Mak Thorpe

Please send Mail to Commons

Category redirects for placenames

from User talk:RobertG#Category redirects for placenames

I understand you have a bot doing patrolling for images stuck mistakenly in redirected cats. I am uncertain if you are patrolling all Category:Redirects or just some of the selected subcats.

My conversion bot is currently doing explicit #REDIRECT s from adjectival placenames to noun form categories (Brazilian locomotives)->(ChooChoos from Brazil) (what is the deal with all these train pics anyway?). Approximately 2,100 cats are involved. These old cats should not be deleted since some folks will definately type them in searches.

Do you prefer I add them to a new redirect cat or put them in an existing redir cat? If so, propose a name and it is done. -Mak Thorpe 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

NO NOT add #REDIRECT to categories! They don't work.

NO NOT add {{category redirect}}s with bot. To rename a category, you must see WP:CFD. See the Howto. And category redirects are used only with approval there!

--William Allen Simpson 14:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry I have taken a long time to get back to you. If I understand you correctly, I think you are asking about categories on Commons? My bot does not currently patrol category redirects on Commons, only the English Wikipedia. Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 08:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Andre_Disdéri

Hey, the Disdéri camera looks good on the Andre_Disdéri page. I'm just wondering if he patented that 12 shot camera on November 27, 1854 as suggested in the article, or he patented an 8 shot camera at that time ... and then later refined it to 12 shots.

All the sources I've found suggest he patented an 8 shot camera on that date. Do you have research that shows it was a 12 shot camera?

Thanks,

--Mactographer 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. The information came from fr:Appareil_photographique_historique. If you don't understand french, you can try Babelfish.altavista.com. Anyway, to be precise, the article does not state that this image is of the 12 shot model. Nor does it mention anything about patent dates, so I am no help to you. Perhaps you would be interested in the 8 shot image in that french article though. Oddly, french wikipedia has no article on their own dude. Maybe they should learn english so that they could learn more about their culture. Just kidding. Heh heh. -Mak Thorpe 07:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard problem of consciousness

Hi. I just wanted to bring your attention to a comment I wrote in Talk:Hard_problem_of_consciousness#Need_an_explanation_of_the_Opposing_view, which you previously contributed to. I hope you find it useful and would give your opinions on it, if you have any. Remy B (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

DGN Oxygen Evolving Compound

Actually, the key result is the evolution of oxygen. There is no report whatsoever of hydrogen evolution in the paper in question. The big deal is that the oxygen evolution part is much harder, and this system can be coupled to a hydrogen evolution. While the fuel is actually hydrogen, the oxygen must be created as well to maintain the renewability. The article is definitely accurate as stands though, although the tone might be considered somewhat misleading as are most media reports of the result. Wefigureditout (talk) 02 August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. My problem with elevating the point into the main overview sentence at the start of the article was that it obfuscates the importance of the breakthrough. I understand about giving folks the wrong impression, but their information is even poorer if they stop reading. The educational challenge is that it is difficult for folks to understand why oxygen production is important when it is so plentiful. If the focus is on Oxygen production from electrocatalyst, it makes it difficult for folks to understand what is so exciting about creating a non fuel from a process similar to what most people remember from high school science classes. The naturenews article notes the confusion explaining that if you want to make hydrogen, the hard nut to crack in the problem is making the Oxygen. I noted this by quoting the NREL guy, and it is left unexplained. Why this is so, and the nature of the discovery deserves in depth treatment elsewhere in this article, or but perhaps elsewhere in wikipedia. (the electrolysis article?) Mak (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Grid energy storage

Hi, I did a set back on Grid energy storage because MIT states that research is ongoing for the next 10 years, more info on Talk:Artificial photosynthesis. Cheers Mion (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoi Mak, no, i have no issue at all with adding such notion tot the article, it was more to mention that we have an article about it Artificial photosynthesis and maybe adding that would be a better option, i updated grid energy storage, if we talk about loss, it boils down to most of the people talk about the cost of liquifying, but at the moment progress is also ongoing in high (700 bar) and low compression (300 bar) of hydrogen, see Hydrogen compressor, and High pressure electrolysis which is a missing article. So mentioning ongoing research on Photogeneration cells is fine with me, feel free to edit. Cheers Mion (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The grand solar plan (it took some time to read it) actually says we can do it with solar (see Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation and points to the Feed-in Tariff scheme as an example, however most of that scheme is based on Distributed generation as a virtual power plant and not on centralized storage, the low efficiency of the fuel cell 50 % is not so bad compared to ICE with an average efficiency of about 18%-20%, part of the loss of the fuel cell is heat which can be used as in microchp and at the moment research is ongoing to minimize parasitic loss in fuel cells with Electroosmotic pumps, i'm not aware of any research on centralized hydrogen grid storage. However plans for decentralized hydrogen grid storage are popping up hydrogen home station, cheers Mion (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mak, maybe Underground cavern hydrogen storage? Cheers Mion (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Commonstiny listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commonstiny. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commonstiny redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)