point of view. (And there should be no problem with having the link to your site on your user page.) In any case, we are glad to have you here. I worked in power plants 20 years ago, and wrote the article from memory. The article has had relatively little attention from other editors since it was created. --Blainster22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need Image:FlueGas2.gif posted to multiple articles - once with links to it is sufficient. More importantly, I am sorry to say that, creating it as an image file is totally contrary to Wikipedia's collaborative ethos - how are people to contribute to it? As a matter of urgency, please learn Wiki table markup and recreate this as a proper table.
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. --OrphanBot10:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will try to respond to your questions. First a housekeeping note: It is against Wiki guidlines to delete other's comments from your talk page. (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Talk pages) Your user page is yours to do as you wish, but the talk page needs to remain available for the community's use. (There are some exceptions to this, such as archiving old material to a subpage, or removing obscene material).
You left a message on my user talk to the effect that I had uploaded an image FlueGas2.gif without indicating the copyright. I very clearly stated that I had made that image myself using the Paint program supplied with WindowsXP. I have never copyrighted it and that is why I left the copyright information blank. As far as I am concerned, anyone may use it for any purpose they desire. Am I legally the copyright holder by default? If so, feel free to add that information to the image or wherever it should be so noted.
Thanks and please let me know what I should do about some other images that I uploaded which were all similarly made by myself and which I have never copyrighted ... all of which anyone is free to use as they desire. I am very new to Wiki, so please explain what I have to do (if anything) and how to do it in very detailed, simple terms. mbeychok06:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original message left on my user talk page by Orphan about the image that I had uploaded (FlueGas2.gif) said to contact Orphan if I had any questions ... but it didn't explain how to contact you. It took me quite a while to figure that out. May I suggest that such messages from Orphan explain just how to make contact? I am very new to Wiki and I like it very much. However, the one thing I have found to be annoying is that most of the help and the "tricks of the trade" seem to be written by computer science gurus for other computer science gurus. They badly need to be "dumbed down" for newcomers like myself.
I am a retired chemical engineer with over 50 years of experience and I believe I have much to contribute here. But I am finding that it takes days upon days upon days to learn all of the ins and outs of using Wiki markup and the etiquette of how to use Talk pages and Discussion pages. Perhaps, what is needed is a section called "Wiki for Dummies" which should be reviewed thoroughly by some relative newcomers before it is published.
One final question: am I allowed to archive the comments on my user talk page to avoid having it become too lengthy? If so, how do I do that?
Anyhow, thanks very much for helping me understand how to license my uploaded images.
Thanks for the suggestion of creating custom messages for OrphanBot to use. It's currently using the same boilerplate text that everyone else does. I should have thought of setting up custom templates when I was setting up OrphanBot, and I should have thought of it again when I created the custom message for one type of problem image.
On the subject of tips, tricks, and suchlike, I'm afraid I can't help. I'm a computer guru myself, and documentation isn't something I'm good at. You seem to be doing fairly well so far. If you've got any questions, feel free to ask me or anyone else.
As for archiving talk pages, there are three common ways people do it, depending on personal preference:
Some people simply blank the page periodically. This isn't considered good etiquette, though, as it gives the impression you've got something to hide.
Some people "archive to history": they blank all or part of the talk page, then create a link to the version just before the blanking. Finding the URL for the correct edit is done by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the page, then looking for the edit just before you blanked it. This is the method I use to archive OrphanBot's talk page.
Some people create archive subpages: pages with names like User talk:Mbeychok/Archive 1. They then cut-and-paste some or all of the comments from their talk page to this new page, and put a link to it at the top of their talk page. This is the method I use to archive my talk page.
There are also other methods that are occasionally used, such as archiving to subpages based on topic rather than date, but these methods tend to be very uncommon. --Carnildo05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now gotten to your request, and am placing some queries about. They may respond to me, or directly to you. We'll see. --DanielCD20:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have placed comments at the Villiage Pump:Assistance page and the Help desk. Perhaps we will have to wait overnight, as people gome and go, and suggestions may trickle in. I'll keep my eye out and keep you posted.
I agree that the formula looks much more nice and tidy, and not nearly as cumbersome as all that code. With a little patience, perhaps we will find out why this is a problem.
Perhaps we could also ask some of the people who have complained/removed (I don't know, just fishing for ideas) these .png's from articles where you have placed them...? The critics themselves, with the aid of a few kind, stratigically-placed words, may prove a valuable source of info. --DanielCD21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just take what we have here and proceed. Take User:RHaworth lightly, he seems a bit grumpy, but I'm sure he means well. And ignorant people such as me can be irritating. I wish I knew more about this subject as to inform you better. Remember, you can message anyone at any time you feel may be of help. I am trying...and we'll get there...--DanielCD23:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm glad you are finally making some progress. I figured if we put out enough lines, sooner or later we'd catch a fish or two! Sorry I wasn't so much help, but thanks for letting me know! --DanielCD21:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your table at Flue gas emissions and it looks nice. That led to your discussion of Wiki's less than perfect math markup. You pointed out that your PNG generated at Wikicities was more compact:
I believe placing a message on a userpage is the only way to create the message notice. Many users do put responses directly under the message for continuity, but they would still need to place a notice on the other userpage to get a quick response.
The smaller font is achieved with the \begin{matrix} \end{matrix} tags . (Note braces not parens - they are hard to distinguish on my monitor). This is noted in Help:Formula#Fractions, matrices, multilines section under "Small Fractions", where it adds that the tag forces "\textstyle". I am no expert, so I can't provide further guidance.
Concerning the power plant article, you could provide a more prominant link to your article (I will demonstrate), but I think the main article should remain an overview with links to subsidiary articles. --Blainster23:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry for the delay in responding. I don't quite understand where the documentation for the other method is. I took a look at your article where the equation seems to be from, http://atmosphericdispersion.wikicities.com/wiki/Accidental_Release_Source_Terms - but that article appears to use the same TeX markup as Wikipedia, so I can't see the difference between the two markups.... Also, the help pages on the Wikicities wiki seemed to link to the same help page as Wikipedia or Wikimedia (m:Help:Formula).
By the way, I managed to shorten your formula by taking out some of the characters, which shouldn't affect appearance that much except for the whitespace in-between characters....
<math>Q = CAP \sqrt{\bigg(\frac{kM}{ZRT}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{2}{k+1}\bigg)^{(k+1)/(k-1)}}</math>
Never mind, I see you've already found Bugzilla. :) I think that they probably will know what you're talking about, but you might link to the Wikicities markup anyway just in case. --AySz88^-^07:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just some comments that might clear up some confusion:
The writeup on how to use TeX markup is the same at WikiCities as at Wikipedia because they both use TeX.
Note that the developers at Bugzilla named my suggested bug as "Use Wikicities' TeX fonts for rendering math on Wikimedia projects". That indicates to me that the fonts used at WikiCities are smaller than the fonts used at Wikipedia even though they both use the same markup methodology.
I did a search here on Wikipedia for TeX and for LaTex and found articles for both of them. If you read those, it becomes obvious that there are literally dozens of versions and implementations of Tex. It is my guess that WikiCities just has a version that uses a smaller font.
Hi. I have a question about this edit. I wonder why you removed the article from the list, as it appears an OK article. And by the way, it is a good idea to use an edit summary when you contribute. An edit summary helps others understand what you changed, and especially edits of the form above, where one removes something or does something else than fixing a typo, need an explanation. Thanks, and you can reply here, I will keep your talk page on my watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oleg, please excuse me for not using the edit summary. I am very new here and I am not yet used to all of the conventions and requirements. I renamed Converting units by using dimensional analysis to Units conversion by factor-label because I wanted to avoid any conflict with an existing page named Dimensional analysis. Having renamed the page, I wanted to eliminate double re-directs so I then removed it from your math list. I did not replace it with the new name because I thought your robot would pick up the new name and get it into its proper alphabetical location in your list. I hope this hasn't caused you any undue problems.
Hi, I saw your post to the Village pump (since removed). I'm sorry you had the experience you did. Normally, we don't expect people to learn a lot of wiki markup before contributing their first article. At most, we like to see them add links to other articles, and maybe use the wiki syntax for bold or italics (the syntax for all these is in a toolbar at the top of the editing window). If they don't do that, someone will usually do it for them, or add a {{wikify}} tag to their article, which is not to be taken as a criticism.
I think you've been caught in the middle, because you're creating articles on highly technical subjects (hence the need for you to use equations), and most people who edit on such subjects already understand several different equation editors. I'm not sure what we can do to make things easier for such editors. Clearly you're not the first to run into such problems. I hope you have a more amenable experience of Wikipedia in the future.-gadfium08:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hullo, I have been following the discussion about the complexity of writing on WP with great interest. Should you need to post back-up documentation in your field, such as raw data, you can do it on Wikisource, where I am an Admin. It works just like WP in terms of the software. The same rules about copyright apply, of course. We are just now re-writing our help pages to make things easier for newbies. Writing for WS is, in many ways, more complex than writing for WP, since we are taking previously published documents instead of writing new ones. This might involve coding them so references and end-notes work properly. We also make use of templates for things like chapter headings that give a link to the previous and succeeding ones. If you do decide to get involved with WS, please leave a message on my talk page there, and I will do my best to help. Kind regards. Apwoolrich19:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your quick and detailed response. i am mainly trying to shorten the title and make it register with the general public. i am a scientist too and have been in the field 34 years. i agree the phrase i threw out makes little sense, but three of your other redirects would make good titles: Air quality modeling, Atmospheric dispersion modeling or Air dispersion modeling. would you be at peace with any of these? one of my motivations is that i am writing in a number of other air quality and environmental articles on wikipedia and it is nice to be able to use one term in the article which also becomes the title of the page to which it is linked. i think many readers get distracted when they click a link and the article title is different from the title she or he clicked. let me know what you think, best regards, Anlace01:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for your question regarding User:Tjp368. Userspace is commonly used to work on draft articles before the article is published into the main encyclopedia namespace. This user may be doing just that, however categorising articles intended for the main namespace whilst in userspace is incorrect usage. I'll send off a quick message to see what's up if you like. -- Longhair22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has actually been posted to the two categories I named and I think he should be made aware that it is incorrect to do so. Since I am quite new myself, I know how long it took me to discover that I could create my own Sandbox rather than using my User page. Perhaps you could also explain that to him/her as well. Thanks. -mbeychok22:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your posting at Wikipedia:Village_pump. Sorry if your introduction to Wikipedia wasn't that friendly. Don't hesitate to write me on my talk page or email me if you have any questions on Wikipedia. Samw01:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've skimmed some of your new articles. I think the content is fine and the Wikipedia community will eventually address the formatting/style issues. I think the issue that people are having is that your articles are isolated from the context and content of the rest of Wikipedia. There are unfortunately insufficient chemical engineers to build a context around your articles and I do agree they "stick out" from the rest of Wikipedia. Your expertise is unfortunately way beyond the current contributors and until there is a community of experts, your contributions will continue to be disjoint. In the mathematics space, there is fortunately a large group of mathematics contributors so they dive into deep subjects and there's a wealth of other articles backing them up. The closest example I can think of for your situation is with Reading spark plugs for racing. There an obvious race car expert contributed a fine article but it was initially voted for deletion. I had to work with the author to set the context for that article by beefing up the spark plugs article signficantly.
Part of the problem is also the choice of titles for your contributions. "Accidental release source terms" has maybe a dozen Google hits. Encyclopedia subjects should be something that people search for. Is there a better main article that this info can be added to? When that article has grown enough, it can then be split out. That's what I've suggested for Cooling tower system.
hello milt, well im 70 percent finished with roadway air dispersion model article...on a related topic, i thought you might want to visit these discussions which affect the organization of atmospheric sciences work on wikipedia: Template talk:Environmental science, there is some debate about keeping atmospheric science on the template; i have stated it is an intergral compnent of Environmental science...look forward to your comments on that template talk page, best regards as always Anlace04:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...was completely unreasonable and uncalled for. First time users who make sincere and reasonable comments are very welcome. You owe him/her an apology. Osomec02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, Jkelly02:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll quit. Not because I think my behavior was abusive, but because it probably won't succeed in changing anyone's mind. Please, do me one favor ... read the Protocol article once more and look at the caricature of a Jew in this image that the article includes: Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion_1943_Poland_Poznan.gif (14KB, MIME type: image/gif). It depicts a Jew as fat, with a large hooked nose, and bags of ill-gotten money in his hands. I consider that vile image to be "a personal attack" on me. In fact, I consider much of that article to be "a personal attack" on me. Can you understand that? I was born in the USA, I fought in a war for the USA, I have lived all my life in the USA ... and I have been called "a dirty Jew" more often than I care to remember. I repeat, can you understand that? Can you understand my wanting to protest that "personal attack" on me? I would be interested in your answer. Regards, - mbeychok03:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that it was a rhetorical question. I will answer "No, I can't.", anyway. There is no way for me to really understand your experience, even if it were the case that I was a Jewish American veteran. Perhaps we can discuss the article instead. There seems to be some confusion over whether you think:
The article is written from an anti-Semitic point of view
The article's contributors are anti-Semites
Those people who reviewed and supported the article at WP:FAC are anti-Semites
The subject of the article is anti-Semitic
The illustration in the article is anti-Semitic
The illustration is inappropriate for the article
Perhaps if you could clarify which of the above is a concern, we can address that particular point. It is likely that, for instance, everyone will agree that 4 and 5 are true. It is also likely that most editors would be open to a discussion about 6. Of course, if further conversation on the topic is more likely to be upsetting than helpful, feel free to decline to respond. In any case, thanks for considering it. Jkelly04:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jkelly: I will answer your questions but beyond that I very much prefer to carry on further dialogue by email, and my email is enabled.
I'm sure you've heard the cliche "I don't care what the press writes about me so long as they spell my name right". There is much truth in that cliche. The publicity generated by having someone's name in the press, no matter how badly the press pictures that person, is in many cases good for that someone and furthers his cause or career.
The same is true of the Protocols article. The publicity generated by being a featured article, no matter how much the article claims the Protocols to be a hoax, furthers the cause of anti-semitism. Many readers never get past the words "featured article" and many other readers will believe that where there is smoke, there must be fire. Ergo, if featuring the Protocols article furthers the cause of anti-semitism, then the article is in itself anti-semitic.
As to your question 1, the answer is no.
As to question 2, I don't know who the contributors were or what their beliefs are. But, based on my life experiences, a few of them probably were anti-semites.
As to question 3, same answer as to question 2.
As to question 4, the best answer I can give is what I said in the above paragraph. Intentionally or not, the featuring of the Protocols article generates publicity that furthers the cause of anti-semitism. Thus, the article is anti-semitic.
As to question 5, some of the illustrations are definitely anti-semitic on a stand-alone basis ... and some readers only look at the pictures.
As to question 6, some of the illustration are inappropriate for anywhere in the Wikipedia. If the Wikipedia included an article on pedophilia with explicit photographs of adult males having anal sex with young children, those photographs would also be inappropriate for anywhere in the Wikipedia. Is that not true?
I want to point out, once more, that no matter how scholarly, how well researched and referenced, how often it stated the Protocols were a hoax, it was an idiotic decision to feature the article. Lest I be labeled as a "book burner", I have no quarrel with it being an article in the Wikipedia ... my quarrel is with deciding to award it with the honor of being a featured article. -mbeychok06:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let these anti-semites lecture you, I completley agree with your point of view and agree that this article should be taken down ASAP. --GorillazFanAdam17:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I am one of the contributors who turned this into a featured article (I had nothing to do with putting it on the main page). Perhaps you are concerned that featuring it there gives more publicity to a hideous and dangerous lie, and you may have a point. My view is that making explicit the nature of this forgery drains its power, and even more importantly, highlighting that there are still many places in the world where people fully believe this kind of garbage is of great utility. I'm sorry if that upset you, and many thanks for your service to the US. It's because of people like you that people like me were even born. Kaisershatner14:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i side with mbeychok on this issue. i think more care should be taken by editors as to content and offensive material. surely we all believe in free speech, but some intelligence and sensitivity must be exercised regarding decisons on featured articles, etc. i am not talking about using censorship, but about placing concern for fellow human beings above writing style, sincerely Covalent22:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Mbeychok in not agreeing with the decision to make the subject article a featured article. Respect for all people of the earth should be a platform of wikipedia, rather than turning a blind eye on material that fosters hatred and misunderstanding. I applaud mbeychok for his bravery to state his sincere and i believe well founded opinions. Anlace21:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I am not yet through with that article. If I don't hear soon from whoever contributed the equations in the chemistry section, then I will replace them with more meaningful equations. - mbeychok16:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Milton, I have looked again at the page on Flue gas desulfurization. I have added a link and a comment about a related process (hydrotreatment of fuel). Sadly I do not have any data on how the electron beam method is being deployed currently.
What other methods of removing sulfur from flue gas are you thinking of, I think that the article should contain a mention of all the alternative methods.Cadmium09:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cadmium, as I said on Talk:Flue gas desulfurization, there have been quite literally dozens of methods proposed/studied/etc. which never made it to commercialization. I see absolutely no purpose in adding them to this article. So I suppose that we shall just have to agree to disagree. You might want to consider writing a separate article to discuss such unproven or failed methods. Cheers, - mbeychok20:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Milton, please could you tell me what the other failed methods were. Are they using different chemistry to the two which we already have in the article ? I am a chemist, so I tend to be interested in the chemistry of things and that is what I tend to write about.Cadmium
Cadmium, when I have some free time, I will work up a list for you ... but it may be quite some while before I get to it. Meanwhile, you might try using Google for that purpose. Keep in mind, some of the processes do not use slurries ... they inject dry alkaline solids into the flue gas (even coal ash has been used) and then remove the product solids with baghouses or electrostatic precipitators.
Changing the subject, I studied your references on the electron beam method more closely and was able to ascertain that the Pomorzany power plant in Poland (in 2003) and the Chendu plant in China (1998) both started up electron beam plants treating 300,000 cubic meters of flue gas. Assuming that they meant 300,000 Normal cubic meters at °C and 1 atmosphere, and assuming those power plants have the typical thermal efficiency of about 34 percent, then that amount of flue gas is equivalent to an output 101 MW in each of those plants. Both references report successful operation. Therefore, I intend to add that information to the article even though government funded plants are not always economically competitive without the government funding. Cheers, - mbeychok22:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Milton, if you want you can e-mail me through wikipedia which will forward e-mail to me. Sadly I do not have fax, but I can try to look up your paper if you have published it in a journal.Cadmium18:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Milton, thanks for the e-mail. I have just got it. Sorry if I put the square brick in the round hole. I just thought that the references to other waste gas treatment should go into wikipedia, I was not sure of the best home for them so I had parked them in the flue gas page. Do you know if a page on gas scrubbing in general exists ?Cadmium15:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Milton, I hope that you are having a good day on the west coast, the UK it is almost time to go to bed and sleep. I think that I have some understanding of what you say about the relationship between chemists and chemical eng. I have had an interest in the solvent extraction of metals for years. I almost died of laughing when a chemist asked me (I hope he was not being serious) if PUREX solvent extraction process was done using separating funnels like those used by bench chemists. I imagined firstly the almighty hand dose (plus the torso dose !) you would get within minutes and secondly the scale of the process. I has to explain to him that in industry machines exist (such as mixer settlers) which replace the sep. funnel. I guess that you know what the PUREX process is, so you will understand why it was a bit of a no brainer question.
I choose the paper by J. Derek Woollins et. al. becuase what they did was to do some research on an iron based process for cleaning traces of H2S from air, this iron based process has been used outside the lab on real sewage plants. Rather than cooking up some exotic and expensive iron compound what the woollins group was to do was to take a cheap set of chemicals which have been used in industry and then to work on these. I know that some chemical research is very nice, but too expensive for use in industry (so I choose something which did not fall foul of this). While the other paper from Dalton Trans is a review of the methods which the semiconductor industry use to clean up the gases from the semiconductor production plants. What do you think of these papers ?Cadmium22:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Cadmium, that I took so long to reply. My wife is visiting her brother in London at the moment, so there are a lot of household chores for me to take care of that are quite time consuming. I really have no opinion about the paper by Woolins et al because I have no copy and therefore no way to read it. Many decades ago, before the advent of using aqueous MEA and DEA regenerable solutions to remove H2S from gases, there was a dry oxidation process known as the Iron Sponge process that flourished for a short while.
I think you would find it most interesting to read the history of H2S removal sysytems at [1]. Keep in mind as you read that web site that the authors (the Merichem Company) have an axe to grind in that they have their own process to sell. Also keep in mind that 90 perecnt or more of the large-scale H2S removal systems in the world use one of the various amine processes.- mbeychok16:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Milton, do not worry I will not take offence if you fail to reply instantly. About the Woollins paper it is in a RSC journal which does not give everyone the content for free. The abstract says A series of Fe(III) salts and organic solvents have been screened to develop novel non-aqueous catalysts for the conversion of H2S to sulfur. FeCl3/95% N-methylpyrrolidinone/5% H2O was found to be a most efficient non-aqueous system. The process chemistry, the proposed mechanism of catalytic oxidation of H2S, and the electrochemistry are discussed.
Hi, I edited the explanation again in Chimney#Chimney draught or draft because it still was mostly a repeat. And it just didn't read easy (an inherit problem with multiple editors). It is great all the work you added to it, but I suggest, if you still don't agree with it, to edit complete paragraphs instead of adding just another sentence. Regards, -- P19919:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments re the Chimney article section on draught/draft. I am still unhappy with that paragraph and will re-write it entirely within the next day or so.
As another topic entirely, I note (from your Talk page History) that you have deleted or somehow cleared prior discussions from your Talk page. As a newbie, I was told that I was not allowed to do that ... instead, I could create Archive pages to store old comments and responses, and that my Talk page had to include links to such Archive pages. I am curious as to how you got permission to delete prior stuff?? Regards, _ mbeychok23:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of this archiving process. I just cleared the page - who is interested in some old discussion anyway...? -- P19901:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I thought until an administrator told me quite explicitly that I should archive ...not delete. - mbeychok03:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Wikipedian who has written quite a number of chemical engineering articles. I'm no computer guru ... so please bear with me. I have been using <ref name=whatever>some reference</ref> to define my references and then <references/> to get them displayed in the References section.
I notice that when I use a reference only one time, the vertical arrow in the Reference section listing is very thin and spindly and hard-to-see. But when I use a reference multiple times, the vertical arrow and the accompanying superscripts (a b c ..) are quite bold and really stand out well. My question is why can't the arrow for a single-use reference look just as bold and well-defined as the arrow for a multiple-use reference?
I am writing you because I note in the History for cite/cite.php that you have been very active recently in developing that article, which I must say needs to be completely re-written by a non-computer guru so that we ordinary mortals can understand it. It is virtually incomprehensible at the moment. In the Wikipedia, I am [[User:mbeychok]]. I don't have an account here. - 72.194.125.16904:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment on Encephalon's talk page about the explanation currently given at Wikipedia:Footnotes. I have written a hopefully simpler explanation that describes one one go the cite.php, how to enter it neatly on a page when viewed in edit-mode, and how to combine this with citation templates. See my sandbox's WP:Cite:Ref. Please let me know what you think of my attempt :-) David RubenTalk09:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Mbeychok, I'm not too familiar with the whole carat vs. arrow debate. Personally, I think the arrow looks better, but if it's causing inconsistencies, maybe it should be changed. Perhaps the best place to bring this up is at meta:Talk:Cite/Cite.php. --Spangineer[es](háblame)17:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have used now three styles of referencing....I used the old ref|note style on Shoshone National Forest, harvard style on Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and am now using cite.php on Glacier National Park (US). I have found that cite.php works okay, but I don't use the full cite templates in the article text, instead just wikilinking and italizing the same steps as they would appear when using the templates as shown on citing sources. I find that by not using the full citation template, it greatly reduces the text space used up in an editing window by the reference...making this easier, I hope, for newer edtors to contribute effectively. The fisrt two articles I mentioned are Featured Articles and I am working hard on the last one...hopefully they will all be completed and will all be featured, ensuring that all three reference styles will continue to be acceptable by the Manual of style. I see that in the near future, the ref\note style will become deprecated by cite.php but so far, I haven't seen an alternative that relpaces Harvard style...in which the references are alphabetical by author and remain that way no matter how many changes are made in an article. Happy editing!--MONGO10:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a university graduate engineer? Yes, I have a BS and I am currently considering returning for my MS.
Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree: Aerospace engineering
In what year did you obtain your degree? May of 2005
What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia? Initially it was my great annoyance with typos and I am only recently getting into editting articles to any large extent and even those are mostly non-engineering related. I also find it strange that there are so few engineers on wikipedia, perhaps it is mainly a factor of "liberal arts" students being more attracted to the idea of writing an encyclopedia. Good luck in your quest! Stardust821221:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to my user page which answers your points.
To the query about my attraction to Wiki, I have to mention that while going through wikipedia and after assisting some administrators on inclusion of some old photos taken by me some body asked for my help on engineering side when I was at New Zealand. That is how I got involved in Engineering Wiki.
Rest you can guess after seeing my contributions both to Wilkipedia and Wiki engineering.
What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia? I found wikipedia as a good source of information and wanted to help add material and to organise the exisiting articles. Most of my contributions have been to non-engineering topics.
Just yesterday night only returned from NZ to India. I have still to sign the email account in my new place here. In a day or two I shall let you know my Email ID. Thanks for all suggestions. Hope you got all the information you needed.
Re: Why do we have so few engineers as Wikipedians?
I am trying to understand why there are so few Wikipedians who are graduate engineers. Once I get a grasp on that, perhaps I may be able to formulate some ideas on how to attract more experienced engineers to become Wikipedians.
I guess most have either not bothered to mention their qualifications, or don't have the time to become wikipedians.
It would be very helpful if you would respond to these a few questions:
Are you a university graduate engineer? Yes
Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree: Electronics engineering
Aeronautical or aerospace engineering
Bioengineer or biological engineering
Chemical engineering
Civil engineering
Electrical engineering
Environmental engineering
Mechanical engineering
Petroleum engineering
Other
In what year did you obtain your degree? 1997
What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia? Just surfed in and got hooked to it :-)
I am a graduate structural engineer. I took my BSCE in 1989. I fell into the articles surrounding the Trojan War and found the depth, readability and inter-linking very well done.
I'm now more than a bit skeptical of the quality and research of the project as a whole. While many articles are fine, particularly mainstream math, science, and social science, anything remotely controversial (Abraham, Biblical prophecy, Chiropractic) or obscure is likely to be be rife with undue weight and lack verifiable sources. I've seen "professional research" that would've flunked high school.
I do not, and don't anticipate that I will, consider this an authoritative reference for academic work. Unfortunately, I've already seen this happen; and I'm not sure that the general public maintains an appropriate caveat emptor attitude that so much of the WWW deserves.
Sanger makes several good points; and I'm not sure that more experts, of which engineers are in their fields, will fare well in large swaths of this militantly egalitarian culture.
Civil Engineer, BS in 2005, most likely starting MS this year. I was attracted by my hobbies, which is also related to my career, but the initial introduction was from a coworker at my office. My suggestion - find on-campus students to get others interested in being users through class projects, presentations, user groups, etc. A decent percentage will then (in theory) continue using and contributing after graduation and hopefully convince others in the workplace to as well. Hope this helps!
Skabat16914:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Electronic Engineer, Graduated on 2003, specialized in Automotive Electronics and Tester equipment. Attracted by the open source movement in general. I program a lot, specially in Java and I must say that some of the ideas of the GNU Project appeal to mea. So, attempting to cooperate in wikipedia attracts me a lot. The feeling of community and to be able to add something is important --Threner19:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I have presumed to place a barnstar on your userpage; please accept it as a mark of esteem from an admirer. Coming from someone with whom you have never yet had contact, this may cause you some surprise, but your contributions have been so consistent and excellent that the kudos in itself is an understatement. Your presence greatly enriches Wikipedia. I trust you will remain active here for many years to come, and that this Barnstar will prove only the first of many. Regards, ImpuMozhi14:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply an engineering student studying nuclear engineering. I have not graduated yet. I also have no idea why there are not more engineers on wikipedia. Many of my fellow students consider wikipedia an invaluable resource, however, few contribute.--metta, The Sunborn19:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what year did you obtain/ are yet to obtain your degree?
2007.
What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia?
I believe in the power of free knowledge.
Note: When I say that i m yet to obtain my degree, please dont think that I am a second class student. Its just that I joined Wikipedia toooo early. :)
RE 3: Why do we have so few engineers as Wikipedians?
What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia?
I found a number of very useful articles in Wikipedia and thought I would contribute back to the community.
--Nathaniel07:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree: Mining, minor in Management. I have never done the Mining part and soon after obtained my MBA and never looked back.
In what year did you obtain your degree? 1994
What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia? I was on and off, but in January 2005 became house-bound for more than one month due to a thrombosis. Not to drive myself mad, I had to find something productive. So I started living on Wikipedia. musti01:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree: Elec. Engineering, U.London
In what year did you obtain your degree? 1962
What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia? I began looking at articles about things I was personally involved in, and was a bit dismayed at all the inaccuracies and omissions. I have not yet created an article from scratch but I would if inspired.
El Ingles23:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mbeychok, why don't you add your comments on Gene Nygaard at request for comment, which, if you have also tried and failed to resolve problems, you might wish to certify.
Also, what engineering degrees do you have? Myself, I have a degrees in chemical engineering, electrical engineering, and am working towards a third degree in biochemistry, presently.--Sadi Carnot01:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadi, I would like to respond to you in private but you don't have your Wikipedia email enabled in your Preferences. If you would rather not enable the Wikipedia email, you can email me at mbeychok at xxx.net (replace the xxx with cox), and I could then respond to you.
Hi there,
First off, a quick fix for your cut-and-paste: You need to add a semi-colon to the front of the category link, for it to become a link. Otherwise it just adds the talkpage to the category! Please fix those before everyone gets confused ;)
eg [[:Category:Engineer Wikipedians]]
As to the questions: "...there is an appalling lack of experienced engineers participating in Wikipedia." I'd first point out that many of the engineers (or anythings) that edit here dont create user pages, or even accounts! I would guess that there are thousands of engineering students that browse and change the wikipedia pages. I don't have any background to guess how many professionals might be browsing or editing in their spare time or during the course of their work. Basically, the more the merrier, but short of advertising in an engineering publication, how would you propose to attract more? Word of mouth is the only advertising i've heard of from wikipedia, and 1million users later cant be too bad ;) Eventually it'll become big enough that it becomes a subsect of the United Nations ;P
1. Grad engg. from University? Yes
2.Biomed engineer
3.Graduated on 1995
4.Came into wiki by accident.Then i liked the whole scheme of things. It's knowledge sharing with fun....
May be engineers are too bussy with their projects and making $$$ :D
...also why too few doctors, lawers,etc (in general professionals...).May me too bussy because of their nature of work....
Pratheepps02:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 3.5 weeks since you asked and I responded about my engineering, uh, demographics. Have you learned anything? Did/will you prepare a summary of responses? EncMstr07:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.