User:Mion/artalk

==Transparency==

Hi, thanks for helping with Wikipedia. Please do not rename articles from more appropriate titles just so they can be consistant on a disambiguation page. Please read The Manual of Style, the naming conventions, and the Disambiguation Pages Manual of Style for more information. Thanks! Scott Ritchie 01:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for helping with Wikipedia. Please do not rename articles from more appropriate titles just so they can be consistant on a disambiguation page. Please read The Manual of Style, the naming conventions, and the Disambiguation Pages Manual of Style for more information. Thanks! Scott Ritchie 01:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Scott, I have been reading the styles, (thanks), and it was the only way to get bad interwiki links removed, the EN and NL wiki are now a bit in line, the german one still directs to transparence in optics., still working on it.

Regards, Mion 22:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Transparency

Hello Mion. Thanks for you input on Transparency.

I have a few points in answer to your comments:

• The page was way off the guidelines laid down in MoS:DP, which was the reason why my edits were so extensive.
• You will see that most of my edits actually mentioned MoS:DP, i.e. I have quoted a normative reference. Your reversal of my edits did not mention any normative reference. Please do not revert changes which are clearly made under the auspices of existing guidelines unless you can quote a better normative reference for your position.
• You reversed more edits than you actually qualified. Please do not make wholesale changes without qualification.

Please can you make sure you have read and understood MoS:DP before making any further changes to this page?

Thanks, Duckbill 11:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, you should be sure to have read and understood WP:D as well. Thanks, Duckbill 11:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I will re-make each change individually, quoting the normative reference for every single change. You should not reverse any of these changes unless you can identify a reason which outweighs my normative references. Thanks, Duckbill 11:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to invite you two to continue your discussion (and others) at Talk:Transparency, so that others can be involved. -- Ravn 11:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

holiday

• I.m off for holiday, back around 20-3, so the mediation gets more time. Reg. Mion 12:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Travel Alliance template

I've raised some questions at Template talk:OTA, and as I see you created it I hope you'll be able to address some of them. Much appreciated. -choster 03:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

transparency

Talk:Transparency sorry, just back from holiday, mediation is still wanted. could you have a look ? Thanks Mion 14:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-14 Transparent - unsupported reverts by Mion Mion 14:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes gr. Mion 16:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, a revert on transparent (transparency is fine), and links to the other page on each page. Transparent Mion 00:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why das it need a new mediator ? Gr. Mion 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been the mediator and I'm no longer available for this mediation case. Your communication was too confused and I have no intention to decode what you were trying to say. Please ask somebody else.

Reply --Fasten 19:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Ok. thanks.Mion 19:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

It appears user:Duckbill has not edited since March 30, so I'm not sure if anything can be done about the mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-14 Transparent - unsupported reverts by Mion, unless there is something I'm missing. If help is still needed, what would you like to be done? Cowman109^Talk 20:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The page transparent is now a redirect. to transparency. revert transparent to its former state, ad a link on it to transparency, same on the page transparency, "for transparent go to". Reg. Mion 14:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quova

Please take a look at the nomination instructions before you nominate another article (or figure out what went wrong last time). Instead of posting your nomination to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quova page, you added it to the end of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jason Silver. Nothing big, but I thought you should know. BTW, I'm Dutch too. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• De categorie wordt automatisch toegevoegd als je de template gebruikt, maar het is helaas geen vervanging voor de complete procedure (hoewel in sommige gevallen WP:PROD kan worden gebruikt. Het is eigenlijk heel simpel:

1. Type {{subst:afd}} boven aan het artikel en bewaar.
2. Volg de link naar de discussie pagina voor de verwijdering van het artikel (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Example_Title)
3. Noteer je nominatie.
4. Plaats de link op Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today door {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Example_Title}} aan de lijst toe te voegen (let op de haakjes).

Als je hulp nodig hebt met een nominatie, laat het me weten. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Great! See you later.. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding Cat Sections

Hi , I see you're bizzy with adding proper cat's to hydrogen related and other articles, and removing them from the see also sections. I used to do the same, but, there are people aka the cat cleaners who wil clean out all the categories from the article except 1, naming it tuning the cat. (thats why you see so many See Also links) which will result in no right categories anymore, and the See Also links are also gone. It's just a note, i appreciate your contributions .reg. Mion 21:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Mion. I think it isn't a good idea for the categories to be cleaned out in the Environment section as there are so many interrelating forces with climate change and man's impacts/technologies. How are people supposed to understand the different issues at stake when Wikipedia may try and box things off too much?--Alex 09:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, however cat cleaners can't be stopped, if you don't know the proper name and it isn't mentioned in the article its hard to find the related article. The templates function quite good, i had a look at the hydrogen technology page, a sort of listing, is it the start for a portal ? reg. Mion 11:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am working on the WikiProject Environment especially environmental technologies. Presently they are quie disjointed and in different vague categories such as Sustainable Technologies and a template that had been badly designed- {{environmental technology}}. Really its just working on these to bring a more logical approach. WikiProject Environment does need a portal although I think this would be beyond my abilities at this stage. Cheers --Alex 11:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but making a listing of fuel cells which are already in the Template:FuelCellGroup, its more simple to make 1 link to the template. For the others links, maybe its better to ad a horizontal line Hydrogen technology in Template:Sustainability and energy development group. This template is already under most of the articles. just an idea.

And Nuclear is not a clean energy. reg. Mion 11:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite relaxed as to the format. Its more the interelations between environmental technologies I am concentrating on. I never claimed Nuclear is a clean energy but some advocate its use in the production of hydrogen. It's a balance between fossil fuel emissions, production of hydrogen using nuclear or ideally production using renewable resources. --Alex 14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the new categorising of Category:Hydrogen

Water fuel cells

I know you are working on the fuel cells category are you aware of this article- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell it was not in the fuel cell category.--Alex 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for Work on Fuel Cells and Hydrogen

		The Technology Barnstar
		Awarded for your continuing work related to hydrogen and fuel cells --Alex 12:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mion, I've been looking Category:Hydrogen and it is expanding well. I suggest it might be useful thinking of subcategorys to group related subjects. --Alex 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Smartfish translation

Just wanted to tell you that I translated the Smartfish article you requested from German WP. --Greenb 23:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Hallo GreenB, thanks for the translation on Smartfish, can you help me out with the other items ? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hydrogen#Getting_found_articles_translated_into_the_EN_wikipedia. reg Mion 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't know a lot about Hydrogen etc. If it's OK with you, I'll just translate from German, feel very free to correct any mistakes (linguistic and factual). When I finish translating an hydrogen-related article, do I just cross it out on the WikiProject like you did with Smartfish? I need to know because I just finished Fiat Panda Hydrogen. --Greenb

Hydrogen vehicle

Do you agree with the changes made by User:PotomacFever to the Hydrogen vehicle article and other hydrogen-related articles? I am referring to that editor's changing the article to say that burning hydrogen made from fossil fuels creates fewer emmissions (rather than more emissions, which the article said before) than burning the fossil fuels directly. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. --Ssilvers 02:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion ? Talk:Hydrogen_vehicle#Polllution_from_producing_hydrogen:_citation_needed Mion 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Under the heading "Research and prototypes" PotomacFever changed the article 180 degrees to read: Current hydrogen production methods utilizing hydrocarbons produce less pollution than would direct consumption of the same hydrocarbon fuel, gasoline, diesel or methane, in a modern internal combustion engine. Hydrogen will generate less CO2 than conventional internal combustion engines if emissions throughout the entire fuel cycle are compared and thus would contribute less to atmospheric radiative forcing per mile driven.

If you look at the edit history, you can run PF's changes -- Ssilvers 12:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Original text: However, current hydrogen production methods utilizing hydrocarbons produce more pollution and cost per mile driven, than would direct consumption of the same hydrocarbon fuel, gasoline, diesel or methane, in a modern internal combustion engine. To reduce pollution and reliance on fossil fuels, sustainable and cost effective methods of hydrogen production and containment would have to be improved beyond current capabilities. The costs of producing, containing, and distributing hydrogen are likely to go up as the costs of fossil fuels goes up from declining supply and increasing demand.Mion 13:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He is right: While numerical estimates of efficiency are notoriously unreliable, Gorte says, fuel cells will be much more efficient than the internal-combustion engine. And by several important measures—including the amount of carbon dioxide produced—they will be cleaner. “Because efficiency is just the amount of energy you get out of burning a given amount of fuel, if you can get twice as much energy from a given amount of fuel, then you don’t have to burn as much fuel—and you make less CO2.” [[1]], espescially now they start the methane reforming inside the car (Honda)(evading extra transportation loss of the fuell).reg. Mion 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Key is the effinciency inside the fuell cells compared to the efficiency inside the combustion engine.

And the section needed to be updated in time, it was too old.Mion 13:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers 13:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation of hydrogen vehicles

I have moved things around for you ready for expansion. The Category:Hydrogen cars needs not be deleted. Instead can be a subcategory of Category:Hydrogen vehicles where you can expand to include Hydrogen planes, airships etc. This way you have a logical structuring of the categories. Some of the categories will be small to start off with but I'm sure they will expand as WikiProject Hydrogen develops. --Alex 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you hear the news relating to Boeing developing a new prototype hydrogen plane this weekend? --Alex 08:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No problems with the subcategorisation, I like it as its logical in its structuring unlike some of the jumbled categories that are found on wikipedia, but I have no issues with you altering it back. Alex 08:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

To do renaming or deleting of categories its a bit of a pain, you need to go to this page [2]

I was just wondering where you are from Mion? You mention you are able to work in German and Dutch.--Alex 09:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am English living in Manchester. I have a few friends in the Netherlands, some of them who were in the UK when I was younger and some I have met when I travel to Tel Aviv. --Alex 09:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent beach, spent a long time there!

Your Translation Request

Hi. I translate from fr.wikipedia to en.wikipedia, and I saw a request from you here to translate a 2-sentence article (fr:Tanja Ostojic). The german article is far better and larger, so I moved your request to the German bio request page. Hope you get the requested translation soon! --Storkk 14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

test

gone

energy template

I already split the template into multiple templates and went through and updated every page that was listed in the template. However, if you can think of anyway to improve of it, you can go ahead. Behun 04:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:)

Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Swedish Wikipedia wishlist

Hello! I see you have edited the lists of requested articles on Swedish Wikipedia, by adding links to English Wikipedia. I am afraid that such links do more harm than good. /Yvwv 01:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

MixAlco process

Hi Mion, please take a look at this article that has reference to hydrogen. I'm borderline considering it as an advert but it has some useful info on it. --Alex 08:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mion, didn't realise I started up such a huge debate! Personally I agree with you, whether or not it is a registered trademark the name is the main sticking point of this article. It is clearly an interesting article worth keeping however I believe it should be a more encyclopedic title rather than a sales pitch. The name is not in itself broadly recognised as the technology is new and is not proven at fullscale as far as I can see. Statements such as "Because of the many products that can be economically produced, the MixAlco process is the true embodiment of a biorefinery" seem like marketing spin as opposed to a factual article. --Alex 08:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a number of plugs to the MixAlco process that do not need to be there. A single mention of the commercial process name in the main text and references should be sufficient. I have also consulted with User:Velela on a article name change. --Alex 08:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved article as per discussion. --Alex 10:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This guy doesn't give up. He is signing off and making alterations with 24.250.142.78 adding the Mixalco process to articles like anaerobic digestion. [3]. I have modified and wikified his work to make it suitable for wikipedia, yet he reverts useful edits to include reference to Mixalco. --Alex 08:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC

Thanks Mion, The vandal tool works well but is a little bit tedious unless you have a real apetite to repetetively revert all of the crap people vandalise wikipedia with!--Alex 16:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen technology?

Hydrogen fusion redirects to nuclear fusion. Consider a hydrogen technology?--Alex 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC). No, see Nuclear power phase-out.Mion 10:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hydrogen biology

I have created a new subcategory to take in biological processes related to hydrogen, of which there are many! --Alex 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:OTA

I have done what you asked to the template, in case you want to know how to do it I simply surrounded it like so:

<div class="NavFrame" style="margin:0.5em 0; padding: 5px;">
<div class="NavHead" style="background:#ccccff;">Box title</div>
<div class="NavContent" style="text-align: center; font-size: 90%; padding: 0;">
Content
</div></div></div>

I hope this helps. Lcarsdata (Talk) 12:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed it, I had to add

<div class="NavFrame" style="border-style:none; padding:0px;">

to the top and a div to the bottom. Lcarsdata (Talk) 12:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen vehicule

In this article [4] of the French newpaper Le Monde, Takeo Fukui, CEO of Honda says (line 3/4) :

Dès 2008, Honda va franchir une étape en devenant le premier constructeur capable de commercialiser aux Etats-Unis et au Japon, auprès du grand public, une voiture à pile à combustible (fonctionnant à l'hydrogène).

meaning:

As early as 2008, Honda will go through a new step in becoming the first manufacturer [le premier constructeur] able to sell [commercialiser] in the United States and Japan, for the public, a full cell powered car [une voiture à pile à combustible] (working with hydrogen).

Or, after a quick look at Google News : [5]

Photogeneration

Hi Alex, can you have a look at Photoelectrochemical cell I'm not sure the term Photogeneration is correct for the second type. thanks. reg .Mion 10:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mion, looks like an interesting article but I do not know if this is the correct term or not. --Alex 07:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fotolyse

Tja, ik heb de NL wiki voorgoed vaarwel gezegd. Er lopen daar teveel mensen rond die de sfeer verzieken. Errabee 12:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear section

Hi, i see you are putting a lot of time and effort in the article, so just go on, some points need more consensus, my guess is we both want a better article. Cheers. Mion 03:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course we both want a better article.  :-) Too bad everyone can't agree on what "better" means...

Can you return the nuclear section to the original version? Those quotes were mistakenly moved to the Sustainable energy article, but they don't belong there, since they're about "renewable" energy. — Omegatron 04:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, stupid action from me, i'll put it back. reg.09:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it back. You'll probably be reverted, though.  :-\ As you probably noticed, there's a group of people who absolutely hate that section of the article, and won't let it stay unless it says:

"Nuclear energy is clearly not renewable, but a few evil people are trying to say that it is. But they're only doing that because they're evil and they're trying to steal government funding away from real renewable projects and put it into their dirty nuke plants."

Of course such a section is not neutral. If we're going to be neutral, we need to describe the real arguments people are making, regardless of how much we like them, and leave it up to the reader to decide whether they think those arguments have any validity. What better way than to let the proponents speak for themselves? It's not like our readers are just going to swallow their arguments whole. It's our job to report on what's going on in a neutral way, and leave it up to the reader to decide what they want to believe.

Another possibility is to replace it with a brief summary and a link, and move the content to a Nuclear energy article, like Nuclear power#Nuclear as a renewable. But the debate isn't about nuclear power so much as it is about the meaning of the term "renewable energy". As such, I think the Renewable energy article is the best place for it. — Omegatron 12:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes , the revert was more a reflex, second check made me clear that the discussion is going on a long time, and I should step into the discussion myself before i do actions like that, i also agree on not removing opinions, and i see the point, the definition of "renewable energy".....

I suggest making a page Nuclear Economy, do the discussion there , and ask people not to discuss on Nuclear Energy and Nuclear fuel cycle, renewable energy, etc. ? reg Mion 12:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

grappig

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! -

• Post scriptum Check out

Deleting interwiki links

What's up with this edit? I assume this was a mistake. Hope you haven't done this elsewhere.--Srleffler 22:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No it was totally ment that way, only EN is not splitting up. there are 2 articles. a laser diode which is the small component used, and a Diode laser , which is the whole unit. Just follow the links, reg. Mion 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's insane. A laser diode and a diode laser are the same thing. The whole unit is a laser diode in a box with a power supply.--Srleffler 22:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, however most the wikipedia's have 1 or the other, or both articles, something is wrong here. and for me personal i prefer both articles, nice unit description and nice component description. reg . Mion 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This may be something that makes more sense in some other languages than it does in English. Personally, I would think the best thing would be to have a single article that covers both.

It's strange from my perspective as a laser engineer, because the diode is the laser. It's not just a "component" in a "diode laser". Everything else in the unit is just power supply and control electronics. It would be like having two separate articles for the mirrors, laser rod, and pump source in an Nd:YAG laser; and the whole thing in a box with power supply.

Your perspective is correct, and what you describe is exactly what happens, have a look at how a PC article is build up, all components are in seperate articles. reg. Mion 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see why you deleted the links, though. If there is only one article in English, surely it should link to all of the foreign language articles for both terms? --Srleffler 23:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good point, however if we dont fix the link issue, the ones reading the component version will never be aware that there is a unit version page and vice versa, a second thing is that in language terms speaking (technical) you also talk about laser diode for the component, and idem diode laser for the unit. marketterms then. reg. Mion 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer the double linking, it would be best if EN would be the only wikipedia which has in the interwiki section al links twice ? Doesn't make sence to me ? Mion 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Argon laser

Can i ask you a question ? i'm about to translate to Dutch the Argon laser, would that be best under that name or krypton laser or as suggested ion laser ? reg. Mion 00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Argon-ion and Krypton-ion lasers are two distinct types of laser (although quite similar). In principle, each should have its own article. Since they are so similar, however, it makes some sense to deal with both together. The naming of Krypton laser is clearly wrong, since the article deals with both. If you are going to have a combined article, it should be under a name that reflects both types. I'm not sure if ion laser is the best name, though. I don't work with that type of laser, so I don't know if there is an appropriate generic name for this type of laser. --Srleffler 00:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see, Argon-ion laser and Krypton-ion laser to start with, thanks for the help, oh, and i requested namechange because of wikilinking problem with the YAG laser types, [[6]] Cheers Mion 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

CUTE translated

Hi, I have translated de:CUTE at Clean Urban Transport for Europe, and saw that your name was listed under "originally requested by" at Wikipedia:German-English translation requests#Economics. I just wanted to let you know and ask for feedback (this is my first inter-Wikipedia translation). Thank you. —dto (talkcontribs) 21:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! —dto (talkcontribs) 22:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

de:Nukleare Sicherheit

What ever happened to the article on nuclear safety on the german Wikipedia? (de:Nukleare Sicherheit) I have now redirected it to de:Sicherheitskultur. -- Petri Krohn 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

WikiThanks

Thank you for the warm welcome back. :) Lcarsdata 08:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:OTA

Template:OTA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. DB (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Baloch_people and Baloch_(tribe). Both are different

Hello Dear I saw your edit on Baloch_people and Baloch_(tribe). How can you merge two different thing in one. Balouch Tribe (it is specially name of Tribe not whole Balouch community . They are tribe not nation they represent there Own Tribe named as Balouch(here we add Tribe to differentiate it from Balouch community ) (Balouch Tribe is Sub tribe it is clan of Balouch) Hope i am clear ,u can ask more about it

Khalidkhoso 13:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ashley mote.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ashley mote.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Bob 16:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hans peter martin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hans peter martin.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Bob 07:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hepatotoxin

I´ve replied at my talk page. Cheers, Davidprior 15:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Photobioreactor in Karlsruhe

Hello!! I see you put in the article Biological H2 production the information about H2-production assay in photobioreactor in Karlsruhe (Germany). I would like to know how can I get more informations about this research. Do you have some further informations? Do you know a website containing further informations? Thank you for your help. Sciuro23

See : Talk:Biological_hydrogen_production_(Algae)#Germany.2C_more_info. Cheers. Mion 12:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Partial oxidation

Hello, I will submit an English translation of Partielle Oxidation sometime today. I'm afraid I don't know the formal process for coordinating translations, and cannot figure it out from the rather confusing Translation Project pages. Lfh 10:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Euro I to VI

Hi Mion, actually, I saw a report for technical error at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Redirect problems by an anonymous editor (81.104.175.145), so I took a look at these pages and made an attempt to fix the redirects. I have no idea why these pages were redirected in the first place or whether there was a discussion about this matter. I'm very sorry I didn't check the previous edits carefully, if you feel the redirects are unjustified, please feel free to revert them. (Though I think perhaps you could consider discussing with 81.104) Sorry Peacent 14:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, what he said too! DuncanHill 16:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Emission standards

The reason for the redirects was that they duplicated the tables, and contained no new information. 81.104.175.145 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 81.104.175.145 09:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

== Re: Please revert ==

Hello Mion. I think you are confused regarding the last edit I did to Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels. Please check out the links again. You will notice that those links basically are simply Dr. Holtzapple's presentation, which is already cited there in the article (reference # 1 in the present version after your rv), but Dr. Holtzapple simply speaks as the slides are shown. If you notice, there was already a video clip of Dr. Holtzapple giving a presentation (reference #2 in present version), but in that clip he presents about a lot of things, whereas in the ones I added, he concentrates only on Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels. What exactly made you think that this was a "shameless pushing for publicity" as you put it? The name of the company that is commercializing this technology (i.e., Terrabon, L.L.C.) does not appear ANYWHERE in those video clips, only the University LOGO of the Texas A&M University Soil & Crop Department, who were the ones who made the video clips. Please, I ask you to reconsider. Ag2003 02:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mion. It has been exactly a week since I sent you this message. I even sent you an email. I have noticed you have been participating in wikipedia here and there. However, I have gotten no response from you. I am going to give it 5 to 7 more days. If I don't hear from you as to how, where and why you think my last edit was commercial spamming, I am going to re-edit the article to include those video clips of Dr. Holtzapple's presentation on Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels. Thanks. Ag2003 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mion, your last two messages to me do not address the question I posed to you: "What exactly of MY LAST EDIT made you think that it was a "shameless pushing for publicity" as you put it?", this was the reason why you reverted and this is what you have to address. Your messages address other issues, such as whether those two references I added in the last edit have anything new (they might not have anything new but they clarify things because they are video clips of a presentation that is already there being given by Dr. Holtzapple LIVE), or whether I have collaborated in other articles in Wikipedia (If you have to know I did collaborate to biofuels in 2007) accusing me that my edits are PR, and yet you are unable to tell me how or where or why they are PR. But again, the two messages have nothing to do with the reason why you reverted, so I pose the question to you again: I want to hear from you how, where and why you think MY LAST EDIT was commercial spamming (not whether it has anything new, or questioning my low wikipedia activity, which were not the reasons why you reverted, nor they would be reason enough to revert). If you are unable to address that then I think I am justify to re-edit the article to include those video clips of Dr. Holtzapple's presentation on Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels. Don't you think?. Thanks. Ag2003 21:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mion, on the message that you sent me you ask:"now about your contribution in the edit, a link to a promotional video on a seminar," This is NOT a promotional video by ANY means. This is a technical presentation given by Dr. Holtzapple to the Soil & Crop Department (College of Agriculture) at Texas A&M. If you notice in the article, almost from its inception there is a VIDEO presentation by Dr. Holtzapple. THis is similar. You ask: "my question to you, what is in the video states what is not in the article ? so, what is the video link adding as new information to the article ?" For starters, again, this was NOT the reason for your revert, you are still not addressing the reason for your revert. In any case, it is true that this video might not be adding new information to the article (most of what is in the video is already in the article), but it clarifies things, because you are hearing the description of the process from the "horse's mouth". I think this video explains things better than the presentation that is already cited there (as a pdf file), or even the other video that is already cited there as well, which also touches other topics that are not too related to Bioconversion of biomass to mixed alcohol fuels. My dear friend, you are still not addressing the reason for your revert, I hope that you will, or if you are unable, then agree with me that I should re-edit the article to include those video clips, thanks. Ag2003 11:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mion, thinking a little more, NOT THAT IT HAS ANYTHING to do with your revert, but there is some new stuff in that presentation that is not in the article. IT shows that this process, starting from the carboxylate salts, can make OVER 100 different chemicals. I could add that to the article I guess, but I think it would be too cumbersome to add all the 100 different chemicals that can be made. thanks. Ag2003 11:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in here, however, this is wikipedia. I read the article, and sat through the slide presentation under discussion, out of interest and curiosity. Correct me if I am wrong, but since it is even stated in the article: this process is still, although being scaled up, being researched for optimal performance. I can then look at it as still passing for "original research", as per wikipedia definition? It certainly looks like it to me. Has there been a discussion on that point?
As for the slide presentation: that link, does, in my opinion, not improve the quality of this article. If it does indeed give additional information relating to the process then put it in the article. As it is presented now one needs to sit through this 45 minute presentation and listen to a whole bunch of information that is nót directly related to the article. All the arguments on economy and applications, etc., as mentioned in the presentation video, might eventually have their own article (if such articles do already exist information could be added there), but they don't fit in here. What Mion might have intended to express is that all the extra information in the video is just there to show the economic viability, not support the article. I tend to agree with Mion in this case. VanBurenen 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

@VanBurenen: ok the first point , original research, yes part of it is, as it is always part of frontrunners, its the part where the improvements are made, however we checked the patentlist, which is valid, a lot of different people had something to say about it and some published the research it, Alex had a look at on it, which for the chemical part I have to rely on, so the point was mentioned and so far the result was keep. For the second point Fair enough, i will watch the complete video tomorrow and let you know tomorrow as well.

Cheers Mion 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mion, first of all, thanks for agreeing with me that the article is worth keeping, which resulted in your rv. Changing subjects, VanBurenen, I agree with you that the economics, from the purely scientific point of view, which is the approach of the article (and of wikipedia in general), do not fit. However, in a technical presentation about a process that is being scaled-up, such as this one, the economics are crucial. As a chemical process is scaled up, it must undergo economic evaluations at least 30 times with the best information you have available each time, in the 15 to 20 (and sometimes 30) years that it takes to go from concept, to lab,to pilot plant, to ramp up, to demonstration plant and finally full-commercial plant. The economic evaluations become the go-no-go measures at every stage, because all comes down to how much it costs; thus, process and design engineers will want to see the economics before they see anything else. If a process is not economical, even though it might be the soundest process scientifically speaking, it will not be worth anything, other than being a scientific curiosity. Mion, now, you were saying, if you are interested to maintain this discussion, that the video presentation was ok in the chemistry but that you found three flaws in the economics. Would you care to share it with me? I am curious to see what you found, thanks. Ag2003 2:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Using wikipedia to show the world that your process is a viable one is not an appropriate use for this encyclopedia. I'll state it once again: this is an encyclopedia. The article describes a process. For the economic viability interested parties may contact you or your colleagues. This article is imho used inappropriately as a platform to sell your system. Now you are adding the economics and possible product range through a video presentation. I agree with Mion's removal of the video presentation. Also any other texts that do not fit the encyclopedic intention of the article (i.e. process description) should be removed. The sooner the better.
Ag2003 mentions 'three flaws'. That relates to a discussion elsewhere. Please Mion, keep your discussions on one subject together. There is imho no need for Mion to get into a discussion about the validity of the economics in this space. That only distracts from the need to remove the videos asap.
You will want your business start-up costs to be as little as possible, and research and pilot plants do cost money, but do not use wikipedia to reduce your marketing/publicity expenses.
(PS: maybe this discussion should be copied to and carried out on Talk:Bioconversion_of_biomass_to_mixed_alcohol_fuels?) VanBurenen 10:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Bioconversion_of_biomass_to_mixed_alcohol_fuels#.3D.3D_Re:_Please_revert_.3D.3D, further reactions please on the TP of Bioconversion_of_biomass_to_mixed_alcohol_fuels.Mion 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Homefueler

A tag has been placed on Homefueler, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Domthedude001 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks a lot nicer now.. It doesn't look like it should be speedied.. but I'll AfD it because it still doesn't look like it meets WP's standards. But don't get me wrong, it looks a lot better than before. -Domthedude001 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC) ..PS: You might want to archive ;)

Nevermind, it looks good enough :) -Domthedude001 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

MIB

Should I be astonished about your first or your second revert? Any comments about the "Stasi 2.0" comment? --Pjacobi (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The first, stupid action, it was late, and i was fed up with information removers , it was more a reflex, then i realized that there was also the possibility that you could think that i ment you with it and not the action, which i also misjudged, your removal was correct, so, sorry for that, and the second revert was to restore it. The Stasi 2.0 came from the newspaper article yesterday and was spinning in my mind about the consequences, it was misplaced anyway, Cheers. Mion (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I was just in the mood of removing unreliable sourced claims per the discussion at WP:RS/N. --Pjacobi (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, spammy readers digest article, good point. Mion (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen car

Oh please, you should delete weblinks there not add even more. Can start a discussion to concentrate on the most important links, don't link to fringe science, don't link to single manufactures and don't link to media in non-free formats? I really get sad and tired when I see these web directory like long link lists. --Pjacobi (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, about this link, the interesting thing is not cars or buses but the bikes and others section, with a timeline, the database looks like 70 % complete in hydrogen vehicles, and by doing so, almost al the advertising in the page can be removed or moved to the list of hydrogen vehicles, the two bottom ones, should go to bicycles and motorcycles on hydrogen in general, which is on the work to do list. So, yes, there is a lot of cleaning to do and some rewriting of the article. Mion (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Can i have your opinion on the link Roads2HyCom like on hydrogen valve, the link is to a collaborative project as well, however in this case it is one of the few sources about it (and the rest is commercial)? Mion (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for the [7] link on fuel cell, the article states a reference list and an extensive description of water management? Mion (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello - I don't see how www.h2cars.de/ H2cars adds anything to the article, it looks like mostly a list of cars with links to manufacturers. There are plenty of other links on the Hydrogen car article that ought to go, too, in my opinion. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

the interesting thing of that link is not cars or buses but the bikes and others section , but ok, i leave it up to you to clean up the article? Mion (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Roads2HyCom is a project from the university of Aachen [8], is that a non trusted source ? Mion (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For Roads2HyCom it follows Wikipedia:Reliable sources, (it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception) .the material follows Wikipedia:Verifiability, so i will put it up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Mion (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this article's focus has been diverted somewhat from the most important topics. While bikes, etc. are worth mentioning in the article, the focus of the article should remain on cars, since emissions from cars are a key part of the global economy and a key cause of global warming. The most important topics in the article are 1) can hydrogen cars decrease emissions that cause global warming? (the answer is no, because hydrogen has to be produced from fossil fuels or from electricity generated by burning fossil fuels; hybrids, PHEVs, battery electric vehicles and conservation (driving less) are all nearer-term solutions to reducing emissions, but the government delays action on these by saying "Don't worry, we're developing hydrogen cars."); and 2) can safe hydrogen cars be produced and fueled economically? (again, no: the cheapest hydrogen car costs much more than other cars in the mass market). All the other vehicles discussed in the article are currently of secondary interest, since they are of smaller importance to our global economy and global health. Of course that could change in the future, but we need to focus on current reality. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, shouldn't this discussion be moved to the Hydrogen Vehicle article so that other editors can participate? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, good idear, but first 2 new articles are coming up, Forklift (hydrogen) and Small utility vehicle (hydrogen), mass entry of the other vehicles will precede the introduction of cars, so personally i think cars should be at the bottom, but thats for later at the talkpage. Cheers Mion (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Biodiesel

Your recent addition was deleted from Biodiesel for the following reasons: 1) the study cited was commissioned by a partial group, 2) the addition made claims about "Biodiesel" though the cited-article only discussed "Rapeseed/Canola Biodiesel" (origin not specified), and 3) the article lacked details that would allow for a suitable modification (exascurbated by the secondary sources from the paper being written German). I don't doubt the truthfulness of the claim, but there are clearly problems with the addition that was made. E8 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

you're right point 3. is troublesome. Cheers Mion (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we weren't able to suggest any articles for you. Something is probably wrong on our end.

Yacht no 1 (hydrogen)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Yacht no 1 (hydrogen), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Yacht no 1 (hydrogen). M4gnum0n (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Germanischer Lloyd guidelines for fuel cells on ships and boats

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Germanischer Lloyd guidelines for fuel cells on ships and boats, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Germanischer Lloyd guidelines for fuel cells on ships and boats. Kife 10:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing other editors' comments

Hi,

this edit makes no sense to me. There's no obvious evidence that this user is "a troll" based on the editing history, or block logs, so where are you getting this from? I've reverted on lack of evidence. Please don't bite newcomers. Chris Cunningham (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for conceding graciously on this one. I hope you can see now why I'm so reticent on assuming that accounts are socks without firm evidence. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, steap learning curve there, next time i will be more cautious. Mion (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Title change

Since you know your way around on the English wikipedia so well and I don't know the way to go about it I'll ask your assistance. I would like to have the title of the article Sand separator changed over what is now the redirect Hydrocyclone. An hydrocyclone is so much more than a sand separator: it allows separation of all kind of solids form a liquid, not just sand, but also, for example clay, pieces of plastic, metal chips. Particles heavier as well as lighter than water may be separated from it using a hydrocyclone: in the paper processing industry a hydrocyclone is used to separate small pieces of plastic, staples, and other contaminants from recycled paper fibres that are suspended in the water.
A "sand separator" has a much smaller range of application, and could be a sub-article of hydrocyclone or have its own article. How to go about fixing this? --VanBurenen (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi VanBurenen, the sand separator article is in potential much broader it also includes mesh sand separators and maybe other types of sand separators, if you want to make the separate article about the hydrocyclone, just via search hydrocyclone, edit the redirect in the top, remove #REDIRECT, write the article and save it. And for the backlink from to main article you can use the {{main|Sand separator}} and on the sand separator the {{seedetails|hydrocyclone}} template, (meaning instead of a namechange for the article which is one option, activate both articles), and i am still exploring Wikipedia, if you want an experienced opinion you can ask comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment Cheers. Mion (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your suggestion, however, most of the hydrocyclone information you will already find in the 'sand separator' article. The way you suggest this would mean a copy/paste of the information, thereby losing the history. That is what I try to avoid. Thanks for the wikilink. --VanBurenen (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As the article sand seperator isn't deleted, the history stays, you can make a note on the talkpage or at the cut/paste as comment coming from sand separator. If you want to keep it on the same page, maybe move page title hydrocyclone to hydrocyclone1, move sand seperator to hydrocyclone. move hydrocyclone1 to sand seperator, which can be done, the redirectpage has no history. Cheers. Mion (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is refused. Can not overwrite existing article name. I'll wait till someone reads Talk:Sand separator. --VanBurenen (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla Digital Memory Bank

Dear Mion,

I am a graduate research assistant at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. In recent years we have produced a number of online archives such as The September 11 Digital Archive (http://911digitalarchive.org/) and the Hurricane Digital Memory Bank (http://www.hurricanearchive.org/). Our team is currently gathering digital documents related to Mozilla products for the Mozilla Digital Memory Bank (http://mozillamemory.org), and we are in the process of interviewing some of the lead members, former and present, of the Mozilla community.

I recently found your Mozilla/Firefox-related contributions located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Firefox. Given your involvement with Mozilla, we think your voice would be an excellent addition to the archive. If you are interested in having your perspectives added to the record, we can conduct the interview via Skype, instant messenger, or email—whichever method might fit your schedule and preferences best.

I have included below the first three questions of the interview in order to give you a sense of the process. For examples of completed interviews, please feel free to examine the interviews section (http://mozillamemory.org/browse.php?cat=interview) of our archive.

If you are interested in contributing your perspectives on the Mozilla community and its products, you can reach me by e-mail at gcheong@gmu.edu. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding the interview process or the Mozilla Digital Memory Bank.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Best regards,

Giny Cheong
Gcheong (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Graduate Research Assistant
Center for History and New Media (http://chnm.gmu.edu)
Department of History and Art History
George Mason University
4400 University Drive, MSN 1E7
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

Interview Questions

When did you begin using computers? How did you get interested in computers?

What is your education background? Have you had formal computer training?

What’s the first programming project you remember working on?

Hello Giny Cheong,

I feel flattered, but i think you're confusing me with a coder from Boston, i don't work in programming but in semantic webdesign. The coder from Boston fits the profile of the site. Cheers. Mion (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey thanks, sorry I didn't remove the tag.WilliamMThompson (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC) ok, np, hppy it works. Mion (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)