User talk:Mbeychok/Archive5

Invitation to join projects related to the Energy Portal
Hello ! You made some great contributions on energy related issues. I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the energy portal. If you are able to help and wish to show your support (and to automatically add yourself to the list of Wikipedians plugged into the Energy Portal), you might also like to paste one of these user boxes onto your user page (according to your colour preference!): Beagel (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Injector
Hi. Please have a look at my comments at Talk:Injector. Bill F (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bill F, please read my full response to your comments at the Talk:Injector page. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Air pollution dispersion modeling books
An editor has nominated Air pollution dispersion modeling books, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Howdy there! You might want to edit your statement in the AfD discussion. It was not DHartung who is the suspicious new user. And yes, I thought it very odd that a brand new account with three, count em three, edits was prodding an article and leaving maintenance tags on an article maintained by someone with over ten thousand edits. I patrol the user creation log, and although I may have been in the seafood section this time, something smelled fishy to me. MKoltnow 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * MKoltnow, thanks very much and I have fixed my mistake. It would be useful if you would be so kind as to also offer your above comments on the AFD discussion page. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Here's the problem, though. I skate a bit too close to WP:BITE and WP:NPA sometimes. In this specific case, I removed the prod specifically because this was the editor's third edit. It was his third consecutive "tagging" edit, and I (as I said above) smelled a rat. It is clear that this is not a brand-new editor from his edits. I feel that questioning his actions/motivations based solely on his short edit history is commenting on the contributor rather than the content, which is on a slippery slope to a personal attack. It's easy to remove a prod tag--I merely have to contest the deletion on any grounds at all. It's another thing to participate in the AfD; I'll need to formulate a decent argument before contributing. I suspect I will comment on this AfD, but I think it best that I wait a bit. Fortunately there is time. P.S. I really like that you prefer threaded UserTalk discussion. This is the kind of exchange that people should be able to look at and follow. It is so odd (to me) that it is more common to use UserTalk as if it were email and leave disjointed discussions on a variety of pages. MKoltnow 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw your response at the AfD, and I'm not entirely certain that I agree - if there are so many books about air dispersion modeling, either there ought to be more to say about the subject in the article, or the books are largely redundant to each other, and the value of the list is low. On the other hand, large bibliographies are positively welcome over at Citizendium, even for very short articles; and right now, there doesn't seem to be anyone working in your area of expertise. Argyriou (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Argyriou, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. As for Citizendium, at my age, I really have about as much as I can do right here on Wikipedia. Thanks for your comments. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piping&diff=next&oldid=166201797
Hello. I just noticed your edit and the comments justifying the removal of pictures. There is already an article on Firestops, of course. Pipes have to be firestopped when they penetrate fire-resistance rated walls and floors and this is all to often done incorrectly for a variety of reasons shown here: http://www.geocities.com/achim_hering/history_of_firestops_in_north_america.html. Firestops are in immediate contact with the piping and what the piping does and the insulations, what it's all made of etc. is inextricably related. Does that concept seem offensive to you? Before you answer that, please take a look at the piping related examples here:
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Firestop#Bad_examples_.28Building_and_Fire_Code_Violations.29
 * The point is, that when these basic lessons are ignored, which happens with great regularity all over North America in particular, you can have the greatest piping system on the planet, but it does not matter in the slightest if the installation of it results in code violations that render the occupants dead.
 * Best, --Achim (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Achim, I congratulate you on creating the Firestop article (or expanding most of it). I never found the concept of firestops or your images to be "offensive", nor did I say that. I simply felt they were out of place in the Piping article and I still do. The very long length of the Firestop article simply proves my point that your images would be better in such a stand-alone article. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I won't make a big deal of it, but how do you explain the existence of the firestop requirement under Section 15050 of the MasterFormat? --Achim (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

SVG image
Seeing Image:NatGasProcessing.png in Natural gas I couldn't help but think that it would be better as a vector image, so I created one: Image:NatGasProcessing.svg. I haven't replaced it in the article since a) I wanted to make sure people didn't think it sucked :) but more importantly 2) there is a bug in MediaWiki's rendering of SVGs which makes the arrowheads invisible. Seems to be fixed upstream though so it's only a matter of time till it looks right. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hairy Dude: As the originator of Image:NatGasProcessing.png, I don't think that your svg version "sucks". But I do have two important comments:
 * My original png drawing has a Legend box in the lower left hand corner that is essential to explaining the flow diagram and your version should also include that Legend box.
 * I deliberately chose my text font sizes so that the font would be readable in a drawing that was no more than 584px wide ... since that is the maximum width that can be displayed on a Wikipedia page without horizontal scrolling or without having to use the "thumb" function to reduce the image width. On my IE browser, using the "thumb" function to reduce the size of an image reduces the appearance or resolution quite visibly. I would urge you most strongly to reduce your font sizes so that the current 744px width of your svg version can be reduced to 584px.


 * Obviously, the arrow heads must be visible. Without them, the drawing is no good.


 * Personally, I think the png version is fine as is. But if you are going to change it to a svg version, then please consider the above two points. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, scaling it down will be no problem... though why 584 px in particular? Also, I thought it would be better to keep the legend outside the image, since it is basically text rather than graphics. I really don't think representing text as graphics is a good idea. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a good luck at what is in the legend. It is all needed to explain the colors, etc. If some user just inserts the image in an article and does not include the legend in the caption, then confusion will reign. That's why the legend is needed inside the drawing. As for 584px, as I said before that is the largest size that will fit on an article page without needing to use horizontal scrolling. If you make it much smaller than that, the font may not be readable. - mbeychok (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I will not change the image in the article until that bug is fixed, since I agree, it is no good without the arrowheads. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

en dash
Hi, M, I see you're not a fan of the en dash for connecting pairs of names. I, on the other hand, feel that the modern trend toward using a hyphen instead is just the laziness of writers who didn't have an easy way to type an en dash in windows. Alas, however, the Chicago Manual of Style, crufty doc that it is, also likes the hyphen. Anyway, I've fixed it to en dash in a hundred or more articles, because it seems so much more respectful of individuals to connect their names in the way that means they are separate names, rather than use the hyphen that suggests the former modifies that latter, as in Green-Kubo relations; why would a Kubo ever be green anyway? But Green–Kubo relations are obviously due to two individuals. Now, if you look in books for the Joule–Thomson effect, as usual you'll find most don't do it the strictly right way; but a few do ; I generally take the occurence of any the right way as evidence that some editors still care. Anyway, since I never got any pushback on this before, I'm not sure what to do. I suppose it doesn't hurt to leave Joule-Thomson the lazy way, since probably the majority of other articles are that way still. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dick, It is not whether or not I am "...a fan of the en dash for connecting pairs of names". In my pre-retirement career of over 50 years as a chemical engineer, I had never seen it written any way but Joule-Thomson. You know engineering and thermodynamic books were printed and published long before we had computers and long before we had Windows ... so you really should not say that people take the "lazy" way out because there is no easy way to create an en dash in Windows. And many books published currently or recently also use the hyphen.


 * As for a right way or a wrong way, I have yet to see any definition anywhere that using an en dash is "the right way". Nor have I seen anywhere that says using a hyphen is the "wrong way". That appears to me as simply your personal opinion of what is right or wrong.


 * In any event, another reason for my reversion of your renaming the Joule-Thomson effect article to use an en dash was that you only changed the name and few uses of the hyphen in the first few sentences. You didn't follow through and change the number of other uses of the hyphen in the article. So rather than having to clean up after you, I thought it much simpler to just revert your changes.


 * I don't feel that I am "pushing back" as you expressed it. I am simply using the hyphen as has been done for decades. As you noted in your above comment, the Chicago Manual of Style uses the hyphen.


 * If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you make an attempt to have use of the en dash codified in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Best regards, mbeychok (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Beychok's Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Beychok's Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Packed Bed
Hi. I am trying to expand on the packed bed article. I was wondering you had any thoughts or comments on how to get this article a step up from stub class and what parts of the article would be the most useful in expanding upon. Thanks. Fxcenglish (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, it would be very helpful if you registered and took a few minutes to create a User Page and a Talk Page. That would make it easier to communicate with you.


 * I would suggest that you thoroughly read and study the Theoretical plate article (especially the section on "Distillation and absorption packed beds"), the Continuous distillation article (especially the "Packing" section) and the Fractionating column article (especially the "Industrial fractionating columns" section.


 * Paragraphs should discuss just one subject. Take a look at the quick and dirty edits that I just made to Packed bed. Also, the lead-in introductory section was too long, so I broke it up and created some sub-sections for you to flesh out.


 * The article needs more references. But most of all, in my opinion, the only way to write a really good article is to know the subject very thoroughly beforehand. A novice to the field simply cannot write a good article just by reading some textbooks or other reference books. For example, I am quite sure that I could never write a good article about quantum mechanics or black holes or relativity.


 * Good luck and have at it. mbeychok (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Review/Content
Stripping (chemistry) Hello Mbeychok, I was wondering if you could review this article to see if you think it has any mistakes or needs more content. If you think that more content is needed feel free to add more as it seems like you have a lot of experience in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iowaskier (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From a rather brief scan of the article, it seems like a good start. I don't have the time right now to go into it in depth. I did straighten out the references and I also added quite a few more relevant "See also" links. - mbeychok (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Coal thumbrule question
Hello Mbeychok,

I've been trying to wrap my head around a primary energy vs. secondary energy problem. You might know the answer or be able to point me in the right direction. The problem is this, if you add the upstream energy inputs that go into coal (digging, transporting and processing) to the HHV of coal how does this compare against the energy content of the electricity produced. Or more specifically, how much primary energy do you have to use to produce a given quantity of secondary energy (electricity) using coal? I'm looking for a rough thumbrule. I'm guessing the primary/secondary energy ratio is about 3.5 to 1. Cheers Mrshaba (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Found it... 3.17... Mrshaba (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Surface Condenser
Hello, perhaps you could help me with this pickle:

one thing i could not understand in the surface condenser article:

Why does the steam need to be condensed to water? Does this not make it lose energy, therefore needing more energy to be put into it again later before it can be returned to the steam turbines? Does this not therefore make the process less efficient as it requires more raw material to re-heat water into steam - when it was steam in the first place?

Thank you in advance, and eagerly awaiting your reply :-) BigSteve (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As explained in the Surface condenser article, the surface condensers operate under vacuum so that the turbine exhaust steam pressure is at a pressure well below atmospheric pressure ... and virtually all of the energy in the turbine's high pressure inlet steam has been extracted. There just isn't any significant amount of energy left in the very low pressure exhaust steam. By condensing the very low pressure exhaust steam, we at least recover clean condensed water that can reused as boiler feedwater. - mbeychok (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk page comment
Never heard a teacher make similar comments when the whole class has done very bad on a test? Look, I wasn't picking on some particular contributor to wikipedia. When I have to teach then I'm very patient; I accept that students can make stupid mistakes. Still, I have complained about problems with the system we use at university which leads to bad result. If you grade the exams of studens and you seee that many of them have failed then that does "make you sick".

On wikipedia there is a systematic problem with the thermodynamics articles as I pointed out last month here

I don't care if editor X or editor Y contributed to an article with mistakes. That's besides the point. The wikipedia system itself should have weeded out such fundamental errors within some reasonable period of time. We have wikiproject physics and chemistry to ensure this. But that didn't happen as you can see from the history of these articles.

So many errors in so many articles for such a long time! The contents of these articles have spread over the internet, as pointed out by me here. So, this is a very serious problem which has the potential to discredit wikipedia's reputation for being a reliable source on scientific topics. Count Iblis (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Joule-Thomson effect
I agree with your comments. I'll ccorrect it later today. Count Iblis (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb, what a silly waste of space!!
Headbomb, anyone who signs his name on a Talk page like this should not be offering critiques on how any article is written, physics or otherwise:

 {{#if:|{{#if:|$$}}{{#ifeq: {{{anti}}}|yes|[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb { }}|Headbomb { }}{{#if:— Write so you cannot be misunderstood.|$— Write so you cannot be misunderstood. — ταλκ / Wikiproject Physics: Projects of the Week$}}]]|{{#if:|$$}}{{#ifeq: {{{anti}}}|yes|$\overline{Headbomb { }}|Headbomb { }}}$ 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 

And you have requested adminship??? Lord help us!! mbeychok (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was inspired by SkyLined's signature (which you can witness here), as he had two lines of overlapping lines of text. I thought, "Hey I can put a thought in there, plus links to what I want in a small un-intrusive space". So I made a signature that was something like {{blockquote|text={{PhysicsParticle|Headbomb|TR=Write so you cannot be misunderstood.|BR=ταλκ / Wikiproject Physics: Projects of the Week}} 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)}}
 * using this code. {{blockquote|text= {{PhysicsParticle|Headbomb|TR=Write so you cannot be misunderstood.|BR=ταλκ / Wikiproject Physics: Projects of the Week}} }}


 * Substitutions turned these 230 characters into the ugliness shown above. I changed my signature as soon as someone pointed out that it turned the edit space into the house of horrors. I'm human. I make mistakes. Sometimes I don't notice them right off the bat. What you should be concerned about is how I go about fixing my mistakes, and how I respond to someone who pointed out that I did something in a less-than-optimal-way. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And what is your excuse for using childish obscene language in a posting? See "sh_t" above. Does that qualify you for critiques of how articles should be written? Grow up! mbeychok (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop being a drama queen. If you want to attack the quality of my comments, then do so on the basis of my comments, not on the basis of completely inconsequential stuff. Physical mechanism and Applications don't magically become referenced because the guy who said there were unreferenced said wrote "shit" in a colloquial way. Unless you want to address the merits and flaws of the article, this discussion is over. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Young man, whether sh_t is "colloquial" or not, it still stinks that someone who has requested Adminship  should use it in a posting on Talk pages in Wikipedia. This is no discussion, it is the excuses of a juvenile who won't take responsibility for his actions and just say "I was wrong and I regret it". mbeychok (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you try to say something else other than "my dear young man" (as you did here) when referring to other users, as it can be seen as condescending. And please try to stay more civil in your discussions. Cheers,  Chetblong  ( talk ) 01:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thermal power station
Turns out your undo actually readded the nonsense word - I guess sometimes anonymous editors actually removal vandalism! ;-) Wongm (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wongm, thanks for picking that up. mbeychok (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Farewell Milton
Hi Milton, I'm very sorry to hear you are leaving Wikipedia. Your professional & experienced contributions to the site will be missed. --Alex Marshall (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your many excellent contributions. We have too few chemical engineers! I hope you'll consider returning after a break from the frustrations. Walkerma (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Milton. Also I am very, very sorry to hear you are leaving Wikipedia. I have learned a lot from you, and I have valued your contributions high. Your contributions here will be missed. Still, I hope to see you around every now and then. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you go. Expert retention is a known problem. You might give your thoughts there if you want to. In any case, those of us who have had the pleasure of working with you appreciate your contributions. Thanks for all your good work. Tom Harrison Talk 17:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oil Refinery wikipage entry
HI and thanks for your note on my talkpage. Your input will be duly considered from now on. By the way, I am a Professional Engineer (mechanical), so my knowledge of chemical processes and impacts is surely more limited than yours. Thanks again. Raymondwinn (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fractionator Overhead System.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fractionator Overhead System.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your e-mail
Hi, and first, please accept my apology for not replying to your first e-mail. Unfortunately, the bad news I don't feel overly comfortable with releasing my name like that, so if the rules insist that images cannot be uploaded without contributors' real names, sadly I will have to decline, and hope that you understand. Thank you for your request though, it was flattering. With great regards, &mdash; BillC talk 23:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Deareator
Thank you for the notice. I removed the image from the page "Deareator". --Aushulz (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Rotten eggs
Boy, you were so right with this comment. Most people think they know what a rotten egg smells like, but very, very few know. I was in my 30s, living in the country, raising chickens, when I learned that some chickens have the bizzare habit of burying clutches of eggs under a thin layer of soil, where they cannot possibly be incubated. Along with this discovery came with another: that nothing compares to the smell of truly rotten eggs that have sat for months and whose whites and yolk have turned into a black goo. I challenge anyone to smell this and then compare it to H2S; unpleasant as it might be, I would rather live for a week in a house with a constant stream of H2S coming in the vents than to smell those rotten eggs for 10 full minutes. The textbooks are all wrong, as far as I am concerned.

There you have it, you make a salient observation, and I leave a disgusting anecdote on your talk page. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? Un sch  ool  19:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art
First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject, or I happen to know personally).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia Loves Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there!  howcheng  {chat} 00:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with Fundamentals Of Stack Gas Dispersion
Howdy, I noticed there was some disagreement on the article Fundamentals Of Stack Gas Dispersion, and I thought you might like a third party opinion. The way you present your arguments for the article seem to actually hurt your case, but I think if you look over a few short core policy pages you'll be able to argue in a way that will build consensus and improve the article.

Notability
The term "notability" on wikipedia is used in a very special way, and it is only slightly related to the English word spelled the same way. Saying that an article on a book does not meet the wikipedia notability guidelines is not a judgement of the importance of the book. It is more like a psychology journal rejecting an article on the chemistry of gasses; the article may be good, it simply does not belong in that particular journal. To get such an article accepted means showing that it meets the inclusion guidelines, called the notability criteria.

For articles on books, the notability criteria are listed at WP:NB. These are meant to describe articles on books like On the Origin of Species, where there are many other books that analyze this particular book (not its subject matter). In other words, more or less no modern book on chemical processes will pass these criteria, because no one writes books about books on chemical processes.

However, there is a section WP:NB that you might want to read over. This adjusts the notability criteria for academic books, and your arguments for notability fit more clearly here. If you point out the distinction between general books and academic books, and then give evidence that the book meets the "Academic books notability criteria", then it is likely a consensus will develop that the article meets the notability guidelines.

Conflict of interest
Another very important aspect of the debate is the WP:COI accusation. I think here there may be another misunderstanding. The "conflict of interest" is not necessarily a bad thing, it merely means that you have to work harder to help wikipedia. You need to resolve any conflicts of interest as they occur; determine how to help wikipedia without harming yourself in each particular case.

The problem is not that you wrote the article. As far as I can tell, when you wrote the article you did a very good job of resolving the conflicts of interest and wrote an article that benefited wikipedia's interests.

The problem is the way you are reacting to discussion about the article. It appears that you are taking the arguments about the article very personally, probably because you feel they are arguments about you or your book. It is very hard not to take these things personally, which is why the COI guidelines indicate that you should avoid editing articles for which you have a conflict of interest. The decision on whether to keep or reject the article will not be based on you personally or the book personally, but rather only on the article as it is written and as it is expected to be improved.

One of the best ways of resolving your conflicts of interest on this article are just to keep in mind a few behavior policies, like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. These mostly come down to encouraging discussion about the article, by avoiding discussion about the personal issues.

How to resolve
Let me know if you want help in resolving the disagreement, but I think you can probably handle it by: (1) understanding the notability criteria are not personal, (2) apologizing for incivil or hurtful remarks, or other personal attacks, (3) pointing out how the notability guidelines for articles on academic books are different from the guidelines for articles on general books, and how the article this particular book meets those guidelines. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack, thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. I simply don't have time nor the inclination to get involved in one of Wikipedia's complex procedures for seeking redress. If you would like to undertake the job yourself, please feel free to do so. It seems to me that the Wikipedia administrator shielded behind the fictitious name SarekOfVulcan should be the one who understands that the notability guidelines on academic books are different than for general books and should not have deleted two complete sections with an edit summary that simply read "Excess verbiage" rather than first discussing them on the Talk page. After all he is an administrator ... they are supposed to know better, are they not?


 * My only regret is that Wikipedia loses a good article about an engineering book that:


 * Has been in existence since the late 1970s (almost 30 years)
 * With copies in about 60 U.S. libraries and about 70-80 in other libraries worldwide.
 * That has sold about 4,000 copies in over 60 countries and is now in its 4th Edition.
 * That has been cited about 140 times in books, journal articles and on the internet.
 * For which a Google Scholar search provides over 60 citations
 * Portions of which have been used by state and national environmental agencies as part of their regulations


 * Almost all of which is listed on the book's website (with links provided to verify that data) at here


 * Once more, thanks for trying to be helpful. mbeychok (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I'll see what I can do about the article.  I think your last few messages have been exactly what is needed, and I'll see about putting them in the right place.  Please keep improving our chemical articles.  I don't know the specific areas where wikipedia needs the most help in chemistry and chemical engineering, but if it is anything like my area, math, then the answer is definitely "we need help everywhere," and having editors with more than a few years in the field is essential to giving needed perspective in these articles. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. Beychok, I never said that there was an issue with keeping the article: if you look back, my first edit was to the talk page, where I provided evidence of notability, in response to a post on the conflict of interest noticeboard. And if you clicked through to my user page, instead of ragging on my username, you would have seen that the first line was my real name, with links to my (old) home page and blog following shortly after. I've never hidden my identity on Wikipedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pollutant
I note that you had redirected Pollutant to Pollution. I have recreated it as a new article. The version before redirection was in a shocking state. Can you look over it and give me your thoughts? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Alan, it looks okay to me. My only key suggestion would be that the U.S. EPA's six criteria air pollutants should be listed ... preferably in the "Notable pollutants" section. As a minor point, I think that the words "Environmental Protection agency" should be written and linked as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.


 * In my experience at Wikipedia, it won't be long before some environmental zealots (and I use the word "zealots" advisedly) will degrade the article into one lengthy diatribe against pollution. They won't be interested in an article that simply explains what a pollutant is (as you have done) ... they will want it to include an essay on how horrible pollution is. You will really have to be on your toes to constantly keep watch over the article. mbeychok (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I did consider putting up the six EPA pollutants and then it slipped my mind. With regards to the EPA link, I try and be conservative with links and and use links that have a very strong relationship to the context. The EPA is linked from other links in the article so I feel that that is good enough. I have many enviro article on my watchlist to guard against "environmental zealots". Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wellman-Lord Process
Hi, Milton. I proposed to merge the Wellman-Lord Process into the Flue gas desulfurization article. You could discuss this here Your opinion is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Beagel, you may do whatever you wish regarding the subject merger proposal. However, you should be aware that the Wellman-Lord process is essentially obsolete. I am not even sure that the Wellman-Lord patent holder or their licensors are still in business. I doubt that any Wellman-lord plants have been build in the last 10 to 15 years. For that reason, I would question why you want to merger it into Flue gas desulfurization.


 * Don't let Googling and getting a large number of hits mislead you. Most of those hits were written decades ago.


 * For any further discussion, you can email me directly using my Wikipedia email. I rarely vist Wikipedia since I became completely disillusioned with Wikipedia and transferred my energies into the online Citizendium encyclopedia. At Citizendium for over a year now, and have not encountered even one incident of vandalism nor had anything but pleasant collegial collaboration from other participants. mbeychok (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:OTEC diagram.gif
File:OTEC diagram.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:OTEC diagram.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:A Marley industrial cooling tower.jpg is now available as Commons:File:A Marley industrial cooling tower.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Petrochemical
Would you please look at petrochemical. I left a comment on the talk page there. My guess is that the article is completely wrong, just a selection of organic compounds that are produced on a large scale. All organics are generated ultimately from petroleum, so by some very lax definition, all organics are petrochemicals. The lax definition does not highlight just how few real feedstocks there are.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Smokefoot, take a look at this article (which I created) in Citizendium, the online encyclopedia where I now edit:


 * Petrochemicals


 * Any comments you might offer would get serious consideration.


 * I got fed up at Wikipedia with the vandalism and the edits by students and others with more book knowledge than real world experience ... so I switched to Citizendium where I haven't seen one single act of vandalism in almost two years now. mbeychok (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Looks like you have a really good article at Citizendium.  I am sorry that the annoyances at Wikipedia got to you.  If you are interested in contributing to the planning or execution of Petrochemicals, then the conversation will be held at Talk:Petrochemical.  My guess is that we will construct a flow chart from ethylene, propylene, C's and BTX and then down one layer (eo, acrylates, butadiene, styrene,  terephthalic...).--Smokefoot (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Large TeX Font.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Large TeX Font.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. — ξ xplicit  23:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

ANSI
Hello. I received your message, but am not entirely sure about procedures for responding. I am placing answers on my own talk page, in response, rather than repeating the questions. Let me know if I should have done it differently. Tripodics (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Engineering & Science articles edits
Mbeychock, I understand fully what you say about people with no deep knowledge that edit contents just because they can do it. I experienced it in the Spanish Wikipedia, where I contributed most, and it really discourages experts in a field to contribute. It is a pity, and Wikipedia suffers from it. It is probably against Wikipedia policies, but I would constraint the right to edit very technical articles to people who can probe expertise on a field (degree of similar). Meanwhile, we can do nothing but see how articles which have been carefully written by an expert are mercilessly edited by laypersons. Nevertheless, you can revert wrong edits and keep contributing whenever you feel like doing it. You will be helping interested readers! --Jasón (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jason, thank you for your comment. I now contribute primarily to the Citizendium online encyclopedia where real names must be used (no pseudonyms allowed) and users must be registered to participate. It is much more collegial and vandalism is practically zero. mbeychok (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Air Dispersion Model articles
Category:Air Dispersion Model articles, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mendis
First: those are registered users. Having a username = a registered user. Unregistered users are known by their IP addresses.

Second: Several other editors have worked on this article over the past few years. It still needs a lot of trimming to remove the fluff, and make it neutral, but I think his time with the State Department goes for notability.

Third: it's August 31 2010. Please check my userpage for reasons why I really don't feel useful today. Ask another admin, okay? DS (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Henry's Law on Citizendium
I noticed that you brought the WP article over to CZ way back, and clearly stated in your text what you did. Unfortunately the tag says

"I released this article to Wikipedia. In particular, the identical text that appears there is of my sole authorship. Therefore, no credit for Wikipedia content on the Citizendium applies."

Could you remove said tag? Thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Done. Sorry I did not reply earlier. I seldom visit WP any more. mbeychok (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is a shame as your articles seem very sound. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

Turning Ten
I've read why your no longer doing edit work, but feel I had to leave this message anyway and I hope you return and continue helping everyone edit wikipedia in the future.

On Saturday January 15, 2011, Wikipedia will turn 10 years and people all over the globe will be celebrating Wikipedia on that day. No event is currently planned for Orange County Wikipedians, so I am leaving a message with some of the currently involved editors listed in "Wikipedians in Orange County, California" & "Wikipedians in Southern California" to see if we might want to meet on that day, lunch, dinner, group photo or other ideas welcomed? I will start a "Turning Ten" discussion thread on my Talk page to see if any interest can be planned for and determined. I am located in Old Towne Orange off the circle.Tinkermen (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Compressor
Could you answer some questions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gas_compressor#Optimal_efficiency ? Thanks in advance, 91.182.23.252 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

File:FlueGas2.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FlueGas2.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Fractionator Overhead System.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fractionator Overhead System.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 14:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Delayed coker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steam generator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusing edit on boiling point
Your edit-summary for this edit, "The boiling point decreases with increasing pressure, just as it should." contradicts the lede of that article. DMacks (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. When you recently edited Petrochemical, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BTX (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, JaGa. mbeychok (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your book
It's good when experts contribute to Wikipedia, but please note that books you publish yourself aren't considered reliable sources for referencing articles. Adding the work over many articles suggests a conflict of interest, or even advertising. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Mbeychok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Schilzm (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style


 * You have no Talk page, so I cannot respond there. I was a member of WP and published dozens of articles years before you came to Wikipedia ... ao I can only surmise that you are trying to be funny! mbeychok (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Partial pressure
Please don't edit-war. The system we use on Wikipedia is WP:BRD. You made two bold edits to change to math notation, and I reverted it, explaining that it was unacceptable for WP:ACCESS reasons. The next step is discussion on the talk page, not your re-insertion of your preferred version. I'd be grateful if you'd acknowledge that you stepped outside of our norms, and revert yourself.

Please read WP:ACCESS carefully. Your edit summary "Using correct math notation is very much more important than worrying about screen readers. If you wish to supply alternate text, then do so ... but please don't revert the correct math notation again" is an arrogant insult to anyone who has a visual impairment, and you should be ashamed of even thinking that, let alone committing it to an edit summary. You also need to understand that the partial pressure of oxygen (PO2) is not a mathematical expression in that table, and is justifiably rendered as normal text.

If you insist on replacing perfectly accessible text with an image, the onus is on you to supply the alt text, as your edit has rendered the text unintelligible to anyone who is not sighted. If you don't know how to do that, then see Help:Displaying a formula, or ask and I can explain it to you, but don't create a mess and then demand that someone else clean it up for you. --RexxS (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason for not responding sooner is the 8 hour time difference between you in England and I in California ... and it is also a weekend. Let me start by saying that the Partial pressure article is not an article about the arts or books or sports or history or music or games or politics or geography, etc., all of which do not usually require the use of mathematics. It is a science/engineering article and mathematics is the language of science and engineering ... so the article contains quite a bit of mathematical formulations.


 * The article is intended for an audience of teachers, students, workers and others interested in physics, chemistry and chemical engineering. The vast majority of textbooks, journals and other scientific publications in the field of physics and chemistry use $$P_{{\mathrm{O}}_2}$$ and $$P_{{\mathrm{CO}}_2}$$ to denote the partial pressure of oxygen and carbon dioxide (and often the lower case $$p$$ is used rather than the upper case). That audience will find the use of PO2 and PCO2 very confusing and perhaps even incomprehensible. In fact, when I first saw that usage, I thought it was some of the childish vandalism that is so rampant on Wikipedia.


 * I am quite well aware of WP:BRD and WP:ACCESS. If you will read my user page, you will find that I have been a WP author for many years and have created or extensively contributed to well over a hundred articles related to chemistry, physics and chemical engineering. You will also find that I have garnered a number of barnstars and other such awards.


 * I really resent your saying that my edit summary statement was "an arrogant insult to anyone who has a visual impairment". At my age of 89, I have some visual impairment problems of my own and I certainly empathise with those who are seriously impaired visually. However, in my opinion, the solution to the problems that screen readers have with images lies in improving the screen readers ... not in inventing a misconceived fix like using PO2 and PCO2 to represent the partial pressures of oxygen and carbon dioxide.


 * I also resent your characterizing my edits as "edit-war". I simply revised the newly 'invented' usage of PO2 and PCO2 to their correct implementation. By your own admission above, you then reverted my corrections. One might say that you were instigating edit-warring.


 * I fail to understand how that one sentence and one table in the small section about partial pressures in medicine differs from the four sections about Dalton's law, Ideal gas mixtures, Henry's law and Equilibrium constants. If you will look at those sections on the edit page of the article, you will find that each of those sections includes a vertical listing of parameters using a table (with borders set at zero) to line them up properly. Each of those tables also use LaTex images for their math formulations. Would you advocate changing all of those tables as well?? That would totally destroy the article.


 * Let me draw an analogy. Assume that we were writing a hard-copy, printed encyclopedia. Then assume that someone insisted on writing one section in Braille so that it could be read by the visually impaired. Let us further assume that perhaps less than 1% of the encyclopedia readers were visually impaired. In that case, the section written in Braille would mean that more than 99% of the readers would not understand that Braille section.


 * I have no data to back this up, but I would estimate that the number of Wikipedia readers who are interested in science articles and who require the use screen readers is probably less than 0.1 percent (in other words, one in a thousand readers).


 * One final point. The article already has two methods of expressing vapor pressures. The most prevalent one is the use of LaTex to render $$P_{{\mathrm{O}}_2}$$ and $$P_{{\mathrm{CO}}_2}$$. The other one is in the section about diving gases which uses the terminology (jargon) indigenous to that subject. The article does not need another 'invented' usage like PO2 and PCO2.


 * I hope that this clarifies why I revised the article. mbeychok (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's ok, there's rush to respond, and we have no deadline. It's exactly for those reasons that we have the Bold-Revert-Discuss sequence, not the Bold-Revert-Revert sequence that you insist on using. That is how edit wars start, and it doesn't happen with the WP:BRD system. You seem to think that because you believe you are right, you can force the article into your preferred form. Well, I also believe I'm right, and it's a good job that I'm not so thoughtless as to insist on changing the article back to my preferred form, otherwise we'd be going back-and-forth in an edit war until both of us were blocked (and quite rightly). So now do you understand why pig-headedly insisting on your version is no way to conduct a negotiation on what's best for the article?
 * I reject out of hand your assertion that the article is "intended for an audience of teachers, students, workers and others interested in physics, chemistry and chemical engineering". This is a general encyclopedia and the article does not need to pander to any particular section of the population. As you acknowledge, scuba divers have a great interest in this article, and you are not able to pigeon-hole them in way that is convenient for your view.
 * I take issue most strongly with your argument that it's ok to ignore the needs of the visually impaired, simply because they are few in number. Each of them is an individual and deserves to be allowed access to all of our articles. I'm happy for you that at the age of 89, you don't need a screen reader. I'm a mere stripling of 60 and I know how much of a toll it takes on my eyesight. However, I have a very close friend who, at the age of 40, is registered blind, and it is no consolation to him the he's in a small minority when he can't make sense of an article that breaches our guidance on accessibility.
 * Let me be clear about this: you removed accessible plain text from the article and made it worse for a blind visitor. No amount of saying that other parts of the article were inaccessible can possibly make your action correct. If you are going to change articles to use LaTex, then you must learn how to write proper alt text each time, otherwise you leave a trail of damage for the disabled in your wake. If you are unable or unwilling to read the link that I provided for you (Help:Displaying a formula), then I'll state here – so that you can be in no doubt – the  $$  tag accepts an alt attribute, which needs to be set to a sensible version of the formula that you are using. If you wish to replace the perfectly accessible and comprehensible PCO2 with an image that suits your taste better, then you need to do something like this:
 *  
 *  
 * depending on the context of the symbols. I mean that the abbreviated forms would be fine if their meanings were already obvious.
 * Now I'm not going to edit war with you, but you are an experienced contributor, and it behoves you to sort out the problems you make when they are pointed out to you. The simplest solution is the way I advocate: use plain text, as everybody can read it. I'm content to give way on the use of LaTex if you don't make the article worse for my blind friend, but it does take a little bit of extra work on your part to make that work. I'm not going to spend time following you around cleaning up the mess you make, so you can have it your way if you choose. You decide. --RexxS (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My goodness, RexxS! You do have a way with the language, don't you? You have said that: I am "pigheaded", you have inferred that I am "thoughtless", that I have left a "trail of damage in my wake for the disabled", that I "insist on having my way" and that I am "changing the article to use LaTeX". You really know how to influence people, don't you? Is that language what you call "negotiation"?


 * If you will read what I wrote above, you will note that I was quite polite ... I did not call you names or denigrate you in the slightest, nor did I talk down to you in any way as you did to me.


 * As for my changing the article to LaTeX, that is completely wrong. You really should do your homework/research before blowing off steam. When the Partial pressure article was originally created on March 11, 2002, it included math formulations using HTML math. Two years later, on June 20, 2004, user Bdesham changed the HTML math to LaTeX math. Then seven years later, on November 19 ,2011, user Mikael Häggström created the "In Medicine" section with the incomprehensible PO2 and PCO2 usage. In other words, the article used LaTex math for 7 years before the "In Medicine" section was even created. Then 1 year later, just a few days ago, I noticed that the "In Medicine" section was completely out of line with the rest of the article and was using the incomprehensible PO2 and PCO2 ... so I changed that section to use LaTex and be consistent with the rest of the article.


 * This is my last time-consuming essay on this subject. I will not respond any further to any of your future comments, name-calling and denigration. As I said before, if you want alternate text for the LaTex in the "In Medicine" section, then you can create that text yourself. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so, especially so after your name-calling and denigration of my character. mbeychok (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (and my full name is Milton Beychok)
 * As you wish. I have no interest in massaging your ego, and stand by every word I used above. Believe me, the language I used is mild compared to what I really think of those who care so little for the disadvantaged. If you want to leave visually-impaired visitors with a worse experience because of your personal preferences, then you can. I've tried my best to explain what damage you are doing and how you can fix it, and your every response has been to deflect from the problems you are causing and attack the messenger. I won't waste our time any further as it is clear you are unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of your own editing. Feel free to have the last word. --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rexx, please. If any of the other math markup on that page had alt text, I might concede you had a point, but as it is -- no.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)