User talk:Mdhenley55

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mike...got your message. Click on the word "permission" in the above message in order to find out what you need to do in order to release the content.  Just keep in mind that if you do so, you're more or less making it available for anyone to use.  You might be better off creating new content using the original as a reference.  Take a moment to review WP:COI to avoid conflict-of-interest problems.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ultrapure Water
Of course. The article in question is well-written, but I restored the "prod" template because many of the issues it dealt with were not addressed. I see that you have been working on the article, and making good changes, and there is certainly a lot of great, new information. Ideally, I'd like to see the information contained in that article stay as a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. However, much of the information presented is covered in our article for water purification, or is expanding on it. We might do well to merge the two articles. As for some of the problems-- this article does not read like an encyclopedia entry. You said you've compared it against other Wiki articles-- which is great, because many new editors simply ignore everything else and write what they see fit. None of our articles should have an authorship notice at the top, and none of them should have the word "explained" in the title-- that is one of the reasons the article sounds like a research paper or an essay as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. Go ahead and check out our guidelines on citing reliable sources and original research. You might also see our article on water purification. Again, I'm not a wiki-nazi and would like for your contributions to stay up-- you're more knowledgable in the field than many, and we're always in need of knowledgeable editors. Does this clear anything up for you? Feel free to respond here. AlexHOUSE (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be the first to admit that I'm not any kind of expert in water purification-- which is why I don't want to throw away an article out of ignorance. I've removed the "prod" tag, and have replaced it with a generic "multiple issues" one. I'd really like to see this article at its full potential, but it's going to take some consensus to get there. Later this evening (I'm in California) I'll bring the article to the attention of a few more editors with a little more experience. And just to clarify, I'm definitely not an administrator here and do not have final say as to whether an article is deleted. As far as the Ultrapure Water article, I'll get into it and "wikify" it a little later, and fix most of the issues the original "prod" tag outlined. After that we'll get a few more editors involved and really get that article going. AlexHOUSE (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Just letting you know that the article you created is up for deletion by a different process-- Go ahead and check the template at the top of the page and click the link that says "this article's entry" to see the discussion. I think your input would be valuable. AlexHOUSE (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ultrapure Water Explained
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ultrapure Water Explained. 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 Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Ultrapure Water Explained. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Mdhenley, The debate over at AfD for Ultrapure Water doesn't look like it's heading in favor of keeping the article. I'd advise dropping by and leaving your two cents. In the event that the article is deleted, you can always have it userfied so you don't lose your work, and the information therein may be able to improve our articles on similar subjects (such as Water treatment). Talk to an administrator for details on that. As always, I'm glad to attempt to answer any questions you may have. AlexHOUSE (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there, seems to me like this is a candidate to add to the purified water article as a separate section on the various grades of purified water. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)