User talk:JdH/Archive1

Comment
As a first exercise I created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tatiana_Ehrenfest.jpg The problem now I have with it is that if I insert it in a wiki page it doesn't look very pretty; it would make more sense to crop it down a bit, get rid of the outer white edges and stuff. If it possible to display only a part of the orginal image on the wiki page it links to? Define a rectangle such only that bit appears on the wiki page, leaving out the rest? Or is the only way to do this to crop the original? I did follow the link Edit this file using an external application but then it wants me to install some software, and I am very reluctant to do this; I have already far too much stuff on this comp. I'd rather use the standard software that is already on my computer. But then, can I replace the image that is now on the image page, upload the modified file to replace what is there now? thanx, JdH 17:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You must use external software to edit the image. To replace the old, just upload and save the edited image with the same filename as the old version. Bjelleklang -  talk 17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hendrik Anthony Kramers
Beste JdH,

Mijn verontschuldigingen voor het ongedaan maken van je verbetering. De reden dat ik dat deed was niet omdat je verbetering niet klopte (ik wist niet wat de correcte naam was), maar omdat ik dacht dat je het een "cut&paste move" was. Als je een pagina wilt verplaatsen, dan moet dat met de "move" knop bovenaan de pagina. Als je de inhoud gewoon knipt&plakt naar de nieuwe situatie, dan klopt de "edit history" van de pagina niet meer, en dan lijkt het alsof jij alles zelf geschreven had.

Toen ik nog wat beter keek, zag ik dat je de pagina inderdaad voor een groot deel zelf geschreven had. Daarom had ik mijn eigen actie weer teruggedraaid. Nogmaals mijn excuses voor de gang van zaken! -- Eugene van der Pijll 08:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * De tekst die jij aanhaalt gaat over "rollbacks"; dit zijn reverts die alleen door admins gedaan kunnen worden, en waarbij automatisch een edit summary gegenereerd wordt (iets als: Reverted edits by ... to last version by ...). Juist die automatische edit summary maakt het onbeleefd. Ik had dit kunnen doen (want ik ben een admin), maar heb dat expres niet gedaan omdat ik in een edit summary mijn revert wou uitleggen.
 * Ik heb geprobeerd de gevolgen van mijn vergissing minimaal te houden door mijn wijzigingen zo snel mogelijk terug te draaien. Het spijt me dat dat niet gelukt is, en dat het jou zoveel tijd heeft gekost. Eugene van der Pijll 09:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Solvay 1927
I already know about this problem. I have asked a lawyer Wikipedian to look at the specific situation. While it is true that images are public domain 70 years after the photographer died, this image nor its rights were owned by the photographer. If, in Belgium, images are also public domain 70 years after first being published, then this image would be public domain. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-03-18 18:25


 * If we knew when Benjamin Couprie died, it would be very easy to sort out. I haven't been able to find that information on the web yet, though. One possible site to look at is the US Copyright Office website, but it seems to be down at the moment... --Fastfission 19:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find him on the copyright website, but he lived until at least 1933 (he took the 1933 Solvay picture too). Still hunting around... no obit in any US newspapers from what I could tell. --Fastfission 19:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Institut is in Belgium, where I assume Couprie lived and died. Whether or not he had the copyright to the image is the important question. Is there any reason why the Institut would not own copyright to an official photograph from their convention? &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-03-20 01:41


 * Well, if we assume it is work-for-hire, I don't think that solves anything, unless the Institut has already agreed to release it freely. --Fastfission 23:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul Ehrenfest
The remark "though it does not do full justice to the alternative approach of Gibbs" is a literal translation from what is in Casimir's biography of Ehrenfest. The review appears to be about Boltzmann's work & that of his school; it is not a comprehensive review of the entire field of thermodynamics, probably wasn't meant to be in the first place. The qualifications you edited out come from Casimir's biography as well. JdH 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahaaaa! Okay thanks for the info. So portions of the Paul Ehrenfest article are actually from the (translated) Casimir biography about Ehrenfest. My first impulse was to undo my edits. I wouldn’t dare to remove something if the article was supposed the be that translation, but it isn’t, so I think I can leave it like it is. Thanks again, interesting reading material. --Van helsing 15:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Anton Eduard van Arkel
JdH, ik zie dat je een link naar Anton Eduard van Arkel hebt toegevoegd aan de 'see also' list van titanium. Nu wil ik niet oneerbiedig klinken t.o.v. Anton Eduard van Arkel, maar .. waarom moet deze link in de See Also van Titanium? Gaat dit betekenen dat we (belangrijke) chemici die wel eens met titanium hebben gewerkt allemaal in de 'see also' gaan aantreffen (niet dat ik mezelf belangrijk genoeg acht, maar moet ik dan ook een link naar mezelf gaan toevoegen)? Ik bedoel, dat als AEvA iets écht belangrijks met titaan heeft gedaan, vind ik dat hij meer credits verdient dan in een see also list terecht te komen.

Zou je deze move kunnen uitleggen (ik denk dat de juiste plek de talk-page van titanium is)? Alvast bedankt, --Dirk Beetstra 15:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Peter D. Mitchell
Thank you for your message, and the information. I shall try to get the permission to use the pictures, if possible. Regards. --Bhadani 10:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

blocking 67.72.98.86
You said, "!@#$-it, can you PLEASE stop doing that!!?? I keep running into this blocking stuff over and over again. And I can assure you that I am NOT the guy who is doing the vandalism. What you are doing does not make sense; you only force me to logout and re-dial, sothat I can write this angry note. Of course, the guy who is doing the vandalism can do the same thing, so all you achieve is aggravate some innocent bystanders."


 * I am not doing anything. I have not added a block to these addresses in quite some time, more than a week.  But if you are concerned, you need to mark these addresses as shared (you can use the  ).  Until you do this, administrators are going to provide longer and longer blocks because of the totally excessive vandalism occurring from those addresses.  Wikipedia has a right to protect itself.  It would also help if you could provide the contact information for the ISP administrators so we can have action taken against the perpetrators.  And by the way, there's no bug in the software.  Please see WP:AUTOBLOCK to understand why you are being blocked as collateral damage.  --Yamla 15:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note also that if you want a policy change so that Wikipedia no longer blocks IP addresses (not marked as shared) regardless of the amount of vandalism originating from them, you need to request this policy change through the standard channels. I can help you set up such a request though given that approximately 90% of the vandalism occurs from IP addresses and given that I believe Wikipedia has a right to protect itself, I would not support your requested policy change.  --Yamla 15:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Civility
I guess you're the IP address and you've since logged in! Believe me, I know how irritating it is to have someone revert your changes simply because they disagree with them, but it's still a good idea to remain calm: I usually go and make a cup of tea. If you remain civil, there's a greater possibility that the problem will be more easily sorted, and, if not, you'll make the arbitrator/mediator's job easier.

Keep an eye on the article- if they revert changes more than three times, you can mention them here


 * [[Image:Smiley.svg|left|60px| ]]

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Sounds like you could use a Wikibreak!

EvocativeIntrigue TALK 12:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics education - request for reference
You added Tatyana Alexeyevna Afanasyeva to the list of mathematics teachers in the mathematics education article. Do you have a reference that shows that Afanasyeva worked as a mathematics teacher ? I have looked at her article and the linked biography, and I can't see her described anyhwere as a teacher. An anonymous editor (possibly yourself while not logged in ?) has added an external link to the list entry that links to a translation of a booklet by Afanasyeva that discusses the theory of teaching mathematics, but I don't think she claims to be a teacher herself. Gandalf61 12:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The biography at CWP at physics.UCLA.edu mentions explicitely that she went to a pedagogical school.
 * Tatyana Afanasyeva was at the center of the debate of how to teach geometry in high-school, and she was a vocal advocate for using visual aids. Traditionally, geometry was/is taught in a strict formal way, and she was concerned that students would get frustrated by that early on and give up on math all together. At that time (= interbellum) the "old school" prevailed, but her ideas were picked up and implemented later on. She was also involved in developing a mathematics curriculum for high schools in the newly established Sovietunion. I feel that an article on mathematics education is hardly complete without paying at least some attention to this great debate.
 * There are many sites that refer to that debate, see e.g. Hans Freudenthal, Eduard Jan Dijksterhuis
 * About Teaching Geometry,
 * Teaching Mathematics: A Brief History
 * thesis Ed de Moor
 * Bronteksten discussie Afanassjewa/Dijksterhuis
 * thesis Nellie Verhoef, Chapter 2
 * Fred Goffree Wiskundedidactiek in Nederland
 * Verum, pulchrum, bonum
 * Jan van de Craats, Honderd jaar wiskundeonderwijs
 * Aad Goddijn en Martin Kindt, Knelpunten en toekomstmogelijkheden voor de wiskunde in het VO
 * Interview Pierre van Hiele, Ik liet de kinderen wél iets leren
 * slides cursus wikkundeonderwijs
 * Thuis in Brabant, biografie Dijksterhuis, Eduard Jan (1892-1965)
 * Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa, Tatiana
 * Het 'gelijk' van Tatiana Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa
 * Geometry and Proof at Year 10
 * M. Marjanovic MATHEMATICS AND HANDS ON METHODS
 * Zahlbegriff, zwischen dem Teufel und der tiefen See
 * Geometry between the devil and the deep sea
 * Terug naar Euclides
 * Up to now I have stayed away from including a discussion of this issue in the biography of Afanasyeva, basically because teaching is not my area, and I was hoping that someone more qualified would pick this up. JdH 13:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

van der Waals
The image source would be

http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/hst/scientific-identity/CF/display_results.cfm?alpha_sort=w

I'll add it to the commons page. If you find other (old) portraits of scientists without source, that might be it.

Anyway, van der Waals died in 1923, so this image is PD-age (doesn't say the exact date the image was taken, but van der Waals doesn't look dying to me on it...). --Magnus Manske 08:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Solar chimney
I used links (external and page history) from your comment at Talk:Solar chimney to edit that article. Still needs work, but it's a start. --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 05:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * response on Singkong2005's talk page. JdH 09:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I figured out a while back that a topic only gets one article. Subtopics sure, but this was a case of two articles about the same thing. To be honest, if I'd found it, I would have merged it without flagging it. But that's the great thing about wiki... one flags, another sees and comments, and yet another merges.


 * You may be right about the Solar Tower. I generally stay agnostic on the merits of a particular technology, but I certainly applaud any efforts to try a new method of producing renewable energy. Helping to make good, thorough Wikipedia articles is my way of contributing to the sharing of ideas. But my main interests are in other aspects of sustainability & development.


 * I'd like to see more work on Solar thermal energy technologies - see also Solar power, as well as solar heating topics. I recently heard some claims in the media about the cost-effectiveness and workability of Solar thermal energy that sounded very appealing, at least for places such as the sunny parts of Australia). Anyway, I will get to that in time, but have to focus on other things now. --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 09:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What the hell, I'll at least start now, and consolidate material (move material from solar power to the relevant articles). These articles will also need cleanup. --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 10:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Solar chimney.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Solar chimney.JPG. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 02:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Heike Kamerlingh Onnes
I restored the Dutch biography - yes, yes I know: This is supposed to be an English language wiki, but the Dutch biography is an important source of information for those of us who do understand Dutch, and may want to use it to add or verify the information that is in the English language article. JdH 13:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I amended the section to clarify this. You have to realize, however, that in the future more people will naturally feel uncomfortable by the slight disorganization.  People like cohesiveness, i.e. Dutch links with Dutch articles, etc.  Good luck. --Sadi Carnot 13:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * JDH, on a side note, I added an Onnes factoid to the enthalpy page which states that he coined or introduced the term enthalpy. I got this fact from the A to Z dictionary of thermodynamics, but it doesn't say what year he did this or in what book?  Do you have any insight on this?  Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What I find is this: Hendrick C. Van Ness H Is for Enthalpy. The best person to ask is (I think) Dirk van Delft, the Director of the Boerhaave Museum, see http://www.fwnactueel.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?m=9&c=490 I could only find some generic email addresses there, see http://www.museumboerhaave.nl/pers_en_contact/contact.html; you may want to try one of those and ask them how you may contact Dirk van Delft JdH 16:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have a copy of Van Ness' 1969 book but it doesn't say much about enthalpy? Anyway thanks for the links to the contact person, I'll check into those.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 17:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it turns out that Dirk van Delft has not yet moved from his previous position at the NRC (=newspaper), where is is an editor for the section "Wetenschap & Onderwijs" (=Science & Education). If you go to their website at http://www.nrc.nl/colofon/ and click on "Wetenschap & Onderwijs" you get the email address of that section JdH 14:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I sent them an email. We'll see what happens.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 19:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Louis_pasteur.jpg & Image:Louis_Pasteur.jpg
I hope that you know what you are doing; I spent a lot of time to orphan Image:Louis_Pasteur.jpg on some 50+ projects, changing them all to Image:Louis_pasteur.jpg. I am not in the mood to verify that you reset all of that. JdH 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was a third of the way and got bored. Planned to resume later. May I ask why you choose the one with the lower case 'P' to orphan ? Looks very odd to me. Hence my change. --PFHLai 19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very simple: Louis_pasteur.jpg (lower case) was used in far more projects than Louis_Pasteur.jpg (upper case). Moreover, the precise name of the image is irrelevant: it is invisible in the article anyway. JdH 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, usage is now determined by my edits and your edits. If one of the two copies of the same image has to be deleted, I would like to keep the one with the proper capitalization. How's that for an explanation ? -- PFHLai 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever. But I don't think it's worth the trouble, especially in view of the fact that there are names around like commons:Image:SIL14-P002-03a.jpg, commons:Image:Tableau_Louis_Pasteur.jpg, and commons:Image:Pasteur, Louis (1822-1895) - London Illustrated News, 1895.jpeg, etc; so who cares anyway what the precise name is? JdH 20:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the trouble. There are two copies of the same image. I just picked the less desirable copy to orphan (and delete afterwards).
 * I have to go to work now, and I plan to continue later. If you have any strong reasons why I have chosen the wrong version to keep, please let me know. Thanks. --PFHLai 20:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Solar updraft tower
Re Talk:Solar updraft tower

Hi - I haven't had time to look at this in detail. I'm not certain which editor your were concerned about... From what I saw of FlexMe's edits, he did seem to be making genuine contributions, but also removing things that shouldn't have been removed. I'd suggest replacing them, with an appropriate edit comment. If it's removed again without explanation or attempt at compromise, it's time for a polite note on the talk page, or their user talk page... Remember to assume good faith - always give an editor an extra chance to do the right thing. Quite often we get a pleasant surprise, in my experience.

Sorry I can't help more right now - I've bitten off more than I can chew in some of the things I'm doing. But please keep me updated, especially if it isn't quickly resolved. --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your heads-up at User_talk:Andrewa. Please sign your post there when you have a moment, and agreed, this is another attempt at promotion of this commercial enterprise, which has very doubtful credentials, whether technically, commercially, or dare I say environmentally! I'll see how I can help. Andrewa 19:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Greetings.

Since you've asked for mediation, the case has been opened, as Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-12 Solar Updraft Tower. I've taken the case as the mediator and already informed Flexme about this.

Just as a note, I'd suggest to avoid potentially offensive assumptions. I really don't think Flexme is connected with a related company, and he seems to be an editor in good faith, who just made some mistakes in judgement, probably due to inexperience. Many of us started with some disputes after the first edits, so please be understanding towards him, and avoid potentially offensive assumptions or suggestions. I hope this issue can be resolved without much difficulty, if both sides want it.

-- CP/M 02:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've sent you a email for contact. Please check if it has arrived. CP/M 10:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, some details are puzzling me, so I'll reply a bit later. However, could you state in the MedCab case what exactly you find wrong (e.g., what sections were taken out)? I can see it myself, but it's better if you post this yourself, so the we can at least look for compromises and, also, so that this remains closer to mediation. CP/M 08:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just in case, I've sent a email reply. CP/M 23:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please post link to changes
I've made some comments on Talk:Solar updraft tower, and suggested that you post a link to the changes that you disagree with. Show the changes using history, and post the url. I'd suggest just posting one or two links showing significant changes (or series of changes) to start with. Cheers --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 03:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I read your reply on the mediation page. Your suggestions seem reasonable - my only comment is that you do seem quite aggrieved... While it's understandable that we get annoyed at other editors, it is important to assume good faith and be as civil as possible. Still, things certainly seem to have improved a lot, so I think mediation was a very good idea. -- Singkong2005 tc 01:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem - the path may be tortured, but the result has been good so far - the article has improved immensely over recent weeks, largely from your attention. --Singkong2005 tc

Naming
In response to Flexme's suggestions, and to make sure that these things are dealt with in the proper process, I've proposed a rename of the article & related articles - see Talk:Solar updraft tower. I've noted that the naming scheme has improved, with your work, but naming conventions suggest further changes might be needed. Personally I won't be annoyed if my proposal is rejected, as long as it's dealt with civilly and according to the standard procedure. I know you have opinions on the use of "Solar tower" but I've tried to consider it in the light of the naming conventions (convention of using common names). Cheers, Singkong2005 tc 01:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi - I replied to your post at Talk:Solar tower with a comment re naming conventions. --Singkong2005 talk 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Solar updraft tower
JdH, I commented there as you requested. Later, --Sadi Carnot 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Solar Updraft Tower clean.png
Completely unrelated to Sadi's comment: you did see the clean version of that image (Image:Solar Updraft Tower clean.png) which could be used on the articles in other languages (I suppose I should have put it on commons instead)? Thanks for note, I appreciate it. :) Cburnett 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories´syntax
Hi, I noticed (and agree) you added "Solar design" to Solar chimney (perhaps after noticing the category on the Light tube page?). I don´t know the Wiki-synax of two parameters in the category-specification, which you used in your last edit: could you tell me what the addition of "|Solar chimney" has? I´d appreciate to learn, --Chris Howard 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeeman
Hi JdH, accoding to "The Biographical Dictionary of Scientists" publ: Oxford, Ed: Roy Porter, Zeeman's PhD was jointly supervised by both Kamerlingh Onnes and Lorentz. If you disagree, please let me know your sources. Best regards, bunix 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi JdH, OK I agree that your reference sounds more authoritative. Therefore I have now changed the Zeeman page back to just saying Kamerlingh Onnes was the doctoral advisor. Nice working with you....if I had time I'd give you a barnstar :-) One small thing: pls can you put the year and place  of publication of your reference on the Zeeman page? That would make it look more rigorous. Best regards, bunix 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter mitchell
For your reference I ran into Btarski on the ETC pages. He immediately called in the mediators without entering into a dialog. He then proceeded to do nothing on the article. I get the feeling that this might be occurring here too.

I think you may have cleared up his major gribes. I think he made several good points but to write the article to the quality he is hoping for is quite a large task and one i suspect he is not willing to invest time in himself. Certainly it could be a very interesting article. i like your point about the fact that Mitchell's hypothesis was initially not understood and possibly rejected. From my dusty memory of biochem lectures his first support came as a result of a chat on a train (might be an urban legend). This person (don't remember who) then helped write a review to explain his ideas in plain english. I guess Mitchell's written skills were not that great, or he described everything from a thermodynamic perspective. Understandable given that ATP synthase and such were on the horizon so it was not possible to describe specific mechanisms. David D. (Talk) 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, it was very interesting. I teach undergrads and one of the things I lament is that is is very hard to find time to do justice to the history of science. I'd love to spend time discussing the various models of the plasma membrane, for example, but always cop out and just do the fluid mosaic model.  Likewise outlining the experiments that led Kreb to propose the TCA cycle or those that led to understanding the mechanism of oxidative phosphorylation are fascinating from a historical and data analysis perspective.  David D. (Talk) 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Solvay conference
That's interesting... To get a decent translation of that part, you should go into the danish wikipedia IRC channel, and ask there. If it is free (which I think it is), then you should nominate it for FPC as a replacement for the current Featured picture. Your image is much clearer than the current FP. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-09-12 16:19Z

Template:Infobox Scientist
You wrote: I would like you to understand that there are no alternatives for the hard work required to write a good article or biography. It requires that you immerse yourself in the subject, read articles about it, and write it from scratch. The are no quick and dirty solutions, such as infoboxes or copy/paste or placeholders or whatever you call it. In fact, it only distracts, as it requires us to go back, correct the misinformation you put in, and take out to copyvio's. For that reason alone I firmly believe it is best to delete that silly Infobox_Scientist template, as it is entirely counterproductive. The best contribution you can make for now is to take out those infoboxes you have improperly inserted, and focus on writing good articles instead. JdH 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that infoboxes can be abused, just like people abuse articles by importing whole foreign articles into the Wikipedia, but that has little to do with the utility of infoboxes. Work with bunix to gently correct his over-zealeous tendancies.  I like well-done info boxes because they allow me to focus directly on the piece of information that I am seeking.  But other times, I too find them a distraction, particularly when I am more interested more in context than in a particular fact.  Nonetheless, I believe that text and info boxes can legitimately co-exist.  Bejnar 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Grunewald Gymnasium
Dear JdH, thanks for your comments about the deaths in Grunewald Gymnasium, maybe related to her Hupfeld. 201.52.120.219 02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation infoboxes
Dear JdH, I want to let you know that I think the work you have done in correcting content in infoboxes is wonderful and greatly appreciated. In my view all wiki articles themselves (let alone infoboxes) need us to constantly check them and trim out misinformation. Your collaboration on correcting stuff is great. However, I am trying to understand why it is you suddenly gave up doing the corrections and got angry...pls can you explain? Best regards, bunix 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As I have explained before, those infoboxes are a HUGE mistake, and I hope you will come to your senses and stop and desist from putting them into every single articles you stumble across. They look horrible, destroy the layout of the article, and don't add anything new to it. What we should do instead is focus on writing good articles. My frustration was further enhanced by the obviously quick and dirty job you did in gathering the information that went into those boxes. False information leads a life of its own, and it may take a long long time before someone notices that something is wrong with it. I have stumbled across instances where misinformation was put in, and it had already been more than year there before I noticed it. In the mean time it had proliferated all over the internet; it is still there even though 6 months has passed since I corrected it. The last straw were those copyvio's; you can't do that. Once again, it may take a long time before somebody notices that something is wrong with it, and it takes time away from other people to set the record straight. If you feel that there is a need to collect biographical facts somewhere, then I urge you to do that somewhere else. Don't destroy a zillion good articles by putting in those horrible infoboxes. What you could do instead is make a separate article with tables or lists or genealogical trees or what have you of biographical data, and put in a single wikilink in the biography. That is much less intrusive, and whatever reason you may have to collect all those irrelevant facts can be satisfied equally well. Once again, I do hope that you come to your senses about this; this has gone way to far, and it has got to stop. You can show your good intentions by supporting deletion of that Infobox template JdH 13:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dag JdH, Hoe gaat het met jou? Allow me to explain myself and also respectfully disagree with you. (i) Firstly, I think articles without infoboxes look horrible. So I we will both go around in circles if we use that argument. (ii) I understand your frustration about correcting false information. However, false information is everywhere ...even in the prose of all wiki articles. I am frustrated by it too. But false info is not specific to infoboxes. So let's not entangle non sequitors into this discussion. (iii) You say I did a "quick & dirty" job. Actually I spent many hours finding the info. Slow and dirty, yes; quick, no :-) I have been using biographical dictionaries published by Oxford as my source for dates, PhD advisors etc. So when, for example, you corrected the the PhD advisor for Zeeman, you were in fact proving that Oxford is dirty, not me :-) At the time I thanked you and even offered you a barnstar. It was a great job you did, and I was impressed. I enjoyed your collaboration that day. And I look forward to many more. (iv) Regarding proliferation of errors. Hey, wikipedia is made by a bunch of humans and there are zillions of errors every day being proliferated. Sure they may take 6 months to be fixed. But this is a lot quicker than the errors propagated by Oxford and other so-called scholarly publishers....it may take many years for those traditional sources to get fixed. And that's the whole point about the wikipedia: its relatively quick and dynamic ...and over time it evolves to greater correctness. But mutational errors are always part of any evolutionary process. (v) Re: copyvios. I apologised at. Furthermore this was only in the prose and had nothing to do with infoboxes. I cannot understand why you connect these two separate issues. Please explain. I look forward to your response. Best regards, 14:58, 14 bunix September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is sad to see that you don't understand the basics of writing a good article. Layout is an integral part of that; organize text in a logical way, break it up in paragraphs with a clear focus. Figures serve to illustrate and strenghten the text; they are placed strategically in relation to the text. Figures should not overwhelm of disrupt the text; when that happens they are an obstacle rather than a help. The problem with those infoboxes is that they do precisely that: They overwhelm the text, there is no clear relationship with the text, and they break up the argument. A clear example is the Becquerel article I pointed to earlier: the text is broken up in little pieces, and is entirely disrupted by that infobox. Furthermore, you don't seem to accept the fact that there are a lot of people out there who like me hate those silly boxes. What you have been doing is force those boxes onto articles other people have been writing, thus disrupting the hard work they put in to write a good article, in particular the layout of those articles. JdH 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dag JdH, Goede morgen. (A) I have not "forced" the boxes on any page where the consensus did not like it. In fact the box has been on over 100 articles for quite sometime now and the editors of those pages have accepted them. If you look at the TfD votes you'll see there is more support for "keep." (B) Your argument about layout did actually occur to me a long time ago and I do have sympathy with it. However, I decided to "be bold" and not worry about layout. My logic is as follows: wiki is like quicksand and in 20 years time each page as we know it will evolve out of recognition. We all have to accept that. Therefore the "layout" is a constantly moving landscape. We cannot control it. So in my mind we must concentrate on good prose, good diagrams and handy infoboxes. The layout will reach it's own equillibrium in >20 years time. Your Bequerel example appears to have bad layout, yes. But this will evolve to a good layout when someone expands the lead paragraph and extends the article. Then the box will naturally fit in. By the way, the TfD consensus is that the box should be shortened. So we will be doing that as soon as things settle sown. (C) I am still curious to hear your answer to my request for explanation in point (v) of my last message (above). Dat begrijp ik niet. Best regards, bunix 22:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Help Needed
Dag JdH, I've been toying with the idea that we should start an article on Geertruida de Haas Lorentz who is notable as one of the first female Dutch physicists and also the daughter of Lorentz and wife of de Haas. I am having great difficulty trying to find information about her and particularly a photograph of her. I am thinking you are the perfect person to ask where to find a photo of her, as your Dutch references seem to be superior to mine....any ideas? Can you help collaborate on such an article? Best regards, bunix 10:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The online sources I usually look at are Biografisch Woordenboek van Nederland, History of science and scholarship in the Netherlands, and the National Library of the Netherlands. Unfortunately, I do not find anything on Geertruida de Haas-Lorentz in any of these sources. Most likely it would require a visit to the archives. You may try to contact a librarian at the National Library. The other possibility is National Museum of the History of Science and Medicine; they have the papers of all prominent Dutch scientsist in their archives. But to be honest, I think that it would require a personal visit to the archives, and go through the papers yourself. Good luck with it anyway, JdH 23:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Beste JdH, dank u. I will check those sources. It will probably take me a long time to find this stuff ...but I may start an article soon just with the tiny snippets of info that I do have. Then hopefully there are other Dutch editors out there who can weigh in and add bits also. Who knows, with any luck one of them may even have a photo :-) Een goede dag verder. Best regards, bunix 05:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Beste JdH, OK, I went ahead and created a stub based on what little info I have. Hopefully that should get it going. Check it out at: ...let me know what you think. Also if you know any other Dutch editors who might be able to help expand it, please point it out.  Hey, also the stub on Wander de Hass needs to be badly expanded ...have you seen that one? Best regards, bunix 06:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Scientist
Thank you for this comment you left on my talk page:


 * I urge you to stop sticking in those Infoboxes. There is a lot of opposition to it as is obvious from the recent discussion on the Template:Infobox_Scientist . The result of the debate was no consensous. To keep sticking in those infoboxes, and ignore all those Wikipedians who are opposed to it is inappropriate, even disruptive. I would suggest that you make some constructive contributions instead, by writing some state-of-the-art biographies. JdH 12:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on a number of grounds as follows:

(1) Firstly if you count up the number of people who said "keep" and add it to those who said "delete or modify" it far outweighs the people who wanted outright "delete". Then it appears the template was modified according to concensus, to satisfy those who wanted "delete or modify." Thus the final count towards "keep" is very high, if you take into account that the template was indeed modified by concensus.

(2) The wiki policy for bios is now to include infoboxes as standard. Read the WPBIO: policy at and you'll see that infoboxes are part of the instructions for creating a biography. So the standard by consensus now is for bios to have infoboxes.

(3) Your suggestion to "make constructive contributions" is way out of line, because that is your POV. In reality it takes all types of editors to make a wikipedia. Different people have different skills and different amounts of time to spend. In my case I do have a real life as a scientist and I also have children to raise! Adding infoboxes and categories is all I do within my time constraints. So spread the wiki-love and remember to appreciate all editors no matter how small their contribution. SuperGirl 08:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the debate you mention was in regards to a specific template which people objected to the size of (and it does seem a bit unwieldy). I think there's no clear consensus that infoboxes shouldn't be in articles or that it's OK to remove them, far from it. In that case, the best thing to do, I think, is work together to make tight infoboxes which are genuinely useful and not overloaded with trivia. --kingboyk 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC) PS That particular infobox is ghastly, I quite agree. I'm restoring but with less fields populated.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Erwin Schrödinger from the Dibner Library.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Erwin Schrödinger from the Dibner Library.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Angr 13:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Debije
Hallo JdH,

Ik heb van de bewering dat Einstein de aanstelling van Debye trachtte tegen te werken maar een 'allegation' van Rispens gemaakt. Ik krijg niet de indruk dat dat nu echt een bewezen feit is. Ik kan dat mis hebben, maar dan zie ik graag wel onafhankelijk bewijs.

(Nederland zet zich weer eens lekker te kijk..) Jcwf 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Solar Updraft Tower.svg
Long time ago I created Image:Solar Updraft Tower.png with english text. I have since created Image:Solar Updraft Tower.svg and would like some feedback from you on it.

Cburnett 02:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sharav.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Sharav.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Bi-Directional Energy Tower page
The energytower.org project is an open design project and group, which I initiated. I am not the only contributor to the project. The article content is in respect to the open project. I have no issue with deletion of the bi-directional energy tower page on the grounds that there is no existing prototype, but you have to delete the water spray downdraft tower page on the same grounds. The existance of 2 patents for the water spray down draft tower and no known implementation since the original 1975 patent doesn't make it any less of a vanity page than the bi-directional energy tower.

If this is some arbitrary feasibility decision on theoretical technology, then the page should not be removed. There are no commercial implementations of either the solar tower or water spray downdraft tower. The water spray down draft tower and the solar tower are limited to arid locations and as renewable power systems are competing directly with SEGS/CSP solar steam plants which have been commercially implemented for more than 20 years. Both the water spray tower and solar tower are not down-scalable and require massive towers and large investment to be non-trivial. Due to the location dependence, competition with existing SEGS technology, lack of electrical power need in the middle of the desert and the cost of long distance electrical transmission, both the water spray and solar towers have not been able to secure financing.

If you are really interested in the technology, examine the Calculations documents. In a hybrid solar steam/convection system, the convection turbine produces only 10% of the power of the steam turbine for a moderate height tower (100m). The solar tower and water spray tower don't have much hope of competing with SEGS systems and cannot be located outside of arid regions. Water vapor is less dense than air, evaporating water to cool air causes it to be less dense than other cooling methods and is not very efficient. This is counter-intuitive for many people and that has made the water spray idea look good on paper, but not in reality.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rohar1 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Go ahead, please propose it for deletion: I wouldn't oppose. Neither will I oppose if you propose to delete the solar updraft tower article. There is one difference though: for those proposals there are publications in the scientific literature, and from different investigators too. On the other hand, AFAIK the only source of the Bi-directional Energy Tower is the http://www.energytower.org website; no publications in scientific literature are quoted. In that respect it is quite similar to the Floating Solar Chimney Technology article which was deleted a while back after some discussion. All of these technologies suffer of the same problem: they have been around for a long time, and are not going anywhere. The simple reason for that is is economic feasibilily: the Cost of Energy needs to be competitive with conventional technology such as coal fired plants; see paragraph on Financial hurdles I stuck into the Talk:Solar updraft tower a while back. All of these, including your scheme, don't even come close. On the other hand, wind turbines are already competitive, and Solar thermal energy in the near future. The energytower.org project is a fundamental design enhancement as has only been around for 6 months.

I would like to suggest the following: Condense the Bi-directional Energy Towerarticle into one short paragraph, and stick that into either the solar updraft tower or energy tower (downdraft) article. And turn the Bi-directional Energy Tower into a re-direct page. JdH 14:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC) If you are proposing that an attempt to take credit for a 30 year old theoretical patented design by a Ph.D who took publicly funded research, patented previous work with no major improvement and then formed a company in an attempt to secure investment somehow has more validity than an open project by someone with over 20 years of practical system design experience, you are probably in the wrong place. Wikipedia runs on LAMP and all 5 of those projects were managed in the same open manner and have been successful where commercial ventures have failed.

The energytower.org project is currently being evaluated by Saskatchewan Environment, ISES and many commercial entities, give it a chance. On the other hand, I am working on this without hope of personal financial gain, so if you have the overwhelming urge to promote IP theft and help EnviroMission and Sharav Sluices attempt to secure funding, go ahead. If you check, most of Dr. Zaslavsky's links are broken (including energytower.net) and most of the traces of his company have disappeared. The question really is: What is Wikipedia and what is Wikipedia not? Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a blog, and Wikipedia is not a crystal_ball. The problem with what you just wrote is that you just reconfirmed that your article fits all of the above.

--Rohar1 16:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I don't disagree with you, pull all 3 pages. I respect the intent of Wikipedia and I originally posted the content in response to the prior art postings, but I don't think any of them have any place in an encyclopedia. I might have some grounds for an entry for the energytower.org project, but not the design of the system. If we can get to the prototype stage I will consider re-posting the article on the bi-directional tower, but until then it's all just theory, free advertising and "soapbox" and shouldn't be here.

I am not comfortable submitting the other projects for deletion myself, but I think you are impartial. I honestly respect your effort on this.


 * Thank you for that compliment; the respect is mutual. I am not sure about an AfD for the other articles though. I am pretty sure it would not stand; the energy tower perhaps but not the solar updraft tower, no way: there are too many people out there who are very opinionated about it. It may be better to condense solar updraft tower to a single paragraph, but I have tried that before and it only got me in the middle one big brouhaha. The AfD discussion could be very interesting. Let me repeat my earlier suggestion: Include a short paragraph on the Bi-directional Energy Tower in either of those other articles, with a link to http://www.energytower.org . It looks like that solar updraft tower gets quite a bit of traffic, so it might actually help your visibility. JdH 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

--Rohar1 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC) I would rather you not put in a paragraph in the other pages. I agree with you that the updraft solar tower deserves a paragraph for the '80's Spain pilot project. The rest of the other articles is an attempt to capitalize on the current green market with some old technology that never panned out. The energytower.org project doesn't have any visibility problems. That is the nature of open source, there have been many appropriate agencies that have hosted links and informational content and there are more every day. Google loves the project. It's not a sub-project of these other ideas, but more related to CSP/SEGS and solar chillers anyway.

--Rohar1 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC) One other point on this. I agree that deletion of the water-spray downdraft page will probably stand up. All that happened with that project is patent granting and a few papers published. I cannot see justification for that page remaining if the energytower.org open project should be deleted. The same might be valid for removing the Enviromission or Solar Mission references from the Solar Updraft Tower page. There doesn't appear to be more than press releases from the companies and that isn't encyclopedia information. If you decide to make any changes to those pages, I will do my best to support your position from the fairness of open source vs. commercial project point of view.


 * Actually, until a few days ago Solar Tower Manzanares had its own separate article; see deletion log. Perhaps solar updraft tower should be reduced to no more than that. But I am quite sure that there would be a lot of opposition to that. Maybe a first step would be to open an AfD for the energy tower and see how that is going. btw: come to think about it: Bi-directional Energy Tower may be an unfortunate name for your contraption. When I first came across that I thought it was yet another version of the solar updraft tower or the energy tower. I now realize that what what you are trying to do is capitalize on the large daily and/or seasonal variation in temperature in your neck of the woods; that is quite different from either of those older proposals. JdH 20:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

--Rohar1 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Live and learn. I originally started out thinking that CSP/SEGS systems were just regular steam power stations with the heat source swapped and that the convection towers were a new and better idea. After 6 months and a lot of reading thermodynamics textbooks and research papers, input from renewable systems specialists and working through calculations, it's almost a full circle. When I started researching solar chillers as a convection cooling method and putting the whole system together in the calculations documents I realized that unless the tower was extremely high, the convection turbine power output is 10% of the steam turbine.

As it sits now, the ammonia absorption system and relatively short tower should be able to double the output of a SEGS/CSP plant and make it more location independent, even without the thermal storage. It would be possible to retrofit the ammonia absorption system to and existing SEGS plant.

I probably will think about renaming the energytower.org project to reflect this. My dog's name is "Lola". If I could get a good reverse acronym, I think that's a good name. :)

Thanks for your effort on this and I want to apologize for my initial reaction to the AfD, I realize you are just trying to present proper encyclopedia content.

FYI: Energy_tower_%28downdraft%29
--Rohar1 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC) I took at stab at AfD on [[Energy_tower_%28downdraft%29 with a promotional and theoretical reason. 40 minutes later Vincecate reverted it on the grounds that theoretical isn't a valid AfD (ignoring the promotional).

I personally don't have time for this and won't be pursuing it further. Theoretical is theoretical regardless of project management or publishing theoretical papers. If there was a pilot plant that operated as in the solar tower, I would agree it should stay. Anyway, I won't contest the AfD for the Bi-Directional page. If you want to discuss further, you can get my email from energytower.org.