Reactor Edits[edit]

I have only just discovered how to communicate on this system. I hope this reaches you.

In answer to your first question, internal coils are used on some types of batch reactor. For pharmaceuatical and fine chemical applications however the coils are almost always mounted externally. The reason for this is that flat unobstructed internal surfaces are essential for cleaning.

It is more than possible that I have not filled in the relevant form correctly. However, on the subject of copywrite, these drawings are sound. I drew them myself using 'Solid Works'.

Your removal of the link on the reactor page is puzzling. We do research on continuous reactors, we are contributers to a new book on the subject, we have presented at over 30 conferences on reactors and written more than a dozen articles. We have had links on Wikipedia for years. We have never made sale through them but they do serve as a useful conduit for information. I regret that you persist in blocking this link. The information on our website is pertinent and we are still adding more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echis (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Echis,

Thankyou for taking the time to contact me here. I will try to outline the perceived issues that have prompted my actions.

With regards to the images, the required notices have been added correctly. From my perspective the issue is if you generated them in the course of your employment, you don't own the copyright to them - your employer does. There does exist a procedure for an employer to release such work, I am unfamiliar with it however. If it is not the case that you did this during your employment, then you are able to. Caveat: I am not a lawyer.

With regards to the links, it is more the number of links that have been added. When examining your contributions it becomes apparent that your editing pattern from the 10th March 2007 consists of adding external links to articles. This type of behaviour has a very high correlation to spam edits or attempting to use Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle (not necessarily for sales).

Don't forget to "sign" (name & date) your posts with four tilde symbols : ~~~~ (top left on US keyboards)

Regards User A1 (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: You may wish to browse wikipedia's guidelines on spam and Conflicts of interest. These documents are the result of broad consensus among many editors as to what does and does not constitute spam and a conflict of interest respectively. Fun light reading eh? User A1 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with the legality of the drawings. We are a research company with 15 patents for batch and continuous reactors. We are interested in CSTRs, plug flow reactors and batch reactors. Our work on batch reactors is specifically related to calorimetry. I am concerned about the removal of these links. Is there an abritration process? - Robert Ashe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echis (talk • contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helo Echis,

There certainly is, we can first ask for a third opinion (Wikipedia:Third_opinion) then if that fails to resolve anything we can visit (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). If you are keen to follow this path, just leave me a message saying you posted to third opinion and we can go from there. User A1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a solution which will settle matters but it will take a week or two to complete. I have to admit that I am puzzled by the way you make decisions. On one of the pages we have been talking about one company has posted two links to itself on the same page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echis (talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the links and made a note to revisit the articles, with the intent to clean it up when I simultaneously get the time and the motivation. Any lack of consistency is most probably a lack of consistent editing effort. User A1 (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my notice that, on the calorimeter page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorimeter) you have reinstated a link relating to 'Constant Flux Calorimetry'. I assume that this was done by you. If not, I apologise in advance and ask you to disregard the rest of this note.

Where I may have fallen foul of any Wikipedia rules, this was done in innocence and I have sought to put my house in order. Your actions by contrast amount to meddling in commercial matters that you know nothing about. Your constant alteration of these links without taking the trouble to understand the circumstances is intolerable.

Furthermore, you removed our link whilst allowing 8 other companies to have links on one page (one company has 2 links on the same page). Our own link is relevant and informative whilst some of the others are purely advertising.

Finally you accused me of not having the right to release images. You made this accusation without a shred of evidence to support it. These events are very unsatisfactory. Whilst I don't want this to get out of hand, I cannot let this matter simply drop. In circumstances like this, it is not acceptable for you to hide behind anonymity. I would ask you to forward your name and contact details. Echis (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Echis,

I have not acted on this matter in any way (I am leaving the onus of action to yourself for the moment), and I am refraining from any edits to any of the contentious articles, bar reparation of vandalism & spam, and reversion to previous editions. Nevertheless you seem to have become somewhat irked.

I have not re-instated any links - nor do I work for any company that may have any interest in these areas. You can see who performed certain actions by viewing the articles by viewing the article's history (located at the top of each web page). Requesting the contact details of a person on wikipedia I personally view as farily impolite, especially when there exists facilites for the removal of such information (permanently) from wikipedia's databases (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight), although it is possible that editors may be unaware of this policy.

Futhermore, you can view every single edit I have ever made by clicking on the User's contributions link on the left. If you believe I am acting in a manner that is not appropriate, or if you believe that my edits are indicative of some form of conflict of interest on my part, I would advise you to contact an administrator to notify them of my actions. In this case it is usually a good idea to supply diffs (example) to corroborate your claims.

Now as for the rather unusual claim of commercial matters that you know nothing about this is rather odd. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for business. Commercial matters have no, or little place here; I am editing an encyclopaedia, not conducting business - as stated previously I would be most happy for you to persue this matter with other editors, using dispute resolution techniques. Futhermore I would suggest, that if you would like to continue through a dispute resolution procedure, that, and I apologise most profusely for any implications in providing this link and hope that this is simply a communicational issue, you review some of the other available policies on wikipedia such as here. Addendum: To clarify this link does not apply in this situation, I am simply outlining the policies that we must both keep in mind.

Finally I cannot remove these pages, as wikipedia is fundamentally an open-communication system, not even blatant vandalism is removed from pages. It is rare that information will be completely removed in this regard, and it is beyond the average user or administrator, for example so called "deleted pages" can actually be restored with appropriate privilege levels. The link i provided previously is the only system that I am aware of for removal of information.

I hope that we can sort this out in a prompt manner. Kind regards User A1 (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By reverting to previous editions, you are (by default) reinstating links which should not be there. Whether you intend it or not, such actions have commercial implications.Echis (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted this to third opinion. For the benefit of any external readers, I provide this [diff] which I believe points to the edit in question. Regards User A1 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

I came here due to the posting on Wikipedia:Third opinion.

Issues submitted at WP:3O are normally matters for negotiation, but here we have an issue of basic Wikipedia policies. It's not something to be negotiated, it's just a question of reading the right policy pages and then following them.
Editors *must not* insert links to their own websites in articles. See WP:SPAM and WP:EL.
If you have a link that you believe should be added, place it on the article's Talk page and ask regular editors to consider adding it.
There are noticeboards that specialize in external link questions. They include WP:WPSPAM and WT:EL. Since the question before us is so basic, I personally think there is little to be gained by going to those noticeboards. They will probably give you the same answer as I am giving you now.

In this case, a very basic and general article such as Calorimeter has little need of direct links to specific manufacturers' products. Someone who has knowledge of calorimeters we hope would be able to add useful technical information to the Calorimeter article. Echis is certainly welcome to do that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xcode-helloworld.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Xcode-helloworld.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graph[edit]

Sorry, I can't read it. Can you try some editors who speak Korean? Badagnani (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean Australian[edit]

Hi A1, yes I know neither description is good and they are both biased. But the only reason I edited it with bias was because Kransky took it into his own hands to come here and post a biased message about our dispute when I specifically told him to talk to me first before coming here as I did not want a biased description by any party on the subject. I would have been fine with posting something general like you did, but once again Kransky did not listen to me and took matters into his own hands. So I changed it to a somewhat biased description of my own so he could know how it feels. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite unhelpful, somewhat foolish and immediately biases any third opinion editor against you. If you actually disagreed and acted in a well-intentioned manner you would have changed it to a neutral tone and left it there. You aren't doing yourself any favours. Finally another reversion will bring you to violating 3RR. Personally, I would suggest you step back and cool off for a while. User A1 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what of Kransky? Why would I be biased against, more than him? Look what he did, first he completely disregards my request to tell me before posting a description on our dispute (Which I knew would be biased because I have gotten to know the character Kransky through my dealings with him over the last few months), and then when I post a biased description so he knows how I felt, he goes and reverts it back to his biased description instead of aknowledging what he did was wrong and respecting my request to talk to me to come up with an unbiased description or even coming up with a neutral description of his own. While doing this he also try's to better himself in the eyes of the third party watchers and influence their viewpoint on me to be biased with his edit summary, making himself seem the more responsible editor. And why are you even mentioning the possibility of me reverting this once more? Did you even read my message I left you? I have know intention on reverting it once more and am happy the way it is now, I was merely making a point. I think it's somewhat foolish saying I need to step back and cool off for a while as this shows you have bias against me. From your reply you have already passed judgement on me. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the other editors statements, hence why I did not revert the description back to that which the other editor utilised. Finally, yes I have bias against you, and it is a result of my opinion having read the posts above. I have no intention of commenting on the content of your dispute with Kransky. I mentioned reversion limits as simply switching back to an admittedly non NPOV description does not smack of due consideration. Again I would suggest a more even approach will reward you. User A1 (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks and next time I'll just roll with the punches and keep things neutral so hopefully any third viewing party would be able to see how mature and good of character I am dealing with the matter. But next time you see someone post a description which is biased and the same situation arise which happened to me, post this template ({{uw-3o}}) on the offenders page so they know what they are doing is wrong. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User A1, I do not believe the dispute concerns referencing, but about which data is a more credible source on population size - being either the Australian Bureau of Statistics or a student's essay. I have amply referenced ABS data in the article. Could you please edit the discription on Wikipedia:Third opinion‎ to reflect this - I don't believe either TeePee or myself should make this change. Thank you. Kransky (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User A1, ignore what Kransky has said as he only wants a biased description in his favour. I have told him numerous times on several occasions to provide a reference for the content he is adding but he chooses to ignore me and do so anyway. So now he's just kissing your ass in a hope he can influence you. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic[edit]

Yes, I really appreciate your opinion. The natural log article already has a satisfactory graph on it. However, since the user is unlikely to add source and copyright, I don't really see a pressing need to immediately delete. Just wait five more days, and it's pretty much sure to be deleted. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense[edit]

Hi. I added the nonsense tag to the image. The graph is a listing of the increase in cultural technology in proportion with population during the last 2 million years... or something along those lines. Anyways, some people have a strange sense of humor or are very confused heh. Konamaiki (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also asked him, in Korean, to refrain from doing so unless it has a particular meaning. Konamaiki (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elderly Instruments[edit]

Hi there, I just wanted to drop a note to say that I'm taking your concerns about the article seriously. I don't have the resources today to investigate fixes (and I'm not sure it's wise to do so in the midst of all the vandalism the main page attracts) but I'd like to compile a worklist for future discussion. If you are interested, please let me know. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee roasting using a fluidized bed[edit]

Hi, This brief note is in regard to your edit of the above article, 17 June 2008. I have looked at a random sample of your contributions and the contents of your talk page in order to better understand your reasons for undertaking the edit in question. I would would assist me by elaborating on your reasons for considering that the removed portion is most non-notable commercial content Thank you in advance, Coffea (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Coffea,

Firstly, let me say thankyou for taking the time to discuss this matter. I shall certainly do my best to elaborate.

I have removed the contents as there as I believe it impinges on the policies laid out in WP:NOTE. In particular to attain notability, a subject area must have:

Significant coverage from an external source
The aforementioned source must be Reliable
The aforementioned source Independant of the subject

The coffee roasting contents has information that refers to a boutique coffee roasting cafe, "The Coffee Roaster Pty. Limited" It is unclear how this organisation is a notable and significant component of the process of coffee roasting through the use of a fluidised bed. Futhermore no attempt through the use of references or citations has been included to ascertain notability, with the policies of WP:NOTE in mind. Similar reasoning was applied in the removal of Neuhaus neotec.

Finally notability of the companies involved does not imply notability of the topic area, for example Bayer may be an important company, however I would remove anything but a passing description of the company from the Malaria article -- even though they are an important manufacturer of pesticides.

Finally having re-read some of the cofee roasting article, we would have to remove the abstract of the patent as this cannot be re-licenced via the GDFL, which wikipedia requires. Any text from the patent cannot be incorporated into the article directly - although it can most certainly be used as a reference User A1 (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, but as a separate issue, I am concerned with some of the technical aspects of one of the images that you have uploaded. Particularly Image:Fluidized Bed.jpg. The bed on the right is referred to as a "spouting bed", however I do believe that a spouting bed, as refered to by Rhodes' Introduction to particle technology (ISBN 0471984833) refers to a spouting bed as the effect of attempting to fluidised a powder that is in one of the more difficult to fluidise groups (what Rhodes' refers to as a group C or D powder, if i recall correctly - I will re-check my copy of the book). Whilst related to the bed design, it is not the design of the bed that makes it a spouting fluidised bed, which this image seems to imply. User A1 (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital image processing[edit]

What's your case? This topic has been discussed before... --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image processing article claims "Image processing usually refers to digital image processing, but optical and analog image processing are also possible. This article is about general techniques that apply to all of them.". The article then proceeds to enumerate a list of operations, and have almost zero prose. The processing of images either digitally or not, is simply generating an effect that is either a mathematical transform of an original set of images, or alternately is the extraction of information by the application of algorithms to the data. By merging the two articles, which are separated only by the implementation of the processing, the duplicate information in both could be eliminated, and the articles could be brought into the field of the actual task bein performed, ie procesing of images. The fact that the image is being manipulated is simply the method by which one is doing it. One could theoretically fashion a device to perform the equivalent of digital image processing using analog systems, its just that digitally is significantly easier, and more mathematically pure. User A1 (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully appreciate your arguments, but I think the issue here is that DIP is a a strict subfield of image processing, and regardless of the quality of the articles, they remain distinctly different. There is a very good reason why there are stub classes - just because the merging of two articles can produce a single, higher quality piece doesn't mean we should. --Jiuguang (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my argument can thus be summarised, I agree that DIP is a subfield of IP, as the name implies. I just disagree that the article is going to have enough guts to make it on its own.. That said, I don't think consensus will be achieved here, so that alone is sufficient reasoning to not go ahead. User A1 (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Intel Core i7-test.svg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Intel Core i7-test.svg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SVG Help. User A1 (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Spradlig edits[edit]

Obviously you've been given the authority to remove my edits so your opinion counts for more than mine. However, I started my site because I didn't feel Wikipedia or Wikibooks was adequate for controls theory. The organization of the Wikibooks does not lend itself to my combination of theory and practical implementation using MATLAB.

Additionally, I have created templates specifically for my site to add in the presentation of certain theoretical material. And Wikibooks has also asked that we get permission from Mathworks for every plot we generate in MATLAB relating to the material we present. I don't have the time or inclination to ask Mathworks to approve the dozens if not hundreds of plots on my site - 1 at a time. I'd be lucky if I ever got a response from them.

Finally, Wikipedia, in my opinion, is not well organized for this type of technical material. So I find articles on the Wikibooks and Wikipedia where I have additional material. However, it does not make a lot of sense to copy and paste rather than post a link. At the very least, it would be time consuming to remove all of my templates.

I have contributed several articles to Wikipedia and quite a few more the Wikibooks projects - not just links. That's how I know that copying and pasting is time consuming.

I fully understand that posting links to Wikpedia does not positively effect natural search results. I also understand why Wikipedia does that.

In my brief reading of the link policy it strikes that I could legitimately post all the topic related links I wanted if I just chose to make the copyright on my site more restrictive. I doubt this is the result you are looking for.

I post 3 to 7 new articles a week to my site. I have not visited Wikipedia in a couple of months so I had lots of new material I thought was relevant. Apparently my additions are not welcome. Spradlig (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spardlig,

Firstly, thankyou for contacting me.

I have the same level of contribution rights as any editor that has been registered for more than ten days. All editors are capable of reverting edits by other editors. However doing this more than three times in a single article, except in the case of vandalism, is considered bad behaviour. Yes, there is policy on that too ;)

Posting links to external sites, particularly those in which you have a vested interest is generally considered the wrong way to go about contributing. As you are positing to articles related to control theory, it may well be the case that you are knowledgeable in this field.

Quoting from External link policy's "Links to be avoided" section:

 Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
  wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map.
 Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Additionally from the section entitled "Advertising and conflicts of interest"

 You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, 
 even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.

To contribute, it is generally seen as most helpful to expand an article's text by the addition of verifiable i.e. referenced, work. In the field of scientific or engineering it is probably most helpful to utilise textbooks and other scholarly works.

I look forward to your continued contributions -- don't let an unlucky start get in your way!

Thanks User A1 (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Masters in Electrical Engineering with an Emphasis in Controls. I've worked controls related aerospace jobs for over 5 years now. This doesn't really qualify me as an expert but I certainly have a lot more experience than most engineers and engineering students.

Like I said, I created my site because I didn't think Wikipedia or Wikibooks were adequate. I tried working through these sites for about 2 years before I created my site. I created it to fill that void. I don't sell anything and I don't even have advertising on my wiki - yet. In full disclosure I intend to put google ads on the wiki and eventually sell small MATLAB functions related to controls and graphics/GUIs.

It feels like I'm being punished for being honest. Had I created an account without stating that I'm the owner and founder of ControlTheoryPro.com there would be less question, if any, about conflicts of interest. If I had simply wanted to post some advertising links it would be easier to simply create several garbage accounts and post 1 or 2 links a day through them. I felt that it was best to be honest about my connections and that way users could view my edits and posts in the proper context.

I created my site because I didn't think Wikipedia or Wikibooks were adequate. I created an account and made contributions where I could in the manner you've mentioned. However, I found it too time consuming to create articles on my site and then update the articles here as well. Since I didn't feel either of the available options was adequate to create a complete controls engineering resource, I started own my site. Forcing my stuff to work on Wikipedia is just more work than I'm interested in - especially now that I've gone to all the work of building a custom site for that purpose.

Besides, if I assume that your policy with regard to MATLAB generating graphics is the same as Wikibooks I can't post most of my stuff on Wikipedia without violating your policies. At which point each one of my plots has to be regenerated - meaning hours per plot in PowerPoint or Inkscape instead on minutes in MATLAB.

If you don't want my links on Wikipedia then I will refrain from posting. It's just too time consuming to import my stuff, remove all MATLAB plots and custom templates just to have the exact same stuff on Wikipedia that is on my site. Thank you (Spradlig (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry to cut in - I just reverted several of your edits, as well, before noticing this discussion here. My position is the same as A1 - but I do want to point out that MATLAB plots can be released in an open source license (see image on right). Only screenshots of MATLAB itself fall under fair use. --Jiuguang (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spradlig, You are most certainly not being punished for being honest -- quite the contrary. I reverted the changes you made as the same edit appeared up three times on my watchlist. Seeing as you appear to be quite the reasonable and forthcoming sort, I feel that your edits were probably made without awareness of standard WP policies. User A1 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User A1, you say I'm not being punished for being honest. However, you or someone else has killed every edit as far as I can tell. How is that not punishment? What else could you possibly do as punishment except kill my user name? You've just told me to go to hell why not kill my user name while at it. If you're going to undo all my edits there's no point in having a user name.

I'm farily certain you don't know the subject matter and you are blindly following a policy despite its negative consequences. Wikipedia can't become a spam farm but you can't expect people to copy the content of their sites to Wikipedia. When it comes to the controls engineering material on Wikipedia it is not well organized or complete. And in many cases it is inaccurate or irrelevant. I didn't think it was appropriate to undo other people's contributions (unless inaccurate) and I didn't think it was appropriate to create duplicate articles. So I made small contributions to existing articles, created some new ones, and pointed people to my site - another source - where someone with experience - me - led them through theory and examples. Removing my links has hurt my site's traffic. Given that those people (on average) were visiting for several minutes at a time and visiting more than 1 page they couldn't have been too upset about the quality of the link they were following. Spradlig (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free content vandalism[edit]

Ah, that explains it, thanks! :) shreevatsa (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't have rollback rights. How can I get them? Are you an admin? Shreevatsa (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pole Placement[edit]

You placed a copyright violation notice on the Pole placement page. The source material for this page is posted under GFDL licensing rules, as noted on their disclaimer page (http://wikis.controltheorypro.com/index.php?title=ControlTheoryPro.com:General_disclaimer). Admittedly, this is a poor source for Wikipedia source material (as you have noted in your discussions with Spradlig), but I don't think it necessarily constitutes copyright violation.WikiDan61 (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! User A1 (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In modern control theory, pole placement usually refers to the placement of poles in a state space system, e.g., full state feedback in the time domain. I'm not a classical control theorist, so I don't know how notable the frequency domain approach is, but I think it probably shouldn't be in its own article (it is generic in all frequency domain based methods) - I recommend a redirect to full state feedback. --Jiuguang (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoDeSys / Adding links[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your feedback. I am, I must admit, a bit irritated. First I get an orphan tag asking me to find related articles and add links to my article. Then I add a few links which are absolutely suitable then I get “accused” of spamming Wikipedia. I will read through the welcome page again and will try to avoid such mistakes in future. Regards, SteffiKl (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this may be something to bring up with the bot owners. Clearly there is two inter-relating motivations here, (1) to link articles such that they integrate into the encyclopaedia and (2) not being seen as promoting a commercial product. Maybe add a few more categories, to help flesh out the article. When/if I get around to it, I might find a good place to bring this dilemma to light. Maybe on bot-author's talk pages... I shall think upon this. Thanks for replying -- I had no idea that you had been given an orphan tag... User A1 (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no denying that the article is not finished yet and needs to be worked on and fleshed-out as you put it (nice expression – first time I read it). Will be working on it and will try my best to make a good and interesting contribution to Wikipedia. (SteffiKl (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Tax Rate Example[edit]

Hey, thanks for tweaking my image! I'm new to making SVGs, and vector graphics in general. --BlueNight (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unwrapped steel [edit]

Just a note that redirects should be nominated for deletion at WP:RFD, not WP:AFD. Hut 8.5 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Now that's just confusing! I think page == article. Is there a page/article that says all the deletion policies in a few sentences, I have fallen afoul of the AFD/IFD crtierion before too, as well as the PROD/AFD distinction. CSD made sense because of the word "speedy". How about "Page for deletion" or simply "stuff for deletion" and then it gets worked out by a bot with a few simple rules (Is it in image space, ie Image:. Is the requestor using one of the really cranky templates? Is the page a redirect? Is the page a template? Is the page in project space?, etc) Then just have templates at varying levels of urgency {{delete-immediately}} {{delete-quickly}} {{delete-with-discussion}} Three templates and a few admins appointed to prevent scope creep. That would be very nice. :) User A1 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main feature of the speedy deletion process isn't the speed, it's the fact that the article is deleted without any community review. This sets it apart from the other deletion processes. PROD, AFD, RFD, IFD, TFD, CFD, UCFD and MFD (yes, there are that many deletion processes) all take the same amount of time. There are automated tools already which do something similar to what you describe (WP:TWINKLE is one, it doesn't work on all browsers though). Hut 8.5 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kværner-process[edit]

Hi A1, Thanks for creating the article, however something breaks your text Kv\346rner (maybe a different unicode) ? Cheers Mion (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gestufte Reformierung[edit]

Hi, de:Gestufte Reformierung seems to be around for a while, maybe de:THDA is more interesting, anyway, thanks for making time, Cheers Mion (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THDA seems to be a single researcher promoting their own work. Whilst this is not strictly COI, the concept doesn't appear to have taken off much in my very superficial examination of the literature. The (self)cited article on the page has only one citation within the ScienceDirect database. I'm not overly keen on translating researcher's ideas that are still being worked out in the literature. Too few sources to check, too much chance of WP:OR creeping in unintentionally.

On the other hand I wasn't quite clear on your comment with regards to Gestufte Reformierung, "seems to be around for a while", are you suggesting that the page is already existent on en wiki in some article? I'm not sure how you are suggesting these, but by all means continue. If you can come up with a short list of 2 or three, I can pick the one I am most inclined towards. If there isn't an article on en for GR, then I will translate it User A1 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the former, i ment the process itself, as for THDA, maybe a THD analyzer is ment, but then for electric_harmonic_current_voltage [[1]] [2] in fuel cells. Mion (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, it seems the title of THDA is unique THD fuel cell analysis would be better, analysis of THD-U[3] from the [THDV] [4] seems to be common. Mion (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opening line of de:THDA is "THDA is an electrical measurement procedure to identify critical operational states in fuel cells". Can you suggest another article for translation? Any chemical process/process engineering stuff is OK for me. User A1 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de:Kohlenstoff-Brennstoffzelle ? Mion (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de:Gastrennung... Mion (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de:Linde-Verfahren, (iw link is wrong), if you want more, just let me know. Cheers Mion (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just to name a few :)Mion (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started on Linde-Verfahren. User A1 (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great!, thanks,, i,ve listed the others on Wikipedia:Translation, (Low hydrogen annealing, Hydrogen corrosion, Bacterial anaerobic corrosion, Buoyancy compensator (aviation), Recombinator, Staged reforming, Hydrogen-iron resistance and Temperature-programmed reduction. Cheers Mion (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: distilaltion gramamr[edit]

i completely agree. I removed the full stop in between (i believe, unless someone else did) Lihaas (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, i don't understand my old edit now ;) Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AshdenAwards blocking[edit]

Hi User_A1, thanks for putting in a good word for me. I've added another comment on my talk page (now Tiel123) , perhaps you can help or point me in the right direction regarding future editing? Thanks AshdenAwards (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: publications:=[edit]

Thank you for comment on "free reviews". There is no back thought on promoting someones publications. As a novice in wikipedia I noticed a contradiction: admins require references, preferrably solids, preferrably journals. However, those are avilable only to subsribed scientists (like myself), but not to most wikipedia readers. I recalled that some (free-access) journals offer free download and started adding (good reviews) from those. The benefit is readers can read quality reviews for free. My way of editing is going rounds sequentially improving the paper (instead of sitting down and thoroughly fixing everything at once). Unfortunately, it is not easy to find those ("quality reviews for free"), but I will add other sources, again, preferrably free reviews. Just need some searching time. Your opinion ? NIMSoffice (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst not all users have access to resources, many do. Wikipedia projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange allow for the verification of resources that might otherwise only be restricted to users with access to their university. Additionally for highly concerned editors some universities employ a "walk-in" policy which allow users to use their resources in person at a given library.

Adding journal articles directly to a page, particularly when affiliated with a research institution, can readily be construed as a conflict of interest. In my opinion this, much like adding external links, should be avoided. Historically such editing was referred to as vanity edit, however more recent consensus suggests has replaced this term with the broader "conflict of interest".

I apologise for being somewhat repetitive, however I believe journal references should be used as a verification mechanism, to avoid the possibility of someone construing them as a promotional vehicle. Doubly so if the author is associating themselves with an institution

That all said, it may be prudent to post a question to policy "village pump" to obtain a third opinion on this matter.

Regards User A1 (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, right, but in theory.

Before asking 3rd opinion, could we discuss your deleting refs [FR1, FR2] from EBID page (also from STEM page). As a first-hand specialist in STEM and EBID, I do know that there are not many good reviews on that, especially new, especially free, especially for EBID. I've got beating on wikipedia for unreferenced articles and apparently getting bashed now from other side: I need to confirm that I didn't made up "growth of fractal trees, nanosquids, etc.", but suporting references are unique. Is it biasing ? How can I prove my writing without those refs (note I did not mention any names or institutions, and it didn't bother me actually, i.e. I didn't think it will be an issue) ? I wish you believe that in some areas (including EBID, STEM, etc, which I was writing about), the results could be amazing, but obtained by few groups only. Does it mean we should dash them ? Sincerely NIMSoffice (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Few more point I didn't think about: actual following the links [FR1], [FR2], [FR3], [FR4] easily reveals that they are from very different groups (except for obvious same origin of [FR1] [FR2]), and that my writing has nothing to do with borowing or rewriting them. Is referencing them biased ? Does referencing free sources biases them against those for which you pay (nobody pays in reality, people simply ignore links they can't access) ? How about wikipedia itself ? My asking is because I was fond of open access and wanted to add links to relevant good-quality open-access articles. Should I stop doing that ? (please believe me that very few people can find those articles before I point to them, and that the verification project you mention is not practical, and not for everyone). How about aducational purpose of wikipedia ? NIMSoffice (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest solution to solving both problems simultaneously is to use inline citations, ie the <ref>...</ref> tags. This will allow you to place information which is directly relevant to the article. This is exactly the form of writing employed in scientific fields.

With regards to the links "FR1" "FR2" etc, it is not so much that I am pointing the finger and saying the editor is behaving improperly, it is more that the references should be used to verify information, per WP:CITE. Scholarly works or no, the addition of articles external to the prose suffers the same problems that external links have. That is to say that promotion of the topic is often in the interests of the author themselves. Whilst external links per say are not directly forbidden, inking is a tricky area prone to COI allegations.

Finally showing that the articles themselves are not direclty from your group, does not mean there is not some systemic bias, such as directly referencing works of authors with whom you may previously, or subsequently collaborate. This is most likely going to happen naturally, as this would be the information of which you are aware, however we must do our best to fight systemic bias, that is bias that is a result of our experiences, not our intentions.

I hope that our discussion does not discourage you from writing about all the interesting things that may be happening in STEM or EBID! User A1 (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for references! I didn't know how to reuse the same ref. in one page without much typing (and, being lasy to read carefully, sometimes, was waiting for someone to help ;-). NIMSoffice (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]