User talk:H Padleckas/Archive 4

Other select moot discussions have been moved to
User talk:H Padleckas/Archive 1,
User talk:H Padleckas/Archive 2, and
User talk:H Padleckas/Archive 3.

---

LWR sust.

Just wanted to say thanks for the help with the LWR sust. page- its my first time doing a wikipedia page and I really appreciate the help, especially with the reference links- that looks a lot better than my numbers in parentheses. Have a great day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett R. Stone (talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do work for INL, although only temporarily. I'm a summer intern. I'm studying mechanical engineering at BYU-Idaho (Rexburg, used to be Ricks College) where I just finished my sophomore year. My internship is in Nuclear Science and Technology communications, thanks to my background in newspaper. I'm really enjoying the opportunity. As for your thought on the INL pages' needed expansion- my cubicle mate and I just recently received our assignments to begin expanding INL's presence on Wikipedia. She's done more work on INL's main page than me so far, but I'll probably look at expanding it soon here too. I just started working on the Multiphysics Methods Group page (if you get a chance you might take a look and offer some suggestions). But anyhow, I'm rambling. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett R. Stone (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am the cubemate that Brett mentions, also a summer intern. It's our first time working with wikipedia, so we really appreciate all the help. I'm not sure how to cite information that we have collected on our own, so any suggestions would be great. Thanks again! --Seelja (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hydantoin

You wouldn't happen to know where I could find out exactly how it's used in industry, or a manufacturing process used in the 21^st century? I still have no idea what chemicals the 1911 Britannica is talking about.Rmky87 04:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki for Engineering

Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. The Engineering Wiki is in early development stages at the moment. We invite you to help develop this wiki.

Thanks for the invitation to join this Engineering Wiki. I just signed up as a member with the same User name. H Padleckas 23:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Lithuanian?

Hi, I spotted you on my watch list and I though I could ask you if you would be interested in receiving some news about topics related to Lithuania? Well, your last name looks like you have your roots somewhere there and since you edited Lithuanian cuisine... (I will be horribly embarassed if I am mistaken) See, I have created this Portal:lithuania and try to contribute to Lithuanian articles and gather as many people as possible for the cause. So, can I count you in? (no commitment required) :) Renata3 04:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Kaunas

Thanks for your contributions on Lithuania! Besides Laisvės alėja, do you know of any streets or squares of Kaunas that are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? I can't find any in the lt:Kategorija:Kaunas but I am sure there is one somewhere. TheGrappler 16:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you perchance a Chemical Engineer?

If you are, would you like to list yourself in the Category:Chemical Engineer Wikipedians that I just created? - mbeychok 04:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am a chemical engineer. I will go look at your list now. I have previously joined Engineering Wiki. H Padleckas 06:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Chemical Engineer Wikipedians was changed to Category:Wikipedian chemical engineers. I am still in it. H Padleckas 07:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Jagiello

Would you care to visit at Talk:Wladyslaw_II_Jagiellon_of_Poland#Survey. The simple "Jagiello" - for that there is now a formal listing going on to sign support or opposition. ObRoy 21:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish medieval monarchs naming

Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Simple chem distillation.PNG

I award you the distillation apparatus of public usefullness (See edit summary for explanation)! 68.39.174.238 15:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take that to mean I've done something good. Last time I checked, this distillation diagram was being used in Distillation articles in the English, German, Spanish, French, Polish, Lithuanian, Simple English, Catalan, Czech?, Danish, Finnish, and one Cyrillic alphabet language Wikipedias, as well as the Round-bottom flask article in the English and Chinese? Wikipedias, and a Spanish Wikipedia article for "Distillation apparatus". H Padleckas 17:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I created a baby stub for the article benzethonium chloride.

Free free to jump into the contributions with this benzethonium chloride stub. Good Luck. BenzethoniumChloride 06:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

See my comment on your draft User:H Padleckas/Temp (Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium)

Just want to let you know that I left a brief comment on the Discussion page of your draft User:H Padleckas/Temp (Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium). Regards, mbeychok 04:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Continuous distillation

The last couple of days some strong words have fallen between some chemists and some chemical engineers. As such, nothing that was related to you. The whole thing was frustration build up, which, from my point of view, was that articles were written (or rewritten) in a style which was too difficult for many people to understand (for some, IMHO, the level substantially increased, resulting in chemical engineering subjects being incomprehensible for even chemists). This is still continued in an off-wikipedia discussion, but now what I wanted to ask you. You have been drawing some brilliant pictures for chemical and chemical engineering articles, one of those on the talk page of distillation. I originally requested that picture, for the use in a simple explanation of continuous distillation, but at that point the discussion already got heated, and I decided to back off, and go back to my [mediawiki hacking], and work on chemicals (and do real-life chemistry). I am sorry, I never thanked you for that picture, it is indeed very close to what I wanted to see (and I realise, I can probably not explain what I want as a next step), so, thanks for that picture! The abovementioned discussion has led, that I did a major, total rewrite on continuous distillation (mainly to prove a point: even difficult subjects can be written in a simple way), I have totally re-sorted the article, moved things around, reinstated old parts, and have it now in a level where I think it is a) readable for a wider public (high-school student might be able to get to at least 50% of it, chemists should be able to grasp all but the very last section) and b) still contains all the information that was in the original document. The article can be found in my sandbox. My real question (well, actually, two) to you are: can you check the article, and have a look if it is indeed still consistent and factual correct (I start low, and try to build up the level slowly, I know that results in necessary info to be omitted in the early stages), and b) have a thorough look at image 2, and the accompanying description. The picture is as such sufficient, but if you can improve the picture, with the description in mind, making it more clear that this is a 'laboratory setup being run continuously' that would be great. Hope to hear from you soon, and please, don't be afraid to tell me the rewrite is completely rubbish (I am, in fact, just a chemist), though I hope that you can then also tell me where I go wrong. Also feel free to improve text whereever you can. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(copied here from user talk:beetstra, I think we can keep the discussion in one place) - Thank you for requesting my review/consultation on the Continuous distillation article and for complimenting my drawings. Just in case you did not know, I am both a chemist and a chemical engineer. I have BS and MS degrees in both. I have taken a look at your sandbox rewrite of the Continuous distillation article. I understand your point about including some explanation for a non-technical reader. I would like to edit it to improve the explanations using appropriate chemical engineering terminology, but adding short explanations for the non-technical person where practical. We also have different styles about how to explain things. I think if I spend some time editing this sandbox version, we can reach a version acceptable to most of us. Unfortunately, I'm very busy these days with other things and it will likely take me a while to get to it. I hope you are willing to wait a bit. After all, there are no deadlines in Wikipedia. H Padleckas 04:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I did know you were both a chemics and a chemical engineer; I see you work on quite some articles in both areas, and therefore, it is not a coincidence that I asked you, especially since you were also involved in drawing the pictures earlier on when the discussion started. My background is chemical, but I have done a 'polytechnic' and a university in the Netherlands which were both 'mixed'. This results in that the first two years of the education on each had a great deal of general chemistry, and we 'chemists' had to study (albeit at that point probably simple) chemical engineering subjects. And I believe, that has done good for my understanding of chemical subjects, understanding scale-up problems when you go from 100 mg to 10 g (I can understand the effect of going another 2 orders of magnitude up, let alone going 5-10 orders of magnitude up). But I am wandering of the path ..

I understand there are differences in ways of explaining, and as such that is OK. I just think that on the borderline of chemistry and chemical engineering (or on whichever borderline), the article should be written from only one point of view. There was a bit of a quarrel earlier on with distillation, where the first things on continuous vs. batch started, and lately it was theoretical plate, where everything went wrong, and some frustrations were expressed. Hence, I am against splitting those articles into two seperate articles (e.g. 'laboratory continuous distillation' and 'industrial continuous distillation'), the principle of the two is the same, and with the current trend of minituralisation the continuous distillation may come into the lab, with very small bubble cap columns. So I am glad to see we have now cooperation between the two fields on that subject, and I hope that continues on other ones as well.

I suggested on that talk page now that we could consider removing the simple, binary system again, that section is a bit difficult at the moment, and the article does not really get that much more difficult when removing the section. It now flows naturally into the more specific parts. But I'd rather wait until you have a go on that section, see if you can rephrase it into something better (it would be nice if batch distillation would get a similar section, with a similar picture, but maybe it does not have to come up in either of them). I can fully understand you are busy, and indeed, there hardly are deadlines on Wikipedia (except when fighting spam and vandalism .. then the only time to act is now). Hope to see you soon! Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• * Hi HP!

I noticed on Dirk Beetstra's page,that you intend to do some work on Continuous Distillation. My background is a bit similar to yours, but I am retired and have a bit more time on my hands. So far I have only poked my fingers into the Organic chemistry page, which still requires some work.

However, Wiki has highlighted Distillation as being a subject of actuality, a subject in which I am also intersted, and on reading the article on distillation I noticed that, though the statements seem accurate enough the artcle is too extensive: it should really be a portal, with lots of things removed elsewhere and just being referred to it on the Distillation page. Since my reading the article this might have been done to an extent, I don't know.

I agree with Dirk's view that the Continuous distillation article also needs a major overhaul, and as you do seem very busy, I shall have a bash at it in the near future. It might make your job a bit easier when you'll find the time (or might make it more difficult) We'll see. All the best LouisBB 14:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Image for a 3-necked continuous distillation flask for Beetstra

Hi, Henry, we haven't communicated in a few days. I hope all is well with you. In regard to that 3-necked flask for Beetstra to use somehow to explain continuous distillation is, in my opinion, probably useless. It would be an "imaginary" piece of labware because there is probably no such device in existence. I am sure that you realize that. In any event, the draft that Beetsra and I collaborated on has now been moved into the main namespace ... and there are new problems to worry about.

I finished the merged Hydrodesulfurizer article and moved it into the main namespace as well. Sometimes it seems as if there is a never-ending stream of new articles that are needed. I think that I will next get started on a very schematic flow diagram of an entire modern-day refinery with even less detail than the flow diagram I made of a hydrodesulfurizer ... otherwise it will never fit on a Wikipedia page. Best wishes for the upcoming holiday season! - mbeychok 01:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move debate opinions needed

Hi, user DIV (a chemical engineer), i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, and myself (a chemical engineer) have been debating over the name of the Gibbs free energy article for seven months now. DIV is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting all the related articles in Wikipedia on this view. According to my opinion, as well as others, e.g. 2002 encyclopedia Britannica, 2006 encyclopedia Encarta, 2004 Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry, 2005 Barnes & Noble’s The Essential Dictionary of Science, the 2004 McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Eric Weissteins World of Physics: Gibbs Free Energy, etc., Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy are the most common usages. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of Natural gas processing?

Hi, Henry:

What do you think of the latest article I wrote on Natural gas processing? I would really like to know. I just had a birthday and I must be getting old, because I can't remember if I wished you a Happy New Year ... so, just to be sure, Happy New Year! - mbeychok 03:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Lot (real estate)

Yeah, section headings would be good, especially a reference/notes section. - Ozzykhan 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Untagged images at Wikibooks

Currently we are removing untagged images at Wikibooks. While working on replacing or properly tagging these specific media, I noticed that many of your images uploaded before Special:Log superseded b:Wikibooks:Upload log are untagged. I created a list of all those images at a sub-page in my userspace. I cannot expect that you tag them each individually; there are too many of them. You may, however, contact an administrator at Wikibooks, particularly b:User:Herbythyme or b:User:Whiteknight, who have said they are willing to tag images en masse if users come to them.

I would be very appreciative if you would be able to do this. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message here. I will watch your page. And, again, thank you very much for your support. I look forward to seeing your images remain on Wikibooks. Cheers, Iamunknown 08:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will take care of this when I get a chance; so don't delete the images.
H Padleckas 18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have taken care of this problem for all my Wikibooks images. If you find any of my Wikibooks images still untagged, let me know. H Padleckas 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Analysers

Thank you for mentionning your work on this. I regret that I cannot give you an up to date view on this, which is what is really required. What you wrote, to me, seems just fine. With regards to the last paragraph are you certain that none of the instruments should be mentioned there ? I thought several of them are discussed under the subject of Instrumental Analysis in Analytical Chemistry. E.g. similarly to the instruments mentionned here Conductometric or Potentiometric titration do not give complete chemical analysis of the sample, they only analyse a single aspect. Worth checking out if the analyser name could not be implied. There is just one more thing I would add to the article: the fact that the results of continuous analysers can be used for direct continuous process control, i.e. for process automation by setting control valve(s) for instance. I have not checked if an article on process control exists or not, but the two subjects are well connected, and some reference might be made to this. It might be an idea to separate the analysers used in the chemical industry from the others by a disambiguation page. What is written is nicely written. Cheers, LouisBB 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

HEPP

its mean is Hydro Electric Power Plant

ozyurekli

Please visit Talk:Pollution control and comment on my proposal to merge it into the Pollution article

Henry, I would very much appreciate your visiting Talk:Pollution control and commenting on my proposal to merge Pollution control into the existing Pollution article.

Pollution control only has one brief paragraph of lead-in, a number of section headers and a multitude of internal Wiki links ... but no real content of any kind. I tried to get it deleted but an administrator decided that a bunch of clean-up tags would be better. In effect, he is simply trying to persuade people to take an empty shell and write another article. In my opinion, the Pollution control shell or stub is completely useless and unneeded since we have so many other articles such as Pollution, Air pollution, Water pollution and many, many solid waste articles. Wiki also has Category:Pollution, Category:Air pollution, and Category:Water pollution. Another article is just not needed.

Therefore, I proposed to merge Pollution control into the existing Pollution article.

Sorry to be so long-winded. Please add your comments to Talk:Pollution control. Regards, -mbeychok 18:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Note my response to your comment on Talk:Thermal power station

Please note my response on above Talk page. Best regards, - mbeychok 20:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Acid Titration.PNG requires attention

Hello. An image you had previously uploaded, Image:Acid Titration.PNG, did not have a licensing tag. Another editor has tagged the image as {{GFDL-presumed}}. You may wish to visit the image page and provide the correct license. You can view a list of all the image licensing tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All. The image risks being nominated for deletion as failing to have a license. Many of these {{GFDL-presumed}} image are used on User pages. --User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

GFDL-presumed tag changed to GFDL in the pic page. H Padleckas 15:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

ChE timeline

Please contribute to this new timeline section I just started, if you can. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Replacement pic for Image:P2080.JPG

^{This talk section is copied from G®iffen's talk page}

Thank you for improving an article I recently started in the English Wikipedia called Cabin (truck) by inserting three pictures of trucks. In the article Semi-trailer truck which you have also edited in the past, the first picture in the article called Image:P2080.JPG, a rather nice image showing a semi-trailer truck, is slated for deletion. Please see comments on its Talk page: Image talk:P2080.JPG and see if you can find a nice-looking replacement for this introductory picture. H Padleckas 23:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's holiday season, so it might take a few days, but I'll se what I can do about it. G®iffen 22:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've found a suggestion, I'd like to hear an opinion... G®iffen 12:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cold Trap.PNG

Hi there

I was wondering if there is a slight error in your image. Shouldn't the gas come down the walls, and out of the tube into the vacuum pump? Instead of coming down the tube and past the walls, into the vacuum pump? In my experience, having the gas come down the tube first is a sure-fire way to get it plugged with ice and other frozen solvents. --Rifleman 82 08:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you are contending that the labels "vacuum line" and "vacuum pump" for the two tubular openings should be switched and both associated arrows be shown going in directions reverse to what they are now. Upon reading your comment above, I looked at the corresponding German article de:Kühlfalle which has an approximately analogous picture. In this picture used by the German article, the top tubular opening has an extra 90° bend, the position of the side opening is on the left instead of the right side like my pic, and there seems to be no ground glass disconnection joint for opening up the cold trap as shown in my pic, but these are relatively minor differences. However in the German pic, the directions of the arrows at the two tubular openings (with respect to the internal tube) are consistent with my pic. There is also a pic in the corresponding Polish article, but it is not clear from the pic what the tubular openings are connected to. I may investigate this further when I have more time. H Padleckas 09:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. The arrows should be switched in my opinion and experience. Thanks for looking into it. --Rifleman 82 10:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at draft of new article on "Relative volatility" in my sandbox

Hello, Henry:

If you have 20-30 minutes to spare, please take a look at the draft of a new article to be entitled "Relative volatility" in my sandbox ... and feel free to comment or make edits. It is at User:Mbeychok/MRB's sandbox. Thanks and regards, - mbeychok 06:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Boiling point article

Milt, Are you going to work on the Boiling point article? If so, I will leave it alone for the near future. If not, I may take a look at it. I was thinking similar things as you when I read it before, but I did not have time then to fix anything. H Padleckas 22:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry, please do work on it. I've got too much on my plate at this time. That article really needs a complete work-over! The more I see articles like that one (and there are many), the more discouraging it is. That's why I finally "boiled over" on the article's Talk page. - mbeychok 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite what I said (just above) about not having time to work on Boiling point ... the more I worked on Vapor pressure, Partial pressure, Volatility (chemistry) and other related articles, the more I realized how badly a Wiki link to Boiling point was misleading readers. So I took enough time to roughly rewrite the first two sections of Boiling point ... not as well as I would have liked to, but enough so that at least it is technically correct in my opinion. If you have time to go over it in your usual thorough manner and polish it or revise it, please do!

I also created Normal boiling point, Atmospheric boiling point and Atmospheric pressure boiling point, all as re-directs to Boiling point. Regards, Milt - mbeychok 23:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

E-mail sent

I sent you an email Pckilgore (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Surgery

Thanks for your expansion of surgery, which was indeed in urgent need of improvement. The article is a bit low on sources. I'll see if I can get some useful citations from Roy Porter's Cambridge History of Medicine. JFW | T@lk 08:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Review/Content

Stripping (chemistry) Hello H Padleckas, I was wondering if you could review this article to see if you think it has any mistakes or needs more content. If you think that more content is needed feel free to add more as it seems like you have some knowledge in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iowaskier (talk • contribs) 02:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for my review (opinion) of the Stripping (chemistry) article. By the way, I made the Image:Bubble Cap Trays.PNG diagram currently appearing in that article. I have read the article and I'm still thinking about it. Maybe I will edit it or write up some commentary on it later. H Padleckas (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sailfish.JPG

I left a message for you over at commons, but you probably don't check in there very often... :)

One of your pics in commons has the old outdated license in place. You have changed most of them, but not this one... Horologium (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not find your message on my Talk page at WikiCommons. Perhaps you did not leave me a message there. However, I have taken care of this Sailfish.JPG image and other WikiCommons images of mine in a similar situation. H Padleckas (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops. That's because I'm an idiot and left it on your user page, not the talk page. :\ Sorry about that. Horologium (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why am I leaving Wikipedia?

Henry, take a good look at my user page! I believe it documents that fact that I have been a long time contributor of good articles related to my many years of engineering experience.

So why have I decided to leave Wikipedia? Because I have grown weary of the revisions made by unexperienced people who think they know a subject when they really don't know it. I am also weary of people who make revisions because they "know better than anyone else". In particular, the actions of one young postgrad student who calls himself Headbomb with whom it is impossible to reason because of his firm belief that he is infallible ... and that he and only he "knows better than anyone else". His attitude has finally been the last straw in making my decision to leave Wikipedia. I am simply tired of trying to reason with the likes of Headbomb.

Goodbye to all the friends I did make here in the past two and a half years or so.

mbeychok (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Land contract

I don't mind if you want to revert the article back to what it was, just so long as 1) you clearly explain the differences between a land contract and a conventional real estate contract, and 2) you back up your explanation with reliable sources. The main reason I redirected the article in the first place was because I felt the article didn't really explain the distinction between these two types of contracts.

I am eager to see what you can do with this article. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Engineer

Although we think that the engineering profession includes that of the chemical engineer the the US Academy of Engineering does not seem to agree with this view, az in their Greatest Engineering Achievements of the 20th Century *Greatest Achievements only the Petroleum and Petrochemical area of chemial engineering is recognised as engineering. Ought this not need to be corrected? Regards, LouisBB (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of 20 greatest engineering achievements (of the 20th century), not a list of types or areas of engineering. The most classical types of engineering include civil (including structural), mechanical, electrical (including computer engineering), chemical, and perhaps industrial; although there are a number of more specialized types of engineering such as materials (including metalurgical), nuclear, aerospace, bioengineering (including genetic), etc. I noticed that neither civil, structural, mechanical (as such), electrical, chemical, nor industrial were on that list - implying that was not intended to be a list of general areas of engineering. H Padleckas (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

FA/A-class review of Chemicals articles: Hydrochloric acid

Hi Henry, back in 2005, you added a substantial and significant part of the current day hydrochloric acid article, since long a Featured Article. In the WikiProject Chemistry A-Class Review (ACR) 2009 effort, all WP:Chem articles are being reviewed, and now Hydrochloric acid is being handled. Could you please have a look at the review comments, and see your paragraph being pointed out for some TLC and attention. Can you please help? Your input would be highly appreciated. Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC).

I just read your message and I started looking into the matter. I will need to finish researching this later. H Padleckas (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're helping out! Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

WP:LITH

Hi, I noticed your comments on Portal:Lithuania, I suggest asking about various issues surrounding Lithuanian matters on Project Lithuania talk pages. There are much more active editors. M.K. (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oil shale extraction

Hi, Henry. I knew you are experienced editor in the field of chemical engineering and I wonder if you are interested to assist bringing the Oil shale extraction article to the FA level. Your assistance for reviewing or editing and trimming this article is most welcome and I appreciate if you could assist with this. Thank you in advance.

P.S. Regarding your previous edits maybe you are also interested to join the Energy Wikiproject? Beagel (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Beagel. I started looking at the Oil shale extraction article. It's a long article, 60923 bytes as of 00:49 on May 23, 2009, and it will take me time to review. H Padleckas (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Henry. The article is almost there. It still needs some fresh views, reviewing and final copyediting, but otherwise it is probably ready for the FAC renomination. Please share your views what you think about the current stage and perspectives of this article, and how to organize the further work with that. Beagel (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Union Stock Yards

I see you have added unsourced content to Union Stock Yards, which is a WP:GA. We are in danger of losing this rating if you do not add a proper citation. I have placed a tag in the article where a citation is needed. Please add a citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference (citation). H Padleckas (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:WIKICHESS

Sorry for playing 1. b3, I was trying to get us out of the Wikibook. This way we can have some fun earlier. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me, but mind the alphas!) 12:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Argh. I've moved, but anyway, Qc1 was practically forced. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me, but mind the alphas!) 05:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For getting the chess game correct! 23191Pa (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For getting the chess game correct again! 23191Pa (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, H Padleckas. You have new messages at Protactinium-231's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, H Padleckas. You have new messages at Protactinium-231's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Protactinium-231 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Chess position

Now kept at User:Protactinium-231/Chess position. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 13:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And also at three other places. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 13:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And with a novel way of advertising.

Keep Template:Chess position! (don't forget the historical interest!)

²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 13:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Petrochemicals

Petrochemicals begins with the definition "Petrochemicals are chemical products made from raw materials of petroleum or other hydrocarbon origin." My understanding is that only a few compounds quality as petrochemicals: ethylene, propene, C₄'s and three aromatics. But the definition seems to be used loosely. Virtually all synthetic organic compounds are eventually derived from petroleum. So in order to usefully distinguish petrochemicals from routine organic compounds, I was thinking of rewriting the article with a far more restrictive definition but indicate that all synthetic organics are derived from these few. You might have views or advice on this line of thought.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of petrochemicals includes more compounds than your understanding of eth(yl)ene, prop(yl)ene, C₄'s, and three aromatics as petrochemicals. I will expand your list of C₄'s to include butane, isobutane, but-1-ene, cis- and trans-but-2-enes, isobutylene, and buta-1,3-diene, but leave out cyclo-C₄'s, methylcyclo-C₃'s, and buta-1,2-diene (They may be interesting but not particularly "bulk" industrial). What about alkanes such as methane, ethane, propane, pentanes, hexanes, cyclohexane, etc.? Methane, ethane, and possibly propane may be more natural gas than petroleum, but where does natural gas end and petroleum begin ? They often occur together underground; a natural gas pocket above a reservoir of crude oil. The lighter hydrocarbons are often at least partially dissolved in the oil. The "liquid" hydrocarbons also have vapor pressures in the gas space. Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) has propane in it. I'm sure there are higher olefins than just C₄'s that come from an oil refinery; for example, various alpha-olefins are used in industry.

Only three aromatics ??? I would include benzene, toluene, and the three xylenes (o-, m-, and p-) as only a bare minimum; I would at least add ethylbenzene, styrene (vinylbenzene), and cumene (isopropylbenzene, used in the cumene process) to the aromatics list, if not more.

My concept of petrochemicals would include even more compounds derived than these, but I understand things start getting vague here. For example, I've thought of Terephthalic acid as a petrochemical because companies associated with oil companies produced it by oxidizing p-xylene with air or oxygen, even though the "hetero-element" oxygen is introduced. Analogously, ethanol or ethylene oxide are often produced by reacting ethylene with water or oxygen, but would most consider ethanol or ethylene oxide to be petrochemicals ? Ethanol is commonly thought of as being produced in other ways, so it is often not thought of as a petrochemical. Carbon, sulfur, and hydrogen are also produced in large quantities from petroleum, but they can be produced in other ways too, so most do not think of these elements as petrochemicals. In the past, I avoided this issue by not stating specifically whether they are petrochemicals themselves, but still mentioning their production from "classic" petrochemicals. Maybe I'll look around and further study this issue of what compunds are considered petrochemicals. H Padleckas (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for the thoughts. Since essentially all synthetic organics are made from petroleum, one could list everything at petrochemicals, and in fact the current article is sort of a scrapbook. Ullmann's Encyclopedia says that only a few pure compounds are made in refineries, C2, C3's, C4's and the BTX group (which includes all three xylene isomers) and sulfur. The following website influenced my thinking: http://www.petrochemistry.net/flowchart/flowchart.htm. Sure ethylene oxide, terephthalic, cumene etc are made on a massive scale, but is scale the decider? Most of these things are made from petrochemicals, by my restrictive definition. Well, if you find anything that might guide a definition, let me know or leave it on the discussion page for petrochemical.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Donna Dunnings

I have nominated Donna Dunnings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Shale oil extraction FAC

Hi, Padleckas. I would like to ask your opinion if the Shale oil extraction article is ready for the FAC nomination or is there anything more what should be done? I also wonder if you would be around to assist during the FAC process. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I started looking at the latest version of Shale oil extraction. H Padleckas (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Boundary layer theory

I've just started an article offline on this in my mother tongue, thinking of using the English language wiki for a start as basis, and I was surprised by some of the explanations given. As this is an important area in both heat and mass transfer operations, and of course in fluid flow you would probably be interested in having a look at what is written. 'heard anything more from Milton? It seem that somebody managed to upset him more than my argument with him in which he was rather stubborn, when I insisted that designing a distillation column does not only mean calculation of the number of theoretical plates, not even the number of actual plates, not even the economically optimum number of plates. 'hope you are well and progressing with your other pursuits. Belated Happy New Year wishes! Kind regards, LouisBB (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Louis,

Good to "hear" from you. I'm not sure if your mother tongue as mentioned above means French or Hungarian. Milton has joined Citizendium in addition to Wikipedia and in December had certain private matters to attend to in his life. I have joined Citizendium too and we stayed in touch there. Lately, I've had my own private matters in life to attend to, and that has very much slowed my work in Wikipedia and Citizendium. I cannot promise anything now, but I may send you a private e-mail sometime. Thanks for Happy New Year wishes and same to you also. Kind Regards, H Padleckas (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File: Bisphenol_A_plus_NaOH.PNG

Dear Sir,

you being the creator of above mentioned .png, which is used by the article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarbonate", I'd like to bring to your attention that there is a minor - but to some people quite irritating - error shown: there should be two molecules of water forming instead of just one

if you could find the occassion to refine the graphic accordingly?

thank you for your time and the consideration of this matter

sincerely

Dr. Ingo Pforr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.67.94 (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that problem to my attention. I have fixed the problem; the image now shows two water molecules forming as products instead of just one. See below. H Padleckas (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry, will you be returning?

Henry, you seem to have left us. Will you be returning? If not, has someone or something offended you in any way? mbeychok (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Milt, Thanks for your concern.

1. I plan to return to working on both Wikipedia and Citizendium as soon as practical. I'm sorry, but unfortunately I have been and I still am busy taking care of affairs in my personal life, which are presently demanding my attention. I enjoy working on both Wikipedia and Citizendium, but unfortunately taking care of my other personal affairs demands higher priority.
2. I'm not upset or offended by anyone in any Wikimedia or Citizendium.

--H Padleckas (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Shale oil extraction

Hi, Henry. I hope you are doing fine. It has been quite a long time since we last time discussed the FAC nomination of the Shale oil extraction article. Since then the article has been stable without any major changes. Therefore I think that this time it will be ready for the nomination. I would like to ask you to take a look and say your opinion about this. If there is any unsolved issues, please discuss this on the article's talk page. Otherwise, I will nominate it after few days. I also hope you will be around to keep your eye on the nomination process. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Henry. I delinked links you added to the articles as they were delinked per reviewer comment at at the FAC discussion. However, thank you for keeping your eye on the article. Beagel (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Henry. Thank you very much for your edits and comments. The FAC procedure is still going on and it seems that there is still a long way to go. Unfortunately, due to very personal issues in the real life I will be not able to edit Wikipedia for a week or so. Regarding the FAC procedure, this is a very inconvenient timing but there is nothing I can do about this. I hope you will be around to keep your eye on the FAC procedure and will react if anything needs to be fixed. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I know how it is with these personal problems in real life. I've been very busy with them myself, and unfortunately it took me a bit of time to get to the Shale oil extraction FAC review. I still have a lot of personal affairs to deal with. Good luck with your real life "issues", whatever they may be. H Padleckas (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was a happy outcome :) Your presence and support were helpful and reassuring, since we know you are an informed editor. Happy holidays, Novickas (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a good feeling to have this article up to FA after so long editing. Thank you for your very valuable input in this process. Beagel (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

		The Technology Barnstar
		For your excellent work on trimming details and images in the Shale oil extraction article. Beagel (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much.  :-) H Padleckas (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Bisphenolate A plus Phosgene.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bisphenolate A plus Phosgene.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Leyo 14:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I responded with a Keep and reasons for it on the above-mentioned discussion page. H Padleckas (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Chemical engineering

hello sir,i have created a new navbox template Template:Chemical engg so that we can have navbox at bottom.so i request please do not revise or modify infobox Template:Chemical engineering as it makes navigation more easy and increases aesthetic appeal of the page.thank you. SunilShamnur talk 2:19,12 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Adding Bisphenolate A to Chloroformate.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Adding Bisphenolate A to Chloroformate.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I responded with a Keep in WikiCommons and reasons for it on the above-mentioned discussion page. H Padleckas (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing archive pages

Hi Henry, please don't add text to archive pages as you did in January at Wikipedia:Village pump/January 2004 archive 3. Graham87 03:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Acalamari 17:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. H Padleckas (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 17:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem by specifying the mixing link go directly to Mixing (process engineering). H Padleckas (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Proton NMR, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Protium, Hybridization and Nitro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed those links to go directly to the intended pages. H Padleckas (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Plastomer (disambiguation)

Hi. I wanted to let you known that I have tagged Plastomer (disambiguation) for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G6 this is because it is not disambiguating any items apart from the primary topic. For an item to be valid it must have an accompanying blue link which mentions the item being disambiguated; I was not able to find blue links to support the red linked items. For more information about dabs see WP:DDD and WP:MOSDAB. Thanks, France3470 (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you. The speedy was declined on the basis that it did not fit the G6 criteria. However, the page is still not a valid disambiguation page and so I and have sent it to AFD, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastomer (disambiguation). All the best, France3470 (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Plastomer (disambiguation)

Please don't put the cart before the horse. Make the articles then the disambiguation, not vice versa. A dab page with two redlinks makes no sense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited College of Arts and Sciences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Somebody fixed this problem. H Padleckas (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Engineering college

Hi, I was the one who removed the WP India banner from the talk page of engineering college and it added to Wikiproject Education and Wikiproject Universities. I remember two pages with similar heading, but suddenly I could not find one of the pages. As far as I remember, the two pages had slightly different content, which I thought could be merged. I feel that some content has been lost in this merging process. I am not able to figure out what you did. Can you please explain. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I explained as best I could what I did on the moved Talk page Talk:Engineering College (English specialist school) under the "Merge" section. I'm sorry if the Moving process seemed lengthy and interrupted, but I have things to do in my life, and I could not finish it together with their explanations all at once. Summarizing: The College of Engineering and Engineering college articles were not merged together, but the Engineering college article was moved to Engineering College (English specialist school) as discussed in the previously mentioned Talk page. Non-applicable material in the Moved article, essentially duplicated in College of Engineering, was deleted. I think no information was totally lost in the Move. H Padleckas (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Engineering college at English specialist school

A tag has been placed on Engineering college at English specialist school, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

redirect page with implausible title

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Scribble Monkey (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I consider that the subject page did not meet the speedy deletion criteria and so stated on its Talk page. H Padleckas (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you a member of the AIChE?

Hi, Henry:

I just created a new category, namely Category:Wikipedians in the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. If you are a member of the AIChE, please list your name in that new category. Best regards, mbeychok (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Milt, I used to be a full member of AIChE, but my membership lapsed. H Padleckas (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Boiling point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Critical point, Solute, Salt water, Sublimation and Volatility

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I fixed this problem. H Padleckas (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)