This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Biodiesel

Very germain, I mention only a small part of the process to lend credence to the article without turning it into something over most readers heads or interest. With this small amount of data, they can move deeper into these areas of chemistry (if interested). I extracted this part of the transesterification definition from Wiki's, again to speak to issue. I will add "an example" good point. Vinmax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinmax (talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to write to you here, in case you dislike my comments: Congrats to your formulae in the Reaction section which are really beautiful. They only need a minor mod as you have put the R numbers in the index, not in the power. However, that is nothing, and I'll leave it to you. Apart from that it is 100% correct according to the latest organic chemistry notations. Perhaps we ought to change the introductory sentence to ...an example of transesterification...

My questions is: Is being complicated more useful for the average reader? Unless they are up to date in chemistry you would have to explain to them what the breaks mean in a line formula etc otherwise it will be double Dutch. However, a prominent note referring them to Organic chemistry might help. LouisBB (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again,

Thanks for your reply. I fully agree with your comments on redundancies etc. See my comments and suggestion on Rifleman's talkpage. Please help if you can LouisBB (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't know the answer to your question about the Biodiesel page history -- sorry. Try Wikipedia:Help desk. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm online right now, if you want to talk about biodiesel, it could be a good time. Write something in my user talk !!! Mike Young (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you reverted my comments about the legal definition of biodiesel. I am an engineer for the National Biodiesel Board (the national trade association for the biodiesel industry) and we have toiled for many years to pass the legal specification of biodiesel in ASTM D6751. We realize that wikipedia, while not completely accurate, is a common source of information. Therefore, we ask that you refer to the legal definition of biodiesel from the NBB webiste for biodiesel - a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats, designated B100, and meeting the requirements of ASTM D 6751. Please contact me further at jthaeler@biodiesel.org for additional inquiries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermislooker (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Bio-power" redirects to "biodiesel." The term "Bio-power" and "Biopower" are very similar, so a disambiguation is necessary. Daliminator (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussion

For the sake of civility, I have removed the template comments from Treekids page.--E8 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What you did is not civility, it is misrepresentation. Wikipedia can have conflict, and we should work toward civility, but not at the expense of openness and honesty. --Treekids (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the civility guidelines specifically state that offensive comments should be removed from Talk pages. As you took offense to the templates I placed on your Talk, I removed them. I was attempting to following published Wikipedia guidelines. I've removed comments from my Talk for the same reason; I'm trying to be a good and productive member.--E8 (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OTOH I would not object if you wanted to archive that whole discussion. Putting something away, both sides, is not historical revisionism. --Treekids (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for the biting language. I understand that your motives were good. Let's put this behind us. --Treekids (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'll reciprocate by not place templates on established editors pages and replace the obfuscating items like WP:CV with a link instead.--E8 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fuel oil classification

Hello E8. This is regarding my edits that you have reverted here [1]. I can see what you mean by "Regional-specific terms", however, I believe the classification you are linking to is one of "fuel oil" and not "diesel fuel", therefore talking about engines designed to burn "#2 diesel fuel" is incorrect. There is no "#2 diesel fuel", but there is "#2 fuel oil". Unless you're using regional-specific terms yourself. Thanks Lonwolve (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How much CO2 does normal diesel produce?

The UK government on Page 130 here says diesel has an emissions factor of 0.086 kgCO2e/MJ fuel.

Carbon and Sustainability Reporting Within the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation

The US government says on page 19(or 45 according to acrobat reader) that normal diesel produces 633.28 g CO2/bhp-h

Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus

Now my unit converter [2] says there are 2.68452 MJ in a horsepower hour.

so the UK government says 0.086*1000*2.68452 = 230 g Co2/bhp-h and the US says 633

So the US and the UK don't agree on the NORMAL diesel Co2 footprint, yet alone the biodiesel.

Help!!! Which of these is right?

This is the reason the UK thinks that Biodiesels have about 70% the footprint of normal diesel and the US thinks it's 17%. They disagree on the footprint of normal diesel !!

Answers on my user page please! Mike Young (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)on

SN2

Regarding the reversal of my Edit, an SN2 reaction is a one-step, bimolecular displacement at an sp3 carbon, as is described in any Organic Chemistry textbook. See for example Morrison and Boyd, 3rd edition, p.461. Transesterifications take place via a tetrahedral intermediate, which is a different mechanism altogether. --CTfrog (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please scan and email me the text page(s) you mentioned. Doing a Google search using the keywords "sn2" and "biodiesel" will net a number of sources that indicate biodiesel transesterification does proceed through the SN2 pathway. In fact Wayne Davies, a PhD chemical engineer and (former?) [teacher at the University of Sydney] named his [Biodiesel consulting firm - SN2]. According to his page, "[t]he company name SN2 was derived from chemist's shorthand for "bimolecular nucleophilic substitution" this being one of the reaction pathways that occur in transesterification for making biodiesel." Thus, given the differing claims, I'm left more confused. This is outside my area of expertise, but I would like know definitively how this reaction works.--E8 (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice requested

Hi E8, I am fairly new here, and would welcome some advice on an issue. I have been doing some work on supercritical fluid articles, and just noticed a new Super critical carbon dioxide. There is already a Supercritical carbon dioxide and a supercritical fluid. this new addition basically takes a chunk of the Supercritical fluid article, and prefaces it with CO2 in carbon capture and storage. Now whilst CCS is important, this new article fragments the coverage too far, IMO. I had in mind replacing the Supercritical CO2 with a re-direct to supercritical fluids anyway. How do I go about raising this for attention? Thanks for any assistance you can give. Stainless316 (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

All sorted out - just left a message for the poster and they re-directed to existing articles. So there was no issue after all!Stainless316 (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A7

Hello, I'm afraid Greasestock is ineligible under A7, seeing as I've referenced it with the New York Times and The Daily News. Also, it is a bit inappropriate to tag something so soon after its creation, as well as template a veteran editor (a personal note would have been nicer), as I am still developing it. If you would like to remove the tag, go ahead, otherwise I'll have to spend time expounding in detail on the Talk: page. Thanks. MrPrada (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I commented the Talk page.--E8 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion project

Your request for a third opinion has been edited to comply with Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute. If your entry as originally worded contained information vital to an understanding of the dispute, please add those details to the article talk page where the dispute exists. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 01:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(I removed this message from my talk page. WP:3O volunteers watchlist the project page; one will respond within a reasonable time.) — Athaenara ✉ 01:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Circle Biodiesel & Ethanol Corporation

Please see my edit summary. Regards, Daniel (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Gasoline Vapor

I've looked at the article and cannot find a lot in it as support. It may be real, but after doing a quick Google search, I cannot find anything that explains the theory. The article should probably have supporting validation, technical journal entries, scientific discussion, patents, etc. Go ahead and nominate for AfD to evoke some good discussion. Nice catch, thanks for keeping your eyes open, I would have missed it. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD discussions

I'd suggest you focus on your strongest arguments instead of including every policy and guideline that might be tangentially related. If not for the "fringe" addition here, I would simply be agreeing here, but instead we're now off on a tangent about how "exceptional" the claims are. Also, focusing on a few specific points leaves others to focus on other points, allowing a better consensus to form. Arguing all possible points can cause an apparent "one-man consensus" which others will potentially dismiss as unsupported by the community. Finally, throwing excessive weak arguments around practically guarantees that someone will find fault with one of them (which is the only reason I commented in that discussion in the first place). – 74 19:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

E8

...an Exceptionally Cool Username ! István (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential link for Waste Oil references

Hello! I am from a company called Lanair based out of Wisconsin. I don't know if this is of any use to you, but I have updated the Lanair.com website with a lot of waste oil information. I've built a search-able FAQ that we plan to add to over time, and if there's anything you'd like to know about heating with waste oil, it's probably a good place to fish for information. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to see something added. I am new to the whole wiki-editing thing, so I'm sorry if this is the wrong area to contact you, but yours was the only true article on 'waste oil' I could find on Wikipedia. Perhaps I should start my own wiki entry on the more specific category of 'waste oil heaters'? Let me know what you think! --Fujilives (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Biofuel Systems link

CFPP differences between different EN 14214 national standards / biodiesel cold flow concepts / EN 14214:2008 / misleading presentation of information relating to the cold weather use of B100 which can be effectively treated with certain additives

The information given on biofuelsystems.com regarding CFPP differences between different national standards is not found anywhere else on the internet. The information is accurate, and that particular webpage does not have any commercial content. I think you should leave the link in place as many users may be interested in the information even if you aren't. The same website (albeit different page) also clarifies differences in cold flow concepts (e.g. cloud point, CFPP, PP, FP) and also has more up to date information about the EN 14214 standard than the current wikipedia page on the same topic. For example, the current wiki about EN 14214 gives the permitted level of phosphorus as 10. It is now 4. I checked there was no commercial content on the webpages before posting the links and only posted them because there was a lot of other useful information there. I would agree that the Wintron webpage is commercial and understand why links to that were removed. Mentioning the existence of cold weather additives for biodiesel however should be considered. You can email me - paul AT medicentres.co.uk if you wish to discuss. Overall though, I feel you have edited out links to 100% accurate and verifiable information which other users may find informative... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.181.59 (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The links were removed as they are commercial in nature. The spam policy, as linked your Talk page, is very clear about this matter. I did not remove the content as it is useful, but it should be properly sourced.--E8 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no commercial content on the webpage - http://www.biofuelsystems.com/biodiesel/specification.htm ; the national annexes to EN 14214 are generally only available by buying the standards individually from the various standards institutes and I suspect this is why the CFPP information is not available anywhere else on the internet ; the information on this page is correct. If you are interested, I can email you a copy of the latest CEN EN 14214 standard. My email address is paul AT medicentres.co.uk (obviously substituting AT for @) ; I really think you should consider allowing the external link to this particular webpage as it is purely informative and the information given is clearly verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.181.59 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Add the link to the appropriate category on the DMOZ site, and then link DMOZ back to Wikipedia (if not already done). It would be best to acquire a copy of the EN standards for citation, however. It's worth noting that the page contains a "Products and Services" button, a clear indicator of the commercial nature of the site. The standards should be available to any college/university with related programs and accessible without cost. Due to the difficulty in finding a source (I looked as well), this source does seem acceptable, so long as it is on the EN 14214, and not spread to all biodiesel-related pages (note that the other pages refer to this one).--E8 (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No flag icons

Hi, just to let you know, I undid your edit because the Wiki Manuel of Style states that flag icons should not be used in infoboxes. See here and here. Take care. Tinton5 (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. There was no edit summary initially, so this was helpful.--E8 (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Biodiesel production.png

Hey E8, Is it possible to revert the image deletion of the file:Biodiesel production.png . I think it did had value, on the wikipedia, or on other wikimedia projects. KVDP (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen many of your images, most of which are quite impressive. I'm sure the biodiesel production image you made was well-intended, but the instructions provided are both superficial and dangerous. It neither added depth, nor clarification to the article, and in light of the hazards associated with the process, did not belong on Wikipedia.--E8 (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Environmental technology

Thought you might like to know that Khadija-NJITWILL (talk · contribs) is editing this article again. -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 04:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Renewable Energy Portal

Hi. Some of us are setting up a new Renewable Energy Portal. Feel free to contribute and discuss the matter at Portal talk:Renewable energy#Merger proposal. Johnfos (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Green diesel

Hi, E8. There is a discussion to merge Green diesel article with Vegetable oil refining and/or Biomass to liquid articles. As one of the main editors of the Vegetable oil refining article, your input is highly appreciated. Beagel (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Distilled water__Thanks

Thanks Ed, I write regular pages where you get the subject and then find the references, but I am also doing reverse, I am trolling the old magazine archives that are public and when I find something interesting I go on WP and find an article to match the reference. You would not believe some of the weapons, aircraft, etc that have been lost or forgotten or more important the photos. Can't use the photos, but as you see a link to it gives the reader of the WP page a better understanding. The biggest treasure I found was the first aerial refueling system that the British developed for commercial flying boats, just before WW2. None of the aviation articles available today has ever been able to explain how to aircraft in mid air grappled a line and then hauled a fuel hose across safely like ships at sea and refueled (it was the system the USAF used for the first non-stop around the world flight by an aircraft, a B-29). And then low and behold a post WW2 Popular Science article had four illustrations explaining in detail how it worked. I sent it to some of my aviation friends and they astounded that all previous articles had gotten it wrong. Again, thanks. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Other languages

Hi E8 - do you know how to start a wiki stub in other languages? I want to make a Dutch, Chinese and Korean page for Dynamic tidal power. Thanks! (UNguyinChina (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC))

I replied on your talk page.--E8 (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Image request

Hi and thanks for your help with the Biofuels and other renewable energy articles. And I know you are good with images too. Would you consider doing an update of File:WorldWindPower.png ? Johnfos (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider doing an update of File:WorldWindPower.png ? Johnfos (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page.--E8 (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Energy audit

Hi, E8, CincyBuyers here. I am still learning about wikiedits, and do have some questions and could stand to have legitimate help. About the Delta T revision. My thought is this. I do energy audits, tons of them, for the Greater Cincinnati Energy Alliance and other charities. Delta T is incorporated into reports, discussions, and almost every resource talking about 2nd Law of thermodynamics, which is central to the infrared and heat loss portions of an energy audit. Since we send people to the wiki article, it really does make sense to have a note on Delta T there. Any chance you'd agree and let it stand?

Also, in the discussion page, it asks for links. I put a few in, one of which is RENTaFLUKE.com. I rent the TI-32 from them, but they also give it to me free when I do charity work. It's a greater Cincinnati only company, but one with decent resources mad available to nonprofits free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CincyBuyers (talk • contribs) 18:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My original thought was, the notation would be meaningless to the layman, and redundant to specialists, but given your explanation that the notation is common in industry, I reinserted it and commented on the topic's talk page.--E8 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, E8. By the way, your interests are very much in line with mine. Although my degree is Zoology (Duke '91) My experience is Finance, Real Estate & Sustainable Energy. The first two pay the bills, the latter is ultimately going to be my most important work. My specific expertise is Thermal Imaging and Thermal Engineering as they relate to the Building Envelope. I would welcome any mentoring you might be willing to give.

Also, do the current strikes against me prevent me from being autoconfirmed? I have a number of infrared images I would like to add. CincyBuyers (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Renewable energy task force

Please see Portal talk:Renewable energy#Task force ?... Johnfos (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Biofuels

Hello I have been reading the article over biofuels. There is an issue about the concept of thrird fourth,... generation of biofules which are no scientific concepts and seem to me like attempts for promoting particular technologies for second generation fuels. I tried to make an edit but beeing new to contributing to wikipedia my edit was reverted. Could you please help me to sort out that issue --Lberghmans (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you've figured out how to make your contribution - great!--E8 (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

yaaa

I know, if you were to look at my edits over the last 10 minutes, you would see I did it multiple times, but I find it to be a waste of time, and possibly too threathening to vandals who only make 1 edit from an IP address, I do give warnings when there are multiple acts of vandalism from 1 IP, or any vandalism from an account. Passionless (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I use the WP:Friendly templates in such situations. They're quick to use and shouldn't scare anyone off.--E8 (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thermal Depolymerisation Process and the message sent to me

I received a message stating: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Thermal depolymerization. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. E8 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)"

I am offended by the suggestion that I have vandalised the article on TDP. My comment regarding CO2 is accurate and will be placed back into that article whenever it is removed by you.

Yours sincerely

Alan Erskine alan.erskine1@bigpond.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.35.7 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Be as offended as you want; that's a standard template and you have more than one. You're less likely to get them if you create a username/account. In your attempt to clarify technical minutia, you only obfuscated the content. From your recent comments on the associated talk page, I can only gather that you don't like the phrasing of a sentence, but the sentence is factually-correct and understandable (see my comments there).--E8 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I was correct in removing your addition to the page, but the template was unwarranted and has been removed.--E8 (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussion of article improvements

I disagree with the templating at User talk:64.231.94.216 and the reversion of the edits at Talk:Wind turbine design. The IP editor raised legitimate questions that should be answered by this sort of article. I have restored the IP comments on the talk page in hope that a subject matter expert can give us some answers that will improve the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed per AGF. Notably, the user only asked a series of questions, and made no mention of the page or content. Initially, I thought this to be a student attempting to use WP editors to complete their homework, but from the discussion spawned from them, clearly I was incorrect in my judgment.--E8 (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

External links

I strongly disagree with removing the external link I posted. It does not violate any of the guidelines unlike some other external links on this page and many others. Show me the rule that you can't link to sites with advertising!

Rick36502 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous guidelines that apply to the link you added. The most relevant is WP:SPS, which states "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." WP:ELNO (#2-unverifiable research and #12-wiki history not established), WP:LINKFARM, and WP:NOTADVERTISING touch on this as well (many users attempt to use WP to generate traffic and establish their notability, which is not the purpose of WP). The DMOZ directory is a better host for useful links that do not meet WP criteria.--E8 (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note that DMOZ (the Open Directory Project) is linked on the Wikipedia Biodiesel page, so your link would only be one additional "click" away.--E8 (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Rick36502 (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC) You are accusing me of spam. Everything else you quote is irrelevant and we both know it. I don't need the link on wiki; it's already highly referenced among biodiesel hobbyists. I added the link because it ads the hobbyist perspective, which is not available on the wiki page. Rick36502 (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELNO, which is part of the External Links guidelines, #12 explicitly states, "one should generally avoid: 12) Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." The WP:SPS content I pasted above is relevant if it's not a wiki (it appears to have multiple contributors). If you are "Rickdatech", I assume you have the ability to establish yourself as an expert in homebrew; have you garnered media attention or presented at any noteworthy public events?--E8 (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You're still spewing garbage in an attempt to justify an unjustifiable position. The site is not an "open wiki" and the WP":SPS does not apply to external links, it applies to citations and general references, or source material for the page content. Since an external link is not used as a citation or a reference "source" the same standards do not apply, which is why there is a WP:EL seperate from WP:SPS. The only applicable part is the conflict of interest, and you have avoided that because it doesn't support your spam determination. I'm new, not stupid. Rick36502 (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility--E8 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

First, Please overlook my incivility. I've extensively researched the guides following every link to try to understand your position. I have found that technically none of your arguments are valid. However, there is one argument you did not use that can apply here. WP:ELNO item 11 states: Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

Please note that this reference is not from the 'Absolute Reasons to Exclude Links'. It is from 'Links normally to be avoided'. It is not an absolute reason to exclude a link. The question comes back to, 'Does this link offer benefit to the reader?' Or 'Is there a reason to include the link?'

I suggest that because it is universally recognized as the best source for small scall production information available on the Internet, that it ads value for the Wiki reader and should be included.

I contend that the effort to improve the pages be focused on the article themselves, since many of the 'references', 'article sources' and much of the content do not meet the absloute standards provided in the guidelines. The biodiesel pages seem to have been authored mostly by fans with limited knowledge and limited acces to verifiable, reliable sources. Rick36502 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have responded on the Talk: Biodiesel page. I do not appreciate having my comments selectively parsed to fit your argument. Given that your only contributions here are to preserve your own link and criticize content and policy on the talk pages, it's clear (and disappointing) that you're here to self-promote and not to improve WP.--E8 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Rick36502 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Methoxide concerns

Regarding this edit ("restoring original spelling per MoS"), seems like the more significant change you made was to change "methoxide" (CH₃O^–) to "hydroxide" (HO^–), in an article focused on the common topic of the methoxides. That's a pretty severe chemical difference, more important than choices of spelling. I'm assuming the main point of your edit was to spell the element as "cesium" rather than "caesium", but this article seems to fall squarely in the scope of the WP:CAES guideline. Lastly, this same edit changed a link to [[base (chemistry)|base]] back to [[base]], which is a disambiguation page rather than the specific meaning for this context. DMacks (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Only the spelling on Cesium was supposed to be changed. Somehow I reverted two helpful edits - thanks for noticing and pointing out CAES.--E8 (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

CVU Talk Page

I think Editzz was just a newbie and was not trying to impersonate Achowat. I guess he didn't know to sign pages with four ~. If I'm wrong my bad, but if not please don't bite the newbies. Dan653 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted the refactoring template only after finding a instance of vandalism from this editor (their only main page edit). If a standard template specifically for the issue in question is biting, then the templates need to be changed. I really don't see the need for more children who can't spell, much less string together string together a comprehensible sentence, randomly posting things on this site; we have enough vandals and Randys (and his enablers) to deal with.--E8 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Appreciate your contributing to the Wind power talk page when it seemed that I was a lone voice in the wilderness. And in recognition of your ongoing efforts with renewable energy articles. Johnfos (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank Johnfos. I'll try to keep things progressing on that page. It was markedly contentious there for a bit, but seems to be moving in the right direction now.--E8 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Biodiesel

I apologize for the inconvenience caused by the article. I will have the edits removed right now. The account is not being handled by me. Smarojit (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The content is still there. If your account is compromised, see here.--E8 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to revert all the edits made by a friend of mine, using my account. Apologies once again. Smarojit (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the 3RRR tag; thanks for reading the Talk and entry log.--E8 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply (sodium hydroxide IUPAC name)

I have answered to your reply on talk:sodium hydroxide. It was actually a spelling mistake from my part.Vanischenu m^Talk 12:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkpage

Fair enough. But maybe you can answer the question I posed. Why is it OK to use an author's conjecture on some articles but not on others? The correlation is 1:1 between the source used in the Tax Wikipedia article and the one used in the CBPP article. Could you please tell me how to communicate this clearly to someone with a partisan agenda without "protesting" it by engaging in a tendentious dispute in another article? 173.79.6.215 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the talk page on CBPP. I thought you had support already?--E8 (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Why?

I have mentioned the copy in the edit summary, plus, I have put a note on the talk page of both source page and destinate page. Why is it still invalid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yxiao2424 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple issues, which I noted on the page's talk.--E8 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Remember to see my new reply on the page's talk!yxiao2424 (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Come and have a look!

It is me again! Please visit the talk page of Sustainable energy and join my discussion! If you agree with me, then I will start to improve it. yxiao2424 (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Message from User:Ehr1Ros2

Hey a user asked you a question on your user page. It was reverted, but I thought I would just paste his message to you in the proper place.

Do bio-fuels made from palm oil, include palm oil in their content[?] -User:Ehr1Ros2

Thanks! MaskedHero (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Ehr is a ~~vandal~~questionably constructive user with either an agenda or a fetish for adding random EL's to pages, and ~~I'm sure~~ the rhetorical question was ~~just a troll~~ just that.--E8 (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

aircraft propeller blades vs wind turbine blades

I agree that aircraft propeller blades and wind turbine blades are not interchangeable.[3]

I would appreciate your comments at Talk:propeller (aircraft)#aircraft propeller blades vs wind turbine blades.

Thank you. --DavidCary (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: drinking distilled water

Greetings, I understand why you have reverted my edits to distilled water. However, the article NEEDS some clarification of whether a person can or cannot drink distilled water. The article simply mentions that distilled water is widely sold. It's not necessary to have a reference for every single thing in an article - much can be said without references. Do people drink distilled water? Yes. Do they recommend drinking it? Many do. Do others think it might be unhealthy? Yes. Why? All of these things are clearly established outside of scientific studies (sources could even be mentioned if need be, individuals quoted, etc.). If there is just too much controversy, then THAT is a notable thing to mention, and WHY there is controversy. If there are no conclusive studies either way, that should be mentioned as well - or instead. This is a quintessential issue to adress in a wikipedia article. Simply reverting edits does not achieve: it would be more constructive to contribute collectively towards an optimum section. Thanks :) RichG (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I just saw your post on my page - what you mention "sources that give both pros and cons for consumption, but no reliable sources that made broad generalizations about the safety". This could be shaped nicely into part of a section. RichG (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding citations, verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Ironically, I found myself in a similar position to yours a few years ago on this very same page. I was interested in learning if the acidic pH of distilled water (exposed to air, not DI) had any negative health effects (I still have no reliable answer for this). Most of the viewpoints I found on the subject were unreliable and/or biased (COI), but there was certainly no lack of passion. When I tried to include a paragraph or so of content that I thought was reasonable and obvious, it quickly (and, in retrospect, appropriately) was pared down to a single sentence. Strangely, this issue is (was?) contentious, and content has been challenged vigorously, leaving it in its current state. If you're committed to fixing the issues, it'd be worth dredging through the discussions (and sometimes heated debates) on the Talk page, as well as those at Drinking water and Hard water. Sometimes, not much can be said on a topic due to lack of reliable sources.

If my memory serves me correctly, there were some full-text documents locked behind the PubMed paywall which I could not access (can you?). I checked GScholar again - didn't find anything directly related. Most scholarly publications are hyperfocused and don't make broad conclusions. A survey of studies might draw broad, useful conclusions, but I haven't found one outside the WHO study that's already linked on the page.--E8 (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hay thanks for the response :) I can understand your perspective, and I certainly understand the need for verifiability for statements that are definitive or that draw conclusions. I don't know how dedicated I am to this topic... I have an idea to gather a collection of points that can be used to construct some sort of paragraph. I will post it on the article's talk page and hope you might comment there.

Regarding the acidity, for what it's worth here's my thoughts which you probably already know: Aqueous equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 is not very acidic (about pH 5.7) Many foods are acidic, tomato sauce (pH 4-5), sauerkraut (pH 3-4.5), citrus juice (pH 3.5), etc. One could consider carbonated water which is much more so: CO2 pressure in soda lowers pH to 3-4, with addition of phosphoric acid lowering it further to the 2-3 range. Of course gastric acid itself, containing hydrochloric acid, can be as low as 1.5. Perhaps the research on health effects of drinking soda would give some answers. If it's inconclusive there I wouldn't worry about the acidity of distilled water. RichG (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Distilled water - Health concerns

In regards to the subtitle "Health Concerns" under the topic of Distilled Water, I believe it is misleading to list health concerns for hard water. This seems out of place since distilled water is "soft". Health concerns under distilled water should apply to the topic at hand. Att152 (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please take this subject up here, Talk:Distilled_water, where everyone can weigh in. Are you familiar with negative correlation (Statistics)? It seems as though you may be misinterpreting the text, which, given how convoluted parts of the text are, is understandable. Improvement is certainly needed and welcomed, but I my opinion, this statement you mention is beneficial, even if it's confusing and requires readers draw their own conclusions (editors are not permitted to do this for readers, of course WP:OR).--E8 (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

the discovery channel really talks about the biodiesel...

i am not lie to you,
but the channel is copyrighted
i cant ul it..
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:123.203.118.107&oldid=625177396&diff=cur
123.203.118.107 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Distilled water, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Diuresis and TDS. 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) 11:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for telling me that I needed to use the sandbox. Plus, I thinks that you're very good at finding out nonconstructive edits. You also are very tireless! Dantheman (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Thelmadatter/Solben (Bioenergy solutions)

Hello, I am a college student from the Tecnológico de Monterrey. And as a project of my Discourse Analysis and Academic Writing Course I am working on the creation of an article about a Mexican biodiesel company. I would be very grateful if you could invest some of your time in checking my work in this article. Thank you very much, I am looking forward for your response. Have a nice day :)

Pato Lozano (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, E8. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)