Appropedia needs your support - Please Donate Today

User talk:KVDP

From Appropedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for your contributions to TTH! --Steven M. 17:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)




Hello KVDP,

Welcome to Appropedia! If you need help, please check out the Help pages (or the more in-depth one on WikiEducator).

Check your preferences and be sure you verify your email address and turn on email notification if you'd like it -- you can find out when your talk page, or any page on your watchlist, is modified. Please consider putting some information about yourself on your userpage and uploading a photo as well.

If you have a particular interest or project in mind, go ahead and start it! If you have questions or suggestions, the best place to leave them is at the Village pump - you should get a fast response. Also, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page if you have further questions, need help finding your way around, have a cool idea for a project, or just want to chat.

Delighted to have you here, --Steven M.


Hi there - thanks again for all your good work.

Re the suggestion to delete TTH Chapter 14: Transition abroad and other TTH pages - see Talk:The Transition Handbook - free edit version #Deletion proposal. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 15:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw you may be interested in some of the talk pages, if you haven't seen them yet - e.g. these may be relevant to the manual you are working on:


We don't seem to have {{reflist}} set up on Appropedia. I used {{subst:notes}}, which substitutes in {{notes}} (though just using {{notes}} would also work.

You could try that - though if there's a reason we should use reflist, we could look at that too. Thanks.

Checking out your new pages, comparing technologies - really nice work. --Chriswaterguy 10:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not all the pages I uploaded are already really useful (eg the comparistion of WECS, HECS, ...) is still unfinished. However it already provides a main categorisation (so we can name each system seperatly, with a suitable term) and it gives other people a reference point on what they should improve, ... Also, I placed the duplicates of these pages here as I fear that they could get corrupted too much or even deleted (some pages already have warning tags) at wikipedia
I set up a simplified version of {{reflist}}. It should work for most of our purposes for now, and is highly adaptable for later. Let me know if that works for you KVDP. Thanks --Lonny 09:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Lonny, this will do nicely.

KVDP 08:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I copied wikipedia:Template:Reflist to {{Reflist w}}. See it working at User:Teratornis/Tasks#Notes and references. The simplified {{Reflist}} is in wide use currently (backlinks) so I will not update it until I check with someone who can approve the change first. --Teratornis 01:40, 24 January 2011 (PST)
{{Reflist}} works like the Wikipedia version now (small font, support for multiple columns, reference highlighting in compatible browsers, etc.) so I'm requesting deletion for the test template Reflist w. --Teratornis 15:13, 17 February 2011 (PST)

Appropriate health care manual[edit]


Thank you for your prolific edits and suggestions. What appropriate technology or health care situations have you worked in before? I am mostly asking to get a context for the Appropriate health care manual. I think we need to have a way to share this context with readers as well, similar to how we do for Practical Action pages like Aerial Ropeways in Nepal(see more).

Thanks, --Lonny 09:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

At present, I haven't worked in any appropriate technology or health care situation. Unlike some of the other appropedia members, I do not possess any practical experience; however having studied many writings/approaches on how health care is organised (both in developed as the less developed countries), what their flaws were, ... and also having studied a short (2 year) course on phytotherapy, I am quite sure that the approach will work. To place the document in context however, I do not have the right credentials to back it up myself; however (as too I placed in a <!-- line in the article,) the writing can be backed up by others, (I'm guessing that other AT organisations already have certain topics mentioned in the article covered (eg the vaccinations?); and for the phytotherapy perhaps others such as Dr. Geert Verhelst, Volker Schulz, Rudolf Hänsel, Varro E. Tyler can be contacted. I already sent Geert Verhelst a letter, and if he doesn't respond, the others can be dropped a line). As such, the writing I made will function only as a guideline on how health care can be set up most efficiently (note that my approach as of present, is still unique and no mentioning of this approach has already been described anywhere; meaning that the document remains vital to simply describe the method of approach). However, additional info (such as the exact plant list per area, the exact vaccinations, ...) need to be filled in by others, which ideally, also need to have a certain degree of authority (credentials) in their area.

KVDP 09:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

KVDP You tell us have no practical experience and the health care manual and the Appropriate living manual you are offering us is based on your personal research and prepared by you on your own, without having been reviewed by anyone else? The greater part of your contributions advocate improving general health via eugenics. I hope you see that this strategy offers little benefit to anyone who isn't so poor that they have no other choice. "You may die in poverty with no children to look after you but everyone else will be much better off without you scabby children dirtying up the place". That may be an exaggeration of your proposal but be aware that people will exaggerate. Appropriate Technology is about giving people power over their lives. You offer them a place in an AT village provided they meet some standard of conduct they have no say in setting and provided they agree to be sterilised. I've been sterilised already and I wouldn't agree to that. Would you? Every practical trial has told us that the most effective contraceptive is education for girls. This is not even mentioned in your manual.
Indeed, I stated that I had no practical experience, and I already advocated that this issue is to be resolved in the future (see the Health care manual talk pages). However, the best way to do so is via eg a tag, ... (and not with a text per single article). As for not being reviewed by anyone else, this is true when asessing the article in a whole on its approach, however, most of the discussed techniques (eg herbal medicine, ...) are indeed proven to work. As for the "not benefitting anyone who isn't so poor that they have no other choice", I think that you are referring to the economic standpoint (as in any other way it actually does, seeing that we already exceeded our global population quota by 300%). From the economic standpoint, children may indeed bring economic benefit (the moment they reach their 18th birthday), but this is pretty much it, and the economic benefit I think shouldn't be brought in anyways as the economic/society system is a bit off at the moment (environmental effects of certain jobs, ... are simply not yet calculated herein). As for the AT village prepositions you make it sound like it is set up similar to a prison. This is offcourse the opposite of what I am envisaging. The moment there is talk of some "rules of conduct", people generally always link this to a "restriction". However, implementing some general simple rules (including sterilisation for a part of the population) will ensure that a village runs economically smoothly, that the social interaction runs smooth and casual and that many problems such as (synthetic) drugs, corruption, poverty, ... are eliminated. This is surely a small price to pay for the received benefits. As for agreeing to be sterilised, indeed I do agree to this, and I would surely execute the procedure the moment the need arises. Regarding the best contraceptive being education, I must disagree. This is unsecure and when extrapolated on any population over any length of time, we will clearly see that the population numbers will increase over the sustainable maximum.
The idea of a Model village with a simple set of rules has of course been tried before with varying levels of success (See the WP article "Model village"). The most successful seem to be those which were set up as company towns.
I am astonished that you disagree with the proposition that education for young women is the best contraceptive. This is pretty well documented in various locations around the globe. In countries where most women get university level education the population is declining! Joe Raftery 14:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Playing "If I ruled the world we would do it right" is great fun when the only thing affected are the pixels in a video game (Sim City and Civilisation are my favourites) but it is not right to play God with real people. Please read Our Bodies, Ourselves (the US edition is online but the Indian and the South African editions, if you can get hold of them, have a many additional elements relevant to those countries) and Where there is no Doctor. These books have been prepared by large teams of Health workers, working around the world. They have been hone through years of trial and error to see what works where. Appropedia does have a place for stuff you just thought of which seems like it might work but you mustn't pretend that it is tried and tested. Don't call it the Manual. I hope this doesn't seems rude. You seem to have a real interest in making the world a better place. Just remember that you don't have to do it all on your own. Look to see where you can contribute to making the whole site better - not just creating a little mini-site of your own within Appropedia. I hope you will respond on my talk page. Yours Joe Raftery 11:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I never pretend my articles to be tried and tested. If you feel strongly about adressing the issue quickly, you can start by making a tag for this. Regarding calling it manuals, this issue too has been raised previously (in the AT villager talk page) and I have already made clear in these texts why I use the term manual (which has nothing to do with making my texts seem more scientific, ...) Regarding making a mini-site, I always try to align my ideas in articles suitable to Appropedia. I do have a site outside it but this is outside of Appropedia. I finally do try to improve Appropedia on other planes too (eg categorisation, ...).

KVDP 13:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Regarding the best contraceptive being education, I must disagree. This is unsecure and when extrapolated on any population over any length of time," - this is where I would suggest we turn to statistics, as Joe has already. And all this work that we're doing here, comparing ideas, is best done on a relevant article. This is a wiki, and this is key to how wikis work (as opposed to forums and more conventional collaborative platforms) and it's key to what makes a wiki successful.
Showing statistics is indeed a goog idea and should be included (eg in a bar chart, ...). However, working on some other articles at the moment, I don't have much time for this at the moment. I'll perhaps look into it later-on.
This conversation demonstrates the fundamental problem with this kind of manual page. Here we have two of us (Joe and myself) who have fundamental disagreements with these pages, and I know at least of one other (Lonny) who has expressed deep concern - yet no one has substantially edited any of them other than the original author. I remain uncomfortable editing them, in spite of being an admin and having made thousands of edits here and at Wikipedia, so I imagine others are even more hesitant.
Re the idea that the best way to resolve these issues "is via eg a tag," I'm not quite clear what that means. I've added a {{disagreement}} tag to two of the pages, but this is nowhere near a satisfactory way of dealing with it. One has been there for 5 weeks but there remains no progress on resolving anything.
This is not exactly what I meant. Rather than a page-wide tag, I propose a tag for a specific line, paragraph or statement (eg similar to ref-tags, or the {{facts}} tag at wikipedia. Regarding making the orginal source (writer) clear, this can be done with the infoboxes, as discussed at Talk:AT_villager_recruitment
With the same text on topic pages, some of us would have already added content, perspectives, empirical research and/or links to case studies, and I would have been actively canvassing for feedback and input. So here's my suggestion: let's develop the pages that way first, and raise the question of a manual again later, when we have a good collection of articles to start with.
So, we've been talking about this for some weeks, but are no closer to agreement. We need to resolve this ASAP so we can get on with building this resource at Appropedia. I am extremely strongly opposed to this form of manual in this situation, at the present time. The options I see are:
1. If you insist we do things the way they are at present, we just add tags {{disagreement}} or similar tags to pages as needed (but I still won't be editing them, and from experience others won't either). I dislike this option.
2. If you appreciate our concerns (even if you don't agree, but recognize that cooperation is difficult the way things are) then you might agree to split and move the manual pages to topic pages for further development.
offcourse I appreciate your concern/feedback, and as I mentioned before, I understand why editing the manual may seem to be more difficult. Regarding the splitting of the articles into topics, I still don't quite understand what the merits would be (what kind of info for example would you be able to add which now seems impossible ?). Personally, I think that this problem is simply moreof a problem that we don't usually work this way conventionally (eg at Wikipedia, ...), but in practice doesn't really pose much of a problem. Regardless, can you state how this perform the splitting in practice (eg which seperate articles you would make, ...) be done, perhaps that we can rework it. An option would be eg to make new topic pages, eg the ones on topics that aren't yet available at appropedia (eg herbal medicine or phytotherapy). Perhaps that the manual I made can (as there seem to be many objections against it), simply muffled away (eg with a tag, removal from categories, ...) until it has matured enough, labelling it as a "Work In Progress (WIP)". This allows to keep my approach, aswell as take out the main new features into a new article which may be more quickly improved.

KVDP 10:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Regarding the splitting of the articles into topics, I still don't quite understand what the merits would be (what kind of info for example would you be able to add which now seems impossible ?)."
It's hard to do a major expansion without affecting the structure of the page, and hard to do even a minor one without potentially changing the whole direction and tone of the page.
I stated impossible, indeed it's harder as discussed previously in other talk pages, but still possible if the entire text is first well analysed. As noted before, I do agree that it could be a barrier for quick improving.
"Personally, I think that this problem is simply moreof a problem that we don't usually work this way conventionally (eg at Wikipedia, ...), but in practice doesn't really pose much of a problem."
I disagree - it is fundamental to wikis that if you want to read about, contribute to or link to X, then that article is at [[X]].
"how this perform the splitting in practice (eg which seperate articles you would make, ...) be done, perhaps that we can rework it."
It would be great if you could do the splitting - then each new page or existing page where you add content, it's clear from the history that these are your additions. I'm looking forward to contributing to some of these pages and getting other people editing as well.
At the moment, I'm still working on the agriculture manual, and I also have some extra images to make for wikipedia. I think the splitting is best done simply by renaming the "Appropriate health care manual 2 - 4" to the appropriate topic (eg "vaccination", phytotherapy, ...) I already saw at the village pump that Joe Raftery's already on the case btw.
Perhaps that the manual I made can (as there seem to be many objections against it), simply muffled away (eg with a tag, removal from categories, ...) until it has matured enough, labelling it as a "Work In Progress (WIP)".
That sounds good. Make up a template notice for the top of your manual pages. If you welcome edits by others, say that in the template. Also note that this is controversial. That's enough to work with, but you could maybe link to something that states your own background and perspectives that lead you to make this manual.
I'm not completely aware how templates are made at wiki's. I'll leave this to more experienced editors, but if some basic info (or my motivations) is required what it would say, I could be of assistance. For the motivations; I am however not sure what more I can note other then what I already have at the talk pages; most of the times I simply edit/make images, ... at wikipedia and appropedia simply because I have a little understanding of how things are best handled and because I'm here and able to. I am however not always the most qualified/experienced person to do the task.

KVDP 08:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How does that sound? Note I'll be going away for a couple of weeks, with no internet, so I'm catching up on as much as I can now... have a good break if we don't connect before I leave! --Chriswaterguy 23:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
3. We start a kind of voting process, something like "Articles for Deletion" on Wikipedia, and push. I'd rather not spend the energy on this, so I hope we can go with option 2. --Chriswaterguy 06:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Population growth[edit]

Found this interesting (Via Lonny's Stumbleupon): Falling fertility, The Economist. Argues that there is little more to be achieved through population policy, as growth is already falling about as fast as can be expected. Thus reductions in impact must come through technology and governance. (I added the link to Population growth. --Chriswaterguy 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I read the article you mentioned but it really doesn't say that growth is already falling enough so that we can just switch to technology and governance to reduce our impact. Indeed it says that some slowing down has occured, but as it was mentioned at the bottom, this only makes sure we're heading to the iceberg more slowly. If no exact numbers are given in an article, it is however hard to analyse the problem correctly. As I mentioned in my previous writings, population growth actually can't occur anymore at all (which is still continuing presently however) and the exact number of decrease would be 66% (as we are presently at 300% overpopulation). In practice, this means that per 3 couples, only 1 couple can reproduce and bear 2 children ("the magic number as discussed in the article you mentioned --> this comes from the fact that one needs 2 parents, thus also 2 children to keep the ratio right). However, as we need to reduce population by 66%, only 2 children can be had per 3 couples. Looking it this way, it will be much easier to understand the problematic, and see that there really isn't a single country that adheres to this sustainable ratio.
I also took a look at the population growth article at appropedia (which seems to be taken from a blog by Ahmed). This article seems to be focused too much on "who is to blame" (eg developing countries or developed ones), and draws attention to climate change for this to illustrate that the developed countries are wrong here. In reality however, even the mentioning of climate change is incorrect, as these are completely seperate problems, thus this argument already makes no sense.

In addition, regarding the "who is to blame" argument; we see that, from a more objective standpoint, neither the developed nor the developing world is right; both have adhered to unsustainable ratio's.

I thus think that the Population growth article is best reworked with the pointers I just noted here. I also alreay added a simple map from Wiki Commons to illustrate that population growth is a greater problem in the developing world than the developed world; however perhaps the map can be improved to show that all countries have ratio's over the tresshold.


Thought I'd point out the Wikipedia article here, partly meant to say a bit about how Appropedia and Wikipedia complement each other. I thought that as you do a lot at Wikipedia, you may be able to add, especially to the section Wikipedia #Collaborations at Wikipedia. Thanks! --Chriswaterguy 02:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Added small wikiproject about mills; I don't know any more wikiprojects simply because of the fact that I do not really use them. Instead, I actually work on implementing new information in Wikipedia where I myself think it's required (rather than being directed by the wikiprojects). Untill now, I've been able to do much more useful work this way. However, as I noted at the village pump, ... I do think wikiprojects are a good idea to Appropedia.


Re the Analysis of the various types of mills TOC - what is the format of the source? Just wondering if we can make it easier to do the formatting.

I assume you've sorted out the permission, but we'll need to get clearer attribution and work out whether it's under our regular open license or {{open access}}. Thanks! --Chriswaterguy 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The source format was a pdf, however I don't have adobe acrobat, so I can't take over the images and the text is usually filled with white spaces, ... aswell but the latter isn't much of a problem especially as I am translating the document as I'am writing (actually I use Google translate first, but this still leaves much incorrections, so ...).

For the images dough, does somebody in the Appropedia Foundation have Adobe Acrobat (so I can "outsource" this task) ? I also have Foxit PDF reader (free) with a "snapshot" function; this can also do the trick, but I'm not sure whether original quality is kept and it also requires me to do some extra editing with the GIMP (if not correctly cut) and I think the format also needs to be changed (eg to png).

As for the permission, I already notified ISF of my ports to Appropedia (aldough they didn't really respond about this in detail). In addition, I'm guessing (?) that it's always public domain license anyway if I translated it (as the text is thus different and as I always provide anything I write/make under public domain). KVDP 08:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point about the translations - I'll ask around about that. We do need to clarify the licenses - I'd like to have some kind of permissions notice for anything we use, if the permission isn't otherwise clear (like at Agroblogger/license) and use the {{open access}} notice where appropriate.
I just wanted to say that I'm catching up on things here - I know there's some work on some conversations I haven't got to yet. --Chriswaterguy 04:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
...and of course, if we could get explicit permission for use under Appropedia's license, that would be awesome. Here's a page to help explain it to people who don't understand it: An Introduction to Creative Commons - that might be helpful if you're in contact with authors. (I'll be doing more work on this - I think explaining this clearly is very important.) --Chriswaterguy 14:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems that the license is important: Appropedia:Translation and licenses‎ (haven't got legal advice on that, though - we'll keep looking). Is it possible to clarify the license with the copyright owners? This can take patience, and we'll probably need to explain the licenses but it's important for having good content that we can use and remix, and not worry about someone asking us to remove it later. --Chriswaterguy 13:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 13:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of the license soon, working on finishing text first dough, I'll sent a mail to ISF with my translation and another request for permission to use the text+images at Appropedia. In the mean time, does anyone from the Appropedia Foundation have Adobe Acrobat to take over the images from the pdf on an easy/quick way ? I have the original pdf and i'll sent it over if someone has the program and is intrested in doing this task.
KVDP 13:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Great. I might know someone with Acrobat Professional - let me get back to you this week. --Chriswaterguy 16:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Instant messaging +categorisation[edit]

Initial answer on my talk page. Thanks for the ideas.

Btw, a trick to display category links: add a colon like so: [[:Category:Users by interest]] will display the link, whereas [[Category:Users by interest]] will be invisible and add the category. --Chriswaterguy 12:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Answered again at User talk:Chriswaterguy#Pumps. --Chriswaterguy 17:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Emergency management and healthcare[edit]

Re this categorization, emergency management is about many things including prevention recovery and reconstruction. Major categorization changes should probably be discussed first... sometimes there are good reasons for things being the way they are (and sometimes there aren't).

Btw, I can change categories quickly with the bot. If there's more than say 15 pages to be added or changed, you can let me know.

I just saw your note on my talk page... will answer more shortly. --Chriswaterguy 12:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know i never responded to that note on the village pump. I had doubts about some of the changes, but some of them are good, and I needed to think about it. I'll respond there now.
It's like the person who makes challenging and well-thought out comments on an internet discussion list - while ignorant and prejudiced comments get lots of emotional responses, intelligent comments are ignored because they take too much thought to respond to :-). --Chriswaterguy 12:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I commented at Appropedia talk:Village pump#Categorization. --Chriswaterguy 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sanitation & Water[edit]

Note Category_talk:Sanitation#Taking_this_category_out_of_Category:Water. --Chriswaterguy 09:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A reply on a few questions at User_talk:Chriswaterguy#Instant_messaging_.2Bcategorisation - thanks --Chriswaterguy 07:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC) ...and added a brief note about the Open edit and Quality in an open edit wiki intended to help explain why we're open edit. --Chriswaterguy 14:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied again on my talk page. More soon. --Chriswaterguy 13:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate news[edit]

You left the note at Talk:Climate news? I answered there. Don't forget to be signed in when you add your signature :-). --Chriswaterguy 15:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Google Wave[edit]

It's definitely best for the asynchronous stuff, I think. I'm just experimenting for now, but I thought it could be useful for keeping track of projects and tasks.

I wanted to ask if you'd been in touch with the copyright holders of the work you're translating, re releasing under our CC-BY-SA license? If not, I can forward you an email that we've used. Thanks! --Chriswaterguy 12:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the hands image, Media:AppropediaLogo_01022010.PNG - that's a huge improvement over the version that you started with.

I think could be great for another application, but for the navigation pages (CategoryTree and front page) I think it's good to stay with photos - they're very attractive and easy to look at, for people that care about that. So I found a new photo with lots of hands.

For those of us with a very strong practical inclination, we can just use Appropedia:Fundamental category tree. --Chriswaterguy 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Replied at User talk:Chriswaterguy#Members & User talk:Chriswaterguy#Automatic welcome message

btw, I'm not sure what you meant to do with ref tags at Appropedia talk:Village pump#Cost/effective development aid projects - but I added a references list after your comment.

This is something I always do for the sake of convenience. If I have a new idea, ... I always put in my references too; aldough they're not shown, I know where they are and when I start working on the articles I intented to make to work the idea out better, I can simply copy-paste them, it thus saves me time.
Ah, good thinking. Adding a references list is advisable though, to avoid the red error message, which will confuse ppl. --Chriswaterguy 07:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make a priority list for tech work, and will announce it... so we can more effectively look for help developing the site. --Chriswaterguy 01:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

blog & tech help[edit]

Thanks - I've accepted the request for the blog.

Btw I've tidied our pages where we ask for tech help. See Appropedia:Site development/priorities - let's share the link around, and hopefully we'll start getting some help.


I've also made this page Appropedia:Porting/Websites - note the easy instructions on converting to wiki markup. --Chriswaterguy 15:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Made small remark at Appropedia_talk:Porting/Websites

KVDP 09:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

CAD Team[edit]

Thanks KVDP --

For both the note and for your work on the sketch up tutorial. Are you planning to include screen captures in the tutorial? - that would make it really strong. When it is complete - I could beta test it in one of my courses.

Yes, I am planning to include screen captures. The document is from a professional modeller, so it's pretty good. The document however is still in Dutch, so I'm working on a translation before I upload it here. Feel free to use it for your courses.

UPDATE --> SketchUp Beginner Manual complete; some images are still missing but I can't download them from pdf; still use older Adobe Acrobat (doesn't support Dutch pdf's).

Concerning sharing the models -- This may be a good place to start - or we could lobby for appropedia to expand the file types it allows for upload. What do you think? --Joshua 18:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the issue a while ago, personally I think that the best method would be Google Warehouse (this also shares the files much better, ie not just to Appropedia). Thingiverse seems to be simply a blog, I'm not sure whether much visitors arrive there, and the projects they have also don't seem too worked out. Regarding expanding the file types for upload, I think perhaps asking Appropedia of including odt-files (openoffice) would be useful, I would like to see Appropedia having the option of sharing the text+images of documents via openoffice-documents too. This way, people intrested in rereading the text, use it in courses, ... can have a downloadable (and easily editable) file. However, I would not share CAD-files this way; this because all files are shown in the navbar, and things will get pretty confusing if we put several files on one page. Thus, almost every design would need to get its own page ...

KVDP 08:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

file extensions[edit]

Allowed file extensions is a question for Lonny - he's the wiki "Bureaucrat" (the all powerful one). --Chriswaterguy 11:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, posted same question to his talk page.

KVDP 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump[edit]


I had a thought, re the posts to Village Pump. Great to see the thought you're putting into these, but there haven't been a lot of responses.

Perhaps they'd work better as new pages, even where they are speculative ideas for designs - in those cases they could be marked as {{speculative}} (would need to create the template) or something similar.

Another idea is to post them as subpages of your userpage, then just share the links with people who might have insights into that topic. Maybe posting a list of these links on the Village Pump would be easier for people to navigate? What do you think? --Chriswaterguy 04:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Great idea regarding the {{speculative}} tag. Re the making of new pages: I'm already doing this to some degree, allot of new posts at the village talk will soon be moved to their own page and linked from the AT CAD Team. I post them at the village talk first dough, simply to see whether there are ideas on how to improve the ideas, and whether there is intrest in the main ideas before moving them to a seperate page (where they are read less).

PS: we also need a Template:Move tag; I noticed this tag isn't present as of yet here. 12:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Same as wikipedia:Template:Move, for use on talk pages? I wasn't familiar with it, but seems good. --Chriswaterguy 14:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep, OK

KVDP 15:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed, the Wikipedia template uses "#ifeq" meaning it relies on some parser functions (or something like that) that we haven't implemented yet. this is a gap in our tech development, which hopefully we'll catch up on very soon (a couple of weeks?) now that Jason has been helping with our dev site. --Chriswaterguy 03:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[edit]

Thanks KVDP -- This is a really good idea -- particularly for file hosting -- --Joshua 11:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


I just looked at Fossil fuel power plant conversion and had a thought, re the schematics discussions on Wikipedia that you referred me to.

It's very important to be clear as to whether a diagram describes an existing technology, exactly consistent with how it has been built and used in the real world. That might be the normal assumption of someone looking at a schematic of a technology.

While Wikipedia doesn't allow for more speculative designs/diagrams, Appropedia does. So other kinds of schematics are possible, but then it needs to be very clear whether these are simplifications, proposals, or something else. Would you be able to mark on each of your diagrams what kind of diagram it is? When placed in an article this should also be clear as well.

Thank you - I appreciate your help with this especially as I'm not familiar with these technologies, so I wouldn't be able to work it out without a lot of work. --Chriswaterguy 09:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok Chris,

I'll run them down again and see whether I can make things a bit clearer in the image descriptions. Already dough, I think that there wouldn't be much problems since when projects are started by someone, they will dig into things anyhow, and I already put down the links to the original images. The fossil fuel power plant image (oxyfuel) is pretty much exactly taken over (except for the firebox), some of the other ones dough (such as recently the steam engine-related material, the new versions of the pumps, ... are self-made yet based on actual designs/information. KVDP 15:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick rundown -->

--> these 2 schematics were made more or less identical to the FAO document mentioned in the description

--> first more or less completely own design, second is variation from FAO document

--> completely own designs

  • File:Oxyfuel CCS fossil fuel power plant operation.png

--> only slightly modified from original bbc-image

  • File:Steam powered locomotive.png
  • File:Steam powered locomotive with steam turbine.png
  • File:Smokestackless_firebox.png
  • File:Steam engine valve gear plate.png

--> all own designs, based on reference material noted in image descriptions. Note: File:Smokestackless_firebox.png is best renamed to File:Smokestackless_firebox_V1.png (not sure how we can do this, see your talk page)

I remembered that a student of J.M. Pearce made an article about "Appropriate technology open collaborations templates ?" These templates can probably simply be added to the images too. KVDP 14:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... I haven't look at these in detail, but if you're making sure that your actual designs (exactly following real world tech), simplified designs, proposed designs etc are all clearly marked as such, that's very helpful. Hopefully we'll grow the community of people interested in these specific topics, too. --Chriswaterguy 01:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'll still need to find the article (forgot exact name), when found, I'll probably know how the template name aswell.

KVDP 18:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Found article: Category:Status, will get unto this soon.
Excellent. I didn't think of that, but it's a great tool.
btw, to display a link to a category, use a colon: [[:Category:Status]] --> Category:Status. --Chriswaterguy 03:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


I was looking at Solar energy conversion system and thinking... though neologisms aren't forbidden here (unlike Wikipedia) I think it's good practice to distinguish between existing terms and suggested (new) terms. At that page, I assume the terms are new, so "suggested term" or "a term that could be used..." would be appropriate. I'll modify the page. --Chriswaterguy 17:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate living manual[edit]

Hi Kristof,

Just looking at the Appropriate living manual, I still have the same concerns about it... I've been noticing it again recently as I'm running bot commands to create wikilinks.

What do you say about moving it to userspace for now? I.e. User:KVDP/Appropriate living manual, User:KVDP/Appropriate living manual 1, etc. It can still be open to edits and feedback from others. Thanks --Chriswaterguy 04:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather not actually, what exactly do you have a problem with, perhaps I can rewrite some paragraphs (in a couple of days, working on stirling engine-stuff at the moment, just finished v2 of the solar pyramid, yet images at wikipedia still need tweaking). Also, you can add additional contested templates, ... put sections between <!, ... for now.

KVDP 13:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over earlier conversations, I see you said that you were ok with pages and sections being given descriptive titles/headers. So actually that's a good starting point - I'll tag them for now, maybe get some help in copyediting (there's copyediting class contributing here soon) and take it from there. --Chriswaterguy 06:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved the pages linked from Agriculture manual TOC and Appropriate living manual TOC. They are already linked by the category linked at the bottom, but if there's a plan to link them together in a stronger way, one way is some kind of small navigation template listing the pages in the series. --Chriswaterguy 20:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: It seems that the older version I uploaded of the 2nd solar power tower seems to be too large, I can no longer nominate it for deletion (an error message is shown). Perhaps you can delete this, it's called: File:Solar_pyramid_in_pit_concentrating_solar_plant_2.png Also, it's probably best that you change the message at the Special:Upload page too; rather than showing "maximum: 7mb", state something like "max: 500 kb", this was btw the reason why I made the mistake (thought that atleast upto 1,5mb wouldn't be a problem but it does seems to be) KVDP 08:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted and asked Lonny and Jason about this. Thanks for the suggestion. --Chriswaterguy 03:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Navigating the manual pages[edit]

I renamed pages in 2 of the manuals - I left the categories and the TOC pages, though (Category:Appropriate living manual and Category:Agriculture manual) so you can still keep track of them. Some pages I'm still not sure about, and haven't renamed yet.

Btw, I've run the bot to turn raw Appropedia links (that contain http, of the form [ to wikilinks ([[ ]]). That's always the best way to link wiki pages. Thanks.

Still catching up on a few things, but I got your emails - thanks. --Chriswaterguy 15:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Status tags[edit]

Hi Kristof,

I was just looking at Category:AT_CAD_Team and thought the pages could all benefit from status tags - probably the {{Status-Concept}} concept tag (I'll create it today):

You can help by contributing to the next step in this [[OSAT]]'s [[:Category:Status]]

How does that sound?

I'm in a small village for 2 weeks, using my phone for net access, so it's hard to do much editing myself. --Chriswaterguy 00:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Chris,

I'm not sure whether that status-tag improves things (ie between which status tags does it fit ?) The status-design tag I used earlier with some of the design images is I think sufficient, and the same? and it keeps things simple. Anyhow, the tags don't matter much at all neither, the main thing is first modeling some of them out and creating a Google Warehouse group so as to have our representation of the team/Appropedia on this channel aswell. Although I'm still not sure whether my expertise is enough, and although I still don't have much dimensions of the models (yet working on this latter, by filling it the known dimensions and working from there), I think I will start on some of the easier models. I'm also thinking it may be useful to look around for some other artists at Google Warehouse, and perhaps buy some models to get a baseline for some of the harder models (wrote about this at village talk, ie IC-engine, aircraft models, perhaps other parts ie gears, ...) Finally, in regards to the land planning, ... I'd like to focus on, I think that as I did not yet receive any replies (from Cité du Fleuve, nor others) I think this will have to wait a little longer, and I also still need to figure out some issues involving the use of exact GPS-coordinates (not really supported in Google SketchUp, only "general GPS-locations" are, more on this later). KVDP 17:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


I saw a reference in your work to the Jamkhed hospital.[1] I hadn't heard of it - this strikes me as a really worthwhile project, being done in the field, that needs to be written up. Perhaps this could be a focus of your work on health pages? It would be great to have info here about Jamkhed, and since it's a real world project, it is relatively proven and reliable wisdom, and a great way to learn as you develop the pages also. --Chriswaterguy 14:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A Space for Speculative Projects[edit]


I would love to have a conversation with you about how we can best use your excellent energy. Your ideas are exciting, often flawed and never tested. Your contributions inspire me to want a space on Appropedia for speculative ideas that others can work on making happen. Then as they are tested and adapted, they can be brought into a general space. Some of my ideas (I am not sure of the feasibility) are to have a:

  1. namespace called Speculative:
  2. subpage system such as
  3. separate software running under our blogs subdomain for discussing these speculative ideas.

The benefit of a separate namespace is that people could choose to search just that space for ideas that need to be explored, or choose not to search in that namespace if they are looking for ideas that have already been tested. For example if I was looking for DIY solar thermal collectors, I would much rather find Solar hot water, Hotel Perote solar pool heating system, Solar hot water - system types, or Parras Solar Hot Water. What I would really want to find are diagrams on how to actually make one, based upon existing models that have evolved over time with feedback from users. I would want tables and charts of data from different measurements in different conditions with different materials. i would want cost tables. Etc.

Does this make sense to you? In addition, I would love to explore how we could leverage your energy and abilities even better.

Thank you, --Lonny 07:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes that seems fine.

The only thing I have to add though is that currently, the {{speculative}} tag generates a rather large and imposing banner. This because of the shear size of it and the dark red color. I initially used the {{status-design}} tag on some articles since this indicated that the design was still but a concept (each project which is in the first stage, or the stage:design is basically a concept and thus also speculative, see ), but it wasn't that large that the tag focused the attention upon it. Personally I don't really mind, but I sometimes do mails to some companies to ask whether they would perhaps be intrested to work on the project (while keeping it open-source). To them, I would imagine that such a banner does not inspire confidence. KVDP 08:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried making the {{speculative}} template more inviting, while still giving a clear differentiation. Hope that works for both of you, Lonny and KVDP. If not, edit it :-). --Chriswaterguy 15:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate methods of transport[edit]

Thanks for moving that content from here to Appropriate methods of transport. I edited it a bit - you may find the info on the Froude number interesting. --Chriswaterguy 15:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump[edit]


I see there are "19 watching users" for Village Pump, and I know that some of us rely on emails when changes have been made. And if we don't check the page (while logged in), we don't get another alert the next time a change has been made.

So, is it possible for you to develop and edit the ideas on a different page, e.g. in userspace or on a speculative or "questions" page, and then post to Village Pump when ready? This would make it easier to follow when a new message has been left. Thanks --Chriswaterguy 12:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know that Chris,
I'll keep it in mind and I'll try minimising my posts by doing them in a single go.
KVDP 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks! --Chriswaterguy 07:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Open Educational Resources[edit]

We've talked before about education - here are some useful links, I think especially useful for those who haven't yet had the chance to study their subject of interest in depth: Open Educational Resources. A search engine is here:

I've used some of these, especially the audio files on water treatment for emergencies. Even though I'd studied the subject, I still learnt a lot. I'd suggest you try it out, and perhaps note down the useful courses that you find, on the Open Educational Resources page. --Chriswaterguy 07:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, I knew of the open courses on the web, but I never tried them and a search engine is handy. Weird you mentioned water treatment, I just finished up making a schematic of something useful for this: the baffle box (see File: Small_scale_fish_hatchery.PNG ) and I was thinking that many of the pages there need to be constructed much more modular. For example: the baffle box; this can be used as a primary module in any water treatment setup (it's a bit like a sieve), and if the pages are adapted to be a bit more modular, this would be very useful for any project. I also saw it a bit earlier ie to articles concerning the plough; at present, we have the ISF plough and another plough: the donkey plough; useful would be to assess both designs and come up with a single design. The same for the kiln, ... (allready made a page and project is underway, but here too there are eg for brick firing alone, several kiln designs) ...

KVDP 07:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Air filtration[edit]

I noticed you started Air filtration, a valuable topic.

Something to note is that screens and filters operate differently,- a screen is a sieve, as I understand it. See

The way I was taught the meaning of "filter," it works by adsorption. However, I see that the Wikipedia article defines it differently. Either there are different usages, or my teacher was incorrect, or Wikipedia is incorrect. (I suspect that sand filters in water treatment rely heavily on adsorption.)

Note Category:Filters also. --Chriswaterguy 17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

Yes I started the article since Emesee referred to it in the "screens" article, which appearantly referred itself to windowcoverings. I started the article since I didn't wanted to remove Emesees info, yet only wanted to make it correct and also a more useful article. I didn't clean up the air filtration info of Emesee as of yet though and it definitly needs a rewrite, ... As I understand it though (didn't yet check it, as mentioned), both sieves and filters work alike, they work by having small holes in place which filters out the larger particles (which can't go trough the holes), and only allows the smaller ones to go trough. Hence, if the holes are small enough it filters out thicker substances as smoke (carbon), ... from regular air (mixture of gases) KVDP 11:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah cool - thanks for taking that on. I'd be interested to know how adsorption fits in - maybe I'll come across it in an OCW lecture one day. --Chriswaterguy 11:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Travel article[edit]

Re - I think that makes a worthwhile stub article for Appropedia. It could be expanded to explore the absolute lowest carbon options for travel, with numbers.

OK, added it, see Cheap independent travel. Note though that my initial intent was to describe the financially best way to travel, not the most ecological. This as the financial difficulties are the biggest hurdle, and regarding ecology, this is I think not of any essence here. This, as I think that any trip/transportation should be carbon-neutral, regardless of where the trip leads (ie a hundred trips to the supermarket count just the same). Hence, it's more of a matter of arranging your life climate neutral instead; after this we can then take a look at how to travel on the cheap ;-)~

PS: the AT airship model is getting more and more finished, we could possibly link it once done (though I'm not sure whether it will be a viable transportation option any time soon), I also have some wikiversity pages that are intresting.

KVDP 08:56, 1 March 2011 (PST)

good reading[edit]

Hi Kristof,

Have you heard of Victor Papanek?W I'm sure you'd really benefit from reading his work. Field experience is very important to understanding, designing and explaining appropriate technology, and it's worth learning from wise and experienced people (especially if it's not possible to get the experience directly at this point in your life).

Still catching up on your messages - more soon. --Chriswaterguy 07:27, 28 March 2011 (PDT)

I knew about him, and in specific his half-ton load vehicle. I allways thought it would be intresting to look at this particular design of him. However, never gotten around to do so, also because there doesn't seem to be much information about it online; and it seems like I'll never have to look at it anyway, allready made the AT traction engine design.

KVDP 07:34, 28 March 2011 (PDT)



I think you have some really interesting ideas. Ideas that belong on a personal blog. Do you have a blog? If so, please start making additions there and we can help put a feed on your talk page that links to your blog and recent posts.

Please stop adding prescriptive content of which you have zero expertise. E.g. I disagree with almost everything you have on Conflict resolution (especially the solutions). As a professional facilitator, I have some expertise, but still would not write a prescriptive article about Conflict resolution on Appropedia. If you do not have a blog, can we help you set one up. You definitely should be sharing your ideas... but Appropedia pages are not the place to do it.

Thanks, --Lonny 10:40, 12 June 2011 (PDT)

Hi Lonny,

I'll try to avoid making controversial articles at Appropedia; actually I try to do so as much as I can at present aswell, but often by assimilating information from various sources, this is what I end up with; and the text is fits best with how I see things personally aswell. I just made the article thinking that perhaps it might of been beneficial for AT projects in some countries as Sudan, and similar countries around the sahelian region (in these areas too racism exists heavily between ethnic groups with different skin tones). Also, I actually wanted to make smooth thingsout a bit more, and implement some own views, hereby making the article a bit less controversial. Also, I wanted to clarify the link to Buddhist ideas (I drew upon these too resulting in reading trough some books a couple of years ago, especially upon the 4 noble truths; line 2 and 3; ie:

  • Suffering arises from attachment to desires
  • Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases )

In any case, I moved the text to and will continue to work on it there.

KVDP 00:54, 13 June 2011 (PDT)

Heliostat image[edit]

Hi KVDP. I've written something about the image you put on the Heliostats page. It's on my User Talk page. DOwenWilliams 07:56, 17 June 2011 (PDT) David Williams

Wikipedia content[edit]

Hi KVDP - I want to update you on some things I'm working on. I've learnt that Google has become stricter about duplicate content, so it will actually "punish" the site overall if we have content copied from elsewhere. I've copied Wikipedia content here to a number of pages, and so have others, and I mention it to you as I noticed you also add Wikipedia content at Cycle rickshaw. Not that we can't do it at all, but we need to be careful, and the more we adapt the content the better. Ideally we take the ideas, more than the complete sentences and paragraphs.

One thing I've done is create {{copied}} for pages which haven't been adapted yet, and I've asked Lonny to turn on noindex tags so that these pages won't damage our ranking in the meantime. Anyway, just so you understand some of my intention in editing. --Chriswaterguy 01:55, 18 June 2011 (PDT)

Hi Chris,

I often copy from wikipedia, but I do select only the most useful sentences and change them atleast a bit so that the article becomes more focused on practicality then the similar wikipedia article, yet also becomes wikipedia-grade in accuracy. I'm not sure whether Google punishes material that is changed (not a copy) but is nonetheless copied to some extent.

PS: Have you changed your emailadress lately ? I sent you several mails in the last months, but I'm not sure whether you received any of them. One mail btw had some info on conventional water treatment plants; perhaps that it would be useful to make an article on this for Appropedia aswell ? Also, perhaps we can make a category: Liquid filtration for water purification articles that do not provide a organic purification (only mechanical; ie sieving action). I noticed your Cloth_filter article, hence the idea.

KVDP 02:42, 18 June 2011 (PDT)

I'm sure that some similarity is fine, as long as there is additional content, and no more than 2 or 3 sentences are in basically the same form as Wikipedia. That's my feeling, anyway. The more additional content we have, I think the less problem we have.
I've got your emails, but I'm behind on answering my emails, sorry. I did read them, but wasn't quite sure how to respond at first, so I deferred them... I'll need to do some serious emailing in July. --Chriswaterguy 13:44, 19 June 2011 (PDT)

Template:Bar box and Template:Requested move[edit]

Hello, you sent me e-mail asking to port these templates to Appropedia. Sorry for the slow response, I had not checked my e-mail for some days. Leaving messages on User talk:Teratornis should get my attention faster.

  • wikipedia:Template:Bar box - I am trying to port the template to my offline wiki first. If it works there, it should work here. It looks like a nice template to have.
  • wikipedia:Template:Move is a redirect to wikipedia:Template:Requested move. I'm not sure why we need this template on Appropedia. It is appropriate for Wikipedia which may have a large number of requested moves, and a backlog of requests to manage. On Appropedia we would probably have few such requests, and people could just request moves on Appropedia:Village pump. Please explain why you need this template, maybe I am not understanding what you want to do with it.

If you want to learn about template porting, see User:Teratornis/Template porting: theory and practice, and my many documented case studies on User:Teratornis/Tasks. Porting templates from Wikipedia can be difficult, but it is getting easier now that I have ported many base templates from Wikipedia already. The more templates (and supporting things like CSS classes) you port from Wikipedia, the easier it generally becomes to port additional templates, since many templates on Wikipedia use a common set of things. --Teratornis 13:31, 6 July 2011 (PDT)

I have Template:Bar box working on my offline personal wiki. I will port it to Appropedia next. Hopefully it will work here too. I found it useful already for making a bar chart display of my personal carbon dioxide emissions from domestic gas and electricity since 1999. --Teratornis 11:34, 13 July 2011 (PDT)
Hi Teratornis,

regarding the Template:Move : If I understand it correctly, the template puts a request on a special article intented to display all of the move requests. We don't need our template to do this, but it would be useful to be able to type in ie {{Move|newarticle}} to move an article section to a new article or even move the entire article to a new name. We allready have eg the {{Delete|thisarticle}} template, but we don't have a template to move text or rename an article; that's sometimes annoying, especially when renaming articles under names not everyone agrees with, ... 08:02, 14 July 2011 (PDT)

I strongly recommend keeping it simple - we don't have such a large community that we can effectively monitor another maintenance page. For discussion of moves, I suggest the Village Pump, for now. --Chriswaterguy 10:55, 14 July 2011 (PDT)
I understand the request better now, by analogy with {{Delete|thisarticle}}. However, we (almost certainly) have had a lot more deletion requests, because of all the spam we get. Given the few move requests, it would be simpler just to put a move request on Appropedia:Village pump so people can discuss it. Most or all of the active administrators watch that page. If the Village pump starts getting flooded with move requests then we can talk about creating another maintenance page for move requests. --Teratornis 00:09, 16 July 2011 (PDT)

(undent) {{Bar box}} appears to work on Appropedia now. Here is an example showing my carbon footprint from domestic natural gas consumption since 1999:

Carbon footprint from natural gas
Year kg CO2
The residential customer learned to live mostly without heat in winter.

The only problem I noticed so far is that {{Bar box}} does not work quite correctly when I put it inside another table, but that may also be a problem on Wikipedia. So don't put it in another table. --Teratornis 00:01, 16 July 2011 (PDT)

Thanks for your work on the template. Regarding the use of the village pump: I suppose we can use this page for now. Perhaps in the future, we can solve the problem better by putting specific tasks to community members (see projects , organisational chart , ... ) - 01:38, 16 July 2011 (PDT)

Appropedia task allocation[edit]

(Continued from #Template:Bar box and Template:Requested move in a separate section as the topic is changing. The links you gave above are not formatted correctly (you have to turn the embedded space characters into underscores to make them work as bare URLs). As wikilinks, you probably mean these: Appropedia:Village pump/Archive2#AAI projects and Appropedia:Village pump/Archive2#Appropedia organisational chart.)

The basic difficulty on Appropedia as I see it is not that we are not organizing our contributors effectively, nor that they have inadequate communication tools. Rather, the problem is that we don't have a lot of long-term active contributors, and only a few of them have read enough manual pages to have gained a deep knowledge of how to build wikis. On Wikipedia, the project and help pages constitute an elaborate internal structure, but this structure arose as a consequence of Wikipedia's early success in attracting a large core group of technically proficient contributors. That is, contributors who often had prior experience in building Web sites, complex software systems, technical documentation, etc. When those kinds of people turn their attention to a system like MediaWiki, they can quickly grasp how to implement the internal workings of a productive wiki, so the potentially larger numbers of content contributors have a comfortable editing environment. There aren't enough of those technical kinds of people to populate every single wiki that exists in the world now. The situation with wikis is analogous to someone who invents an easy way to build, say, automobiles in enormous numbers, but the supply of motor fuel remains limited. Wikipedia is hogging up much if not most of the available supply of this scarce "fuel". The people who have these skills like to go to the place where they find lots of other people like themselves. Going out to a smaller wiki such as Appropedia is like leaving the comforts of civilization behind and going to a less developed country where there is little infrastructure and people don't understand the need to follow all the detailed rules that exist on Wikipedia.

  • On Wikipedia there are detailed rules for almost everything, eliminating much guesswork and potential for conflict. For example, see the rules for letter case in titles (wikipedia:WP:LOWERCASE, wikipedia:WP:CAPS, and wikipedia:WP:MOSHEAD). When you see an article or section title on Wikipedia that violates these rules (for example by being in American Style Title Case), you can simply fix the problem and cite the relevant guideline with a shortcut link in your edit summary, so anyone who did not know the rule can learn why you did what you did. All the debates about how to format titles on Wikipedia were worked out years ago, so you don't have to think about that problem again. Because all of Wikipedia's rules evolved out of extensive debate between lots of smart people, the resulting rules are pretty good. It's hard for anyone else to improve on them, and even harder to improve on Wikipedia's rules without any knowledge of those rules. (See wikipedia:Reinventing the square wheel.)
    • On a small wiki like Appropedia, it's like going back in time to the early days of Wikipedia when people were still trying to figure out the most basic issues such as letter case in titles. A scan through Special:Allpages shows a mess of inconsistency, with some people using Wikipedia style (e.g. Seismic retrofit) and others using American style (e.g. Composites in the Aircraft Industry). When I see all these unnecessary deviations from Wikipedia's best practice, I experience a bit of anguish. I suspect I am not alone in this - someone who has learned to collaborate productively within Wikipedia's detailed rules may feel inhibited on a wiki that shows no consistent understanding of them. One of the necessary conditions for attaining the rewarding sensation of flow when editing on a wiki is to have clear rules and a knowledge of them, so a contributor knows what to do and can just go ahead and do it. Having to second-guess, negotiate, ask for opinions, etc., interferes with attaining flow.
    • That's why I think we should follow Wikipedia's rules to the extent that we can on Appropedia. By taking a lax approach to things like title case, I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to competing for the small group of people who have the technical skills to serve as the "fuel" for the organizational "automobile" you want to create (with your ideas for organization charts and WikiProjects and so on).

--Teratornis 10:58, 16 July 2011 (PDT)

Hi Teratornis, you are indeed correct in that the not having of sufficient long-term members is the biggest problem at Appropedia. The fact that Wikipedia is the biggest (and comprehensive) wiki, luring everyone away to it is indeed also not helping.

However, I do disagree to some extent that with their rules, they actually have an advantage over Appropedia. Personally, I find allot of their rules simply wrong in approach (not all, but some), ie in regards to the naming: they allways want their articles to be named with a term that is the most commonly employed (popular), even tough that term may be simply "incorrect". For allot of words, I just use my own terminology, which is more logical and hence accurate. At Appropedia, we don't have as many rules, and I find this to be better.

Regarding the fact that most flock to Wikipedia also isn't necessairily a bad thing; by contacting people via wikipedia we could attain members quite easily. The fact that members flock to specific wikiprojects or remain to be active in articles surrounding a certain topic also makes choosing good members for Appropedia more easy.

I still think that a better communication and some site reorganisation (ie better categorisation, ...) is probably one of the best improvements we could do to lure in more members. Another thing is to simply improve our article texts/information and make things more basic (at the moment we have many article snippets for one or particular specific situation (ie wood gasification in North America, healthcare in the Phillipines, ... rather than that we have more general articles, aswell as good manuals (that explain every step of a certain process, rather than having an article on each process and expecting the user to know which step comes after the other). 05:15, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

Having fewer rules is better in the short run for individuals working alone. But this quickly fails as more people join the project and discover that each person has different rules than everyone else. I do not agree with all the rules on Wikipedia either (most notably I think the notability rules are largely unnecessary - anything which can be reliably sourced should be allowed, and I also think excluding procedural knowledge is a bad idea). However, whether I agree with some of the rules on Wikipedia, I benefit from knowing what the rules are, and knowing that in any Wikipedia dispute, the side that most closely follows the rules "wins". It is much easier for me to adapt to a rule I do not like than to have to argue with everybody who disagrees with me about something. Most organizations that start small and grow rapidly go through a similar process. At first everything can be informal and the few participants can rely on personal relationships so everybody knows what to do. But as the numbers increase you get more people with more opinions and individual participants are more separated from each other, as each can maintain only a limited number of personal relationships. In that case the only way to keep things coherent is to codify a detailed set of rules. Nobody will be happy with every single rule, but the alternative is chaos and unresolvable edit warring which is worse. On Wikipedia everybody does not have to agree on all their personal preferences, they only have to agree to follow the rules. That frees contributors to focus on building content rather than arguing forever about presentation, formatting, and other side issues.
In the real world there is an analogous situation: many people would rather live in countries with stable laws than in Somalia which had no functioning government since the early 1990s. In Somalia you have more freedom, but unfortunately so does everyone around you.
People who edit on Wikipedia are there at least in part because of Wikipedia's comprehensive and largely stable rules, whether they realize it or not. I think Appropedia will have difficulty recruiting many editors from Wikipedia as long as we are less orderly than Wikipedia. --Teratornis 17:07, 18 July 2011 (PDT)
I do not know which kinds of content improvement would make Appropedia most attractive to Wikipedia editors. Speaking for myself, I found the lack of many useful templates troubling here, so I worked hard to start porting some. There are basic templates most experienced Wikipedia editors depend on: infoboxes, navigation boxes, unit conversions, message templates, location map templates, etc. Wikipedia's template library, which takes advantage of MediaWiki's template feature, is probably one of the most important factors in Wikipedia's success. On a wiki with no templates, it is vastly harder to create an equivalent quality and consistency of presentation, for example by manually coding wikitables every time you want to display information in a box. On Wikipedia you can rapidly structure an article by using pre-coded templates. This allows even beginning editors to produce high quality output in far less time than they would need to figure out the detailed coding. Thus an ingredient for the success of a new wiki might be to attract a core group of people who understand how to port templates from Wikipedia. Someone who is used to having a comprehensive template library to work with might feel frustrated on a wiki without many templates. --Teratornis 17:16, 18 July 2011 (PDT)
Also I believe the need for "better communication" is inversely proportional to the quality of internal documentation. When all the rules are worked out, and almost every decision can be settled by consulting the rules, there is less need for editors to communicate with each other, since most issues have already been worked out. Everybody can read the rules and work asynchronously, confident that as long as each person follows the rules, they won't have many conflicts.
For example, on Appropedia there have been recent disagreements about religious content in articles. On Wikipedia there is less need to communicate on such issues, because the rules were settled years ago: articles that aren't about religion do not contain a religious point of view. Articles that are about religion present the beliefs of the religion as beliefs rather than as claims of fact. Wikipedia does not say something like "Jesus died and was resurrected" but rather "Christians believe Jesus died and was resurrected." The claim itself is controversial and irresolvable, but the claim about what some people believe is verifiable. If everybody believed the same religion this would not be a problem for wiki editing, but in fact hardly any two people agree on every religious question. --Teratornis 17:27, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

Userfied some pages[edit]

Hi - I've userfied some pages you've created, that I believe weren't suitable for mainspace in their current state. "Userfying" means moving to a subpage of your userpage. I've moved 4 (& maybe there'll be others later - I'll check carefully before moving).

This seemed better than deleting, as they can still be worked on.

Here's a template you might find useful, to show all your subpages:

Pages with the prefix 'KVDP' in the 'User' and 'User talk' namespaces:
KVDP/AT CAD Team/AT IC motor 1 (Diesel)KVDP/AT CAD Team/AT IC motor 2KVDP/AT CAD Team/AT agricultural fields
KVDP/AT CAD Team/AT craneKVDP/AT CAD Team/AT dish washerKVDP/AT CAD Team/AT e-velomobile
KVDP/AT CAD Team/AT electric skateboardKVDP/AT CAD Team/AT mobile shelterKVDP/AT CAD Team/AT ring spinning frame
KVDP/AT CAD Team/AT settlement water distribution systemKVDP/AT CAD Team/AT sewing machineKVDP/AT CAD Team/AT solar power tower
KVDP/AT CAD Team/AT squirrelcage rotor induction motorKVDP/AT CAD Team/AT wind turbineKVDP/AT CAD Team/KCEDW building
KVDP/AT CAD Team/Modular trainKVDP/AT CAD Team/Mummy hammockKVDP/AT CAD Team/ODWHES
KVDP/AT CAD Team/Organic buildingsKVDP/AT CAD Team/Portable wood gas stoveKVDP/AT CAD Team/Railed central vacuum cleaner
KVDP/AT CAD Team/Strap-on quad roller skatesKVDP/AT CAD Team/Watchtower sleeping roomKVDP/AT CAD Team/Wood-fueled space heating system
KVDP/AT CAD Team IC motorsKVDP/AT brushed electric motor alternatorKVDP/AT villager recruitment
KVDP/Agriculture manual TOCKVDP/Alternative social systemsKVDP/Alternative society
KVDP/Appropriate energy harvesting manual 4KVDP/Appropriate energy overviewKVDP/Appropriate health care manual 1
KVDP/Appropriate health care manual 3KVDP/Appropriate healthcare manualKVDP/Appropriate hygiene manual
KVDP/Appropriate livelihoodsKVDP/Appropriate living and networkingKVDP/Appropriate living for a community
KVDP/Appropriate living for one personKVDP/Appropriate living manual TOCKVDP/Appropriate living questions
KVDP/Appropriate nutrition manualKVDP/Appropriate nutrition manual 1KVDP/Appropriate nutrition manual 3
KVDP/CanalsKVDP/ClutchKVDP/Communal washing machine
KVDP/Fossil fuel power plant conversionKVDP/GearboxKVDP/Grafting and inoculating
KVDP/Modelling progress of AT CAD projectsKVDP/Organizing for appropriate livingKVDP/Phytotherapy
KVDP/Safeguarding of forestsKVDP/Self-erectable wind turbine
KVDP/Steam train conversionKVDP/Trade routeKVDP/Vaccination in AT villages
KVDP/Water supply pumpKVDP/Water well pumpKVDP/Watervehicle conversion
User talk:
KVDP/AT CAD Team/AT e-velomobileKVDP/AT CAD Team/AT electric skateboardKVDP/AT CAD Team/AT solar power tower
KVDP/AT CAD Team/AT wind turbineKVDP/AT CAD Team/Modular train
KVDP/AT villager recruitmentKVDP/Agriculture manual TOC
KVDP/Alternative societyKVDP/Appropriate energy overviewKVDP/Appropriate health care manual 2
KVDP/Appropriate healthcare manualKVDP/Appropriate living and networkingKVDP/Appropriate living for one person
KVDP/Appropriate living manual TOCKVDP/CanalsKVDP/Fossil fuel power plant conversion
KVDP/Modelling progress of AT CAD projectsKVDP/PhytotherapyKVDP/Self-erectable wind turbine
KVDP/Water well pumpKVDP/Watervehicle conversion

Thanks --Chriswaterguy 11:38, 7 July 2011 (PDT)

Userfied canals[edit]

FYI, I moved the Canals page to User talk:KVDP/Canals. If the content is developed, with suitable references and more detail, it can be moved back. Cheers --Chriswaterguy 03:41, 1 October 2011 (PDT)

Lavafilter image rights[edit]

I was just checking images and saw your File:Lavafilter.jpg - thanks for uploading. There is no reason given in the {{PD}} tag though - is this a photo that you took yourself? If so, could you please update this image with the reason, and any of your images that your aware of? Much appreciated.

Sorry about this - we need to improve our upload process, so it prompts for reasons.

Thanks --Chriswaterguy 01:20, 2 October 2011 (PDT)

Hi chris,

yes, most photo's I upload aswell as schematics are self-made. Not sure whether I need to state in the reason whether it is self made though, ie the PD license allready makes this clear (else another license is needed). User:KVDP 08:13, 2 October 2011 (PDT)

Ok, thanks.
The reason is not to do with another license, but it's essential to have the reason listed, to help confirm that the license has been declared public domain in a valid way. Often people misunderstand, and call something "public domain" when it does not satisfy the legal meaning. (I don't expect you to make this mistake, but we have to be thorough and consistent with confirming our permissions.)
Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 02:06, 8 October 2011 (PDT)

Alternating current[edit]

FYI, I merged Alternating and direct current into Alternating current - and Lonny has left some questions on the talk page. Perhaps you could check that and edit the article and/or respond to the questions - thanks. --Chriswaterguy 03:52, 25 October 2011 (PDT)


KVDP 05:22, 16 December 2011 (PST)



I have a suggestion for making sure you are notified of comments on talk pages of pages you create, as well as edits to those pages.

  1. Go to the your preferences and select "E-mail me when a page on my watchlist is changed"
  2. Still within your preferences, click the Watchlist tab, then select "Add pages I create to my watchlist"

Hope that helps! --Chriswaterguy 23:02, 9 November 2011 (PST)

Handy Appropedia search[edit]


I've been using this for a while to help find related pages on Appropedia, and you might also find it useful, especially where a page exists in a different spelling than you might guess. (The inbuilt Appropedia search doesn't handle that well, yet.)

I created a bookmark in Firefox for this link: - and I added a shortcut "Keyword" in the bookmark properties. I use ga (Google Appropedia) for my shorcut. Then I can just type e.g. ga solar destillation in the address bar and it will show results for that and alternative spellings. (The English is distillation.)

Alternatively just find a way to add your search terms to the end of this link:

Hope that's some use to you. --Chriswaterguy 10:15, 12 November 2011 (PST)

source of Ag manual?[edit]


Are all the pages in Category:Agriculture manual from ISF-IAI? I'd like us to have attribution on those pages, if they come from an external source. Thanks.

I was just looking at these pages, and there is some good content here. Your translation work there was very valuable. --Chriswaterguy 05:54, 15 December 2011 (PST)

Hi Chris,

No, not everything comes from ISF; I composed the manual from 2 sources:

  • most comes from ISF
  • Chapter 1.21 to 1.26 comes from documentation of Leo Van Crombrugge (see chapter 1.21 top); he gave me personal permission to use the information on Appropedia (I telephoned him a while back)

KVDP 04:55, 16 December 2011 (PST)

Cool, thanks for the clarification. --Chriswaterguy 06:23, 16 December 2011 (PST)

Your autogyro[edit]

I'm concerned that the changes you've made to the design of the Hornet autogyro are a danger to anyone who would try to put your recommendations into practice. In particular:

  • By raising the engine and propeller, you've put the thrust vector far above the center of gravity, beyond what the horizontal stabilizer can compensate for. This will cause the autogyro to try to pitch down, requiring constant effort by the pilot to prevent a nosedive.
  • By raising the main rotor, you've caused the rotor lift vector to pass well forward of the center of gravity, which makes the autogyro unstable and possibly uncontrollable.
  • The reason lawnmower engines are cheap is that they are not designed to produce full power all the time. If you try to use one as an airplane motor, it will break down in a matter of days, probably during takeoff when an engine failure is most dangerous.

-- 18:15, 13 February 2012 (PST)

Hi user,

I first added the "Status-Design"-tag (forgot this last time). For the center of gravity: offcourse it needs to be tested in practice and modified if needed. I did however heigten the propeller and rotor for a specific reason, and it couldn't be achieved using 2 propellers (see image text). However, even with the current design, there's still allot of "wiggle room", ie the the springed hinge may be set to a modified certain angle and range, the weight of the frame can be made heavier and/or the tail can be lengthened, ... (tail btw is allready lengthened and made larger). The propeller may be slightly lowered and/or made smaller (if the cabin is made small enough), ...

Then for the motor; I believe it depends on what lawnmower engine you use, using a powerful one (ie riding mower, ...) and possibly changing it a bit (adding NASCAR-pistons, ...), possible changes in air intake, fuel used, ... could make it suitable enough. In the other case, a quasiturbine (IC-version) can be used. KVDP 02:23, 14 February 2012 (PST)

Many years ago I read in Popular Science about a small aircraft company called the OMAC (Old Man's Aircraft Company) who designed their planes with a method they called TLAR (That Looks About Right). That's an interesting (and funny) way to approach design, for people who each have decades of experience. If designing without experience, it is absolutely essential that it be tagged as {{speculative}}, and as {{status-design}} if no prototypes have been built. This is the bare minimum for any technology on Appropedia. You have a number of times indicated that you don't think study and experience are so important to this kind of work - you are dangerously wrong, and I urge you to take advice, study, and gain experience before promoting these ideas which are not yet half-baked.
If a user proposes designs for potentially dangerous equipment such as aircraft, then I will suggest that such material be not only tagged in this way, but removed to their userspace. I find the idea of flying in such a machine quite terrifying, and am convinced it would be extremely unsafe. Please study the development of safety standards in aircraft, and understand the difference between making an aircraft engine and making a lawnmower engine before continuing on this. Please pay close attention to these guidelines, especially the use of tags.
Thanks to the anonymous user for highlighting these concerns. --Chriswaterguy 03:35, 21 February 2012 (PST)
I'm deleting sections about microlights from AT CAD Team/Aircraft, and deleting the images for the designs. I wouldn't normally take such a harsh unilateral action, but I can't bear the thought of someone taking advice from such designs on Appropedia, trying to operate such a device, and being injured or killed. Please think carefully about this and tag any similar images with {{delete}}.
If you need the original text you'll find it in history. I assume you have copies of the images - I suggest you keep these as a personal and speculative hobby rather than sharing designs for untested and potentially deadly machines. --Chriswaterguy 04:41, 21 February 2012 (PST)
Replied at User talk:Chriswaterguy #Aircraft mages. --Chriswaterguy 21:02, 23 February 2012 (PST)

Edit summaries[edit]


It would be much appreciated if when you move a chunk of content, you could note the move in the edit summary, e.g. this cut from Biodiesel could have had a summary saying that you're moving content to article Biogas and liquid biofuels (note that wikilinks work in the edit summary, which is handy). It's also good practice to note the reason for the move.

Also in the target page, the source can be noted in the edit summary when adding the text.

Thanks --Chriswaterguy 06:43, 22 March 2012 (PDT)

Please clarify[edit]

See Talk:S.T.E.V.E.N. Low-Cost Windmill - thanks. --Chriswaterguy 08:42, 23 April 2012 (PDT)


Replied at User_talk:Chriswaterguy#Sketchup_Beginner_Manual --Chriswaterguy 07:50, 14 May 2012 (PDT)

Animals for transport[edit]

Re List of appropriate animals for transport:

  • I think it's best to avoid "appropriate" in most page titles about specific topics - it's best for the article to describe the topic and various options, and what is appropriate and inappropriate. Also it's not a list, so I moved it to Animals for transport.
  • "Species include ie wild horse, zebra, wild ass, camel, reindeer, ..." - have you done much research on these animals? There are good reasons that zebras are not often raised domestically and especially not used for transport.

Thanks --Chriswaterguy 06:20, 21 May 2012 (PDT)

I indeed read that zebra's were never domesticated, but figured that they could be attached in front of a cart and persuaded to do the master's bidding (perhaps depending on the specific animal in question though). I read that the others (except for the wild ass) were indeed used for transport. The wild ass is the ancestor of the donkey, so I assume this animal wouldn't provide much problem. I mostly focused on their diet though (use in grasslands). I also tried to use as many original species as possible. The draft horse is the only species I did include, despite being a selection, mainly as it's just so strong/usable, and isn't that far off from the wild horse. 00:26, 22 May 2012 (PDT)

Maybe the difference is that zebras evolved around lions, and have to be fierce. That also makes sense for the difference in temperament between the cape buffalo (considered more dangerous to humans than lions are) and other buffaloes (the water buffalo looks identical to the cape buffalo, but can be led by a child).
Please don't add things as fact if you just figure them to be true. This makes more work for other editors who need to check and correct your edits. A few minutes starting on Google can make a difference. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 00:53, 22 May 2012 (PDT)

Please don't copy Wikipedia articles without adapting them to Appropedia, or without attributing them if there's a significant amount of material that hasn't been rewritten (that's a copyright violation). E.g. Cradle-to-cradle design (which I've now fixed).

Thanks --Chriswaterguy 00:36, 9 June 2012 (PDT)

I'm not aware that taking text from Wikipedia articles is a copyright violation. Are you sure about this ? I know there are many websites that take allot of texts from them, and they don't get into trouble. In addition, I assume(d) that any information (images, text, ...) from wikimedia sites allow redistribution (and even promote it) and are published under a license allowing this. In any case if I do take over text, it's mostly because it contains either sections I myself wrote (as in the case here) or contains only a bit of useful/vital information.

KVDP 10:10, 9 June 2012 (PDT)

Yes, I'm sure - only if you attribute it, can you use and modify it (and you should also state the license). See the bottom of any Wikipedia page - it uses CC-by-sa (& see human readable version of license).
It's permissible to use {{attrib wikipedia}} at the bottom of the page, but if you leave a raw Wikipedia page, someone needs to adapt it and clean it up. Also the search engines see copied content and consider it of low value.
It's best to use a small extract and adapt it. --Chriswaterguy 18:11, 10 June 2012 (PDT)
I try to do this myself, however when I'm working on articles, I often work on many articles at once and try to make the whole collection more in line with each other. So sometimes (only rarely), I just upload the whole thing to get a move on with things. I'll remember to add the template though. BTW: quite often the articles at wikipedia change, so the texts of an article uploaded here is after a while no longer the same as on wikipedia. I for example uploaded article sections (of entries I made at wikipedia myself) here on specific pages and since then the entire articles at wikipedia are different (in the cases I mention, actually allot worse than what they were when I wrote it). In these cases, the search engines probably no longer consider these articles as "copied" and of lower value (as the wikipedia articles denegerated over time and ours remained the same).
Btw, if you use the same number of colons (:) on each line of your comment, then your comment will indent to the same level. When they line up in this way it will be easier for someone to follow the conversation. --Chriswaterguy 18:13, 10 June 2012 (PDT)

SVG & image keys[edit]

Native_crops_by_region#Crops_by_region - this is a good idea, but it's very hard to use, as someone needs to open the image, then see the faint codes on the image, and maybe they'll guess that the key to the codes is on the page they just left. Is it possible to put the names on the map?

Also, have you worked with SVG? SVG format is easier to edit, I think, so someone else can more easily modify it - useful for a big job like this which might work better when we have a few people collaborating. See commons:Category:SVG maps. --Chriswaterguy 18:59, 10 June 2012 (PDT)

I thought about using an SVG for maps as these aswell, but I didn't use it for this particular map. This as
showing SVG still doesn't work at appropedia, ie see this map I uploaded I think I btw uploaded some other rainwater harvesting maps (see ), and other maps ... of Fred aswell.
png is easier to use with the GIMP (which I prefer to use), whereas SVG needs to edited with Inkscape (I only very rarely use this, I used it ie for the travel routes map, or any other maps that requires lines)
regarding the collaborating with other members: yes SVG may be more useful to this (ie mistakes can be erased allot easier, and texts/numbering can be changed, ...) I'm not sure whether there are any other Appropedians which can work with Inkscape though. I know that in some instances (ie if the maps are useful for other wikimedia projects, and if every text, ... added is referenced (and one really needs to be extremely precise with this), then the people at Wikipedia's Graphics Lab may give us a hand. We could set up our own Graphics Lab aswell to circumvent the precision issues, but then there's still the fact that allot of time gets wasted on the collaboration effort itself, it's allot quicker if a single person does all the work and makes the map himself. It could be changed by others though afterwards if it contains mistakes, ...

KVDP 04:11, 11 June 2012 (PDT)

Proven and not-yet-proven solutions.[edit]

As discussed previously, please always distinguish between proven or implemented solutions and those under development - e.g. re the pill for killing mosquitos. If you do not see a difference, then Appropedia is not the site to share these thoughts. (That's a very interesting TED talk, though.)

I actually read about it in a newspaper article, the TED talk was just a reference. It was my understanding the the pill was allready proven to work, yet not yet marketed. The pill btw does not provide protection from malaria, it only kills the mosquito. In the text, I tried to explain why this is useful.

Also, please use a spell checker - I prefer to do other tasks than to correct other people's spelling. Also, "allot" is an English word, but not in the way you use it - you should write "a lot". Thank you. --Chriswaterguy 06:31, 13 June 2012 (PDT)

Please do not put in incomplete sentences with the key information missing - e.g. this edit.

The idea with this edit was that i/we would know in what direction to work with the article. The main reason I updated the article was that, besides not containing much information, we also didn't have a clear coarse of action on what the article needed to be about - ie how we needed to write it so that it was different than the wikipedia article and more practically oriented. I didn't yet fill in the actual information as I didn't do enough research yet for this.
Looked for additional info, and found it. See the map request at

Also be very careful if advocating herbal treatments or other alternative treatments for a deadly disease. Note that starting with the assumption that natural therapy is better is a wrong assumption (dying young is also natural, but we try to avoid it) - and decisions about such things can mean life or death. I'd rather not have to remove or revert such changes, and if more thought is given and more effort to providing sources, then your edits are more likely to "stick". Thanks --Chriswaterguy 06:47, 13 June 2012 (PDT)

I think you misunderstand why I focus so much on phytotherapy. Phytotherapy is proven to work (contemporary medicines being evolved from this, ie it uses the same chemicals also found in plants, but is given in a more concentrated form, and only the working component is used, not the whole of the chemicals found in the plant), but I don't advocate it as being "better than contemporary medicine". Instead, it's more of a matter of economics and sustainability: plants cost almost nothing, treatment with them is generally easy, and plants can also be grown at one's doorstep. Contemporary medicine are often too costly for people to pay, often require doctor's visit (drugs can't be obtained directly from the pharmacy, atleast not in most cases), and are impossible to make at home.
With malaria, some plants can work as a treatment (mostly only to some degree efficiency though, yet generally enough for the person to recuperate more from the disease, and possibly get back to work). We offcourse need to add more references, describe the plant species better, ... At present, I only know of only a few organisations that uses artemisia annua for treating malaria in developing countries, they use specific cultivars of the crop, see Mediplant's Artemis cultivar, Anamed A-3 cultivar, see also: , 00:43, 14 June 2012 (PDT)

Ok. The main point is that an article should be clear about benefits and effectiveness of a given action or treatment - including how well established or proven a treatment is. "Alternative" treatments are typically not well proven (because once they are proven, they are not considered "alternative" for much longer.)
Re partly written sections of articles (incomplete sentences with the key information missing, discussed above), I suggest using your userspace, or possibly the article's talk page if you are hoping for input from others.
"offcourse" is not English (and "off-course" means something very different). It is correctly "of course". Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 04:36, 14 June 2012 (PDT)

Giraffes & native species[edit]

Please see Talk:Animal husbandry. Please note that I'm not looking for a long reply, just a way forward. Please change the way you contribute here. Thank you. --Chriswaterguy 20:26, 18 June 2012 (PDT)

replied again

KVDP 07:15, 21 June 2012 (PDT)

More userfied pages[edit]

I userfied some pages that were problematic in mainspace. See the template at #Userfied some pages for all your userfied pages. Cheers --Chriswaterguy 08:16, 1 July 2012 (PDT)

ISF attribution[edit]

Hi - looking at Soil improvement and fertilisation, I think this is one of the pages you translated from ISF. Great job on that.

Would you be able to add an attribution notice at the bottom, saying where it came from, with a link if one exists? I think "This page contains content from (source) - translated by User:KVDP" would be good, I think. Similarly it would be best to have attribution notices for any other work derived from ISF content, as you're able.

This is partly for legal reasons, but mainly because it's good to provide sources and give credit.

Thanks again --Chriswaterguy 20:27, 10 July 2012 (PDT)

Hi Chris, I think you once asked about this once allready. The information didn't came from ISF at all, but a course I followed with Leo Van Crombrugge. See the first line at Agriculture manual 1 2 2 (aka "Soil improvement and fertilisation"), namely: Coursebook: Cultivation techniques Course from: 1st year of Herbalism Course year: 2005 - 2006 Education center: Syntra, Asse-establisment Teacher: Leo Van Crombrugge

All 6 of these articles are from that course. Note btw that one article has been removed since then (nr 6, see Agriculture_manual_1_2_6) You can add the line with all 6 articles (I only placed the line with the first one), and revert the deletion of article 6. Once that's done, the most important issue is going to be to rewrite the articles so that the whole reads like 1 comprehensible document, the layout also still needs to be improved (I basically just focused on attaining the images, and translating the info, but I didn't make it into a very good document yet) 00:41, 11 July 2012 (PDT)

Agriculture_manual_1_2_6 is now at User:KVDP/Soil substrates and fertility - it got moved to a descriptive name, and then moved again to userspace. It has some useful info, but it's in quite a rough form. I think if I'd seen a source at the time, I would have been slower to move it. Anyway, the advantage of being in userspace (and not deleted) is that it can still be improved.
Thanks for the source info. I think you're probably right that I asked about these pages, and I thought I asked you to add the source. That's a normal expectation when editing a page. I'll see how I go - I have a bunch of category fixing to do this week. --Chriswaterguy 06:57, 15 July 2012 (PDT)

Moving pages[edit]

Please try moving pages less, except for fixing typos or capitalization (you've made good corrections of that type) or where there is agreement to hove. The names you choose are sometimes not the most appropriate for the content, and I end up moving them back, or to a different page, if I see them. Note that a Wikipedia page name isn't always the ideal name for an article here - especially if the page has a different focus. If you think someone will search using a certain term, it's possible to create a redirect without moving the page. I realize there are language differences and we think differently about things, so I appreciate what you're trying to do.

I know that leaving notes on the talk pages often gets no response, so perhaps you could keep notes of the changes you want to make, and then ask for feedback at A:VP. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 02:45, 27 July 2012 (PDT)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for the additions and all the suggestions KVDP. That's what makes wiki collaboration so great! I'll look into your suggestions when I have the time but feel free to add or change anything as you think fit - it's a topic that could include much more. Felicity Tepper 19:16, 11 June 2012 (PDT)

Caution with adding info[edit]

Also please note this reversion and the edit comment. I suggest you follow closely to a rule of making very clear the basis for any information that you add.

This includes (as one aspect of the above case) any statement of the form that "X is used for Y". Only say that if it really is used for that, and clarify where or how it is used - commercially? Traditionally? Experimentally? Or is it just proposed for use?

Hi Chris, I seem to understand that you didn't find the Tetragonisca beespecies at the map Follow the link to the fao document. 09:06, 1 August 2012 (PDT)
That's interesting - definitely worth a mention, hopefully with some more detail than is given in the FAO document. It looks like it might be a traditional medicine, and it's unclear how useful the treatment is compared with mainstream medicine. (We could make assumptions and debate it, but that's irrelevant unless we have evidence.)
It's important in cases such as these to have the relevant information on the page that you are linking to. How would a person know to check that map for a source, (rather than a different image on the same page, and especially since files aren't usually the place that such information is found). Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 06:00, 2 August 2012 (PDT)

If you could take this approach, it would save me from having to revert so many of your edits, and it would be much more constructive. I think you will find it a valuable experience in learning and disciplined thinking, also. Thank you.

A more minor issue - I think with "See also" sections it's best to let the target pagename display. Also, See also and External links are separate from the text, whereas references are directly related to the text. So it's best to put those at the bottom.

Thanks --Chriswaterguy 22:24, 31 July 2012 (PDT)



I did some spelling corrections. Thankfully it's not hard, but please note the correct spelling, e.g. of indigenous. I just moved File:Indiginous vegetables.png to File:Indigenous vegetables.png.

Also FYI, the correct abbreviation for "for example" is "e.g.". Most of the time when you write "i.e.", the correct abbreviation is actually "e.g.". Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 05:37, 3 August 2012 (PDT)

Please note, again: "a lot" not allot. These are the latest that I've changed (showing output from the replace tool).
Improving system efficiency by combining engines - ... in motor speed, ... Electric motors are generally allot better in this task, making the use of this motor in thes...
Oxyhydrogen booster - ...-based IC engines), ...). As the combustion occurs allot more violently and more heat is generated than what was n...
Appropedia talk:Porting/Websites - ...ntext, animals need to be seen in an ecosystem (ie allot of animal species live together in the system, performing...}}
Thanks --Chriswaterguy 04:14, 15 August 2012 (PDT)


Thanks for your many edits. See this reversion and the edit comment. See also the #Moving pages comment above. --Chriswaterguy 06:47, 3 August 2012 (PDT)

Hi Chris, Can you revert your revert of the crops article to my last version ? If you like, you can leave out the rewritten article section I moved from your "multi-purpose plants article and use this to update your multi-purpose plants article. I do still think that almost any plant can be used to have several purposes though (not ie companion planting, but ie helping in reducing soil evaporation ie in deserts, providing shade, reducing soil erosion, ... )

the crops article need to be re-instated so that we can differentiate crops from ornamental plants (see plants). The crops term thus replaces the "useful plants" term you used at the old Lazy gardening article. 08:21, 4 August 2012 (PDT)

Re "I do still think that almost any plant can be used to have several purposes though... reducing soil evaporation ie in deserts, providing shade, reducing soil erosion, ..." - this is true enough. However there is a basic difference between plants which have one primary use (e.g. tomatoes, potatoes) and those with more than one (e.g. gourds with edible tips, sweet potatoes). This makes it worth having an article on multi-purpose plants.
Re reverting - I was concerned about the copy-paste approach to moving, but that's fixed now. I think you can edit crops freely now, including adding back content from the page history. So you shouldn't need me to revert. --Chriswaterguy 01:25, 5 August 2012 (PDT)

3D Model of biofuel engine[edit]

Hello KVDP,

I only ever worked on modifying existing engines rather than ever designing a complete engine. I was once a director at a biofuels co-op and we had preliminary meetings with an engine design company to take an engine design they had been developing for airships(an opposed piston design) and develop this for biofuel use (I'm not sure that this is a particularly suitable design - although some points of the design had merit. The company they were designing for had gone bust and the design had been shelved as a working prototype - one of our engineers had previously worked at the airship company).

I've not really got any experience with engine design (material strength, combustion process modeling, calculating loading etc. etc.). Things that I think would be important to bare in mind for the project you are considering-

  • Compressed ignition engines encounter much higher forces than spark ignition engines and have to be be designed to take these forces (stronger / heavier)
  • The method of fuel delivery is crucial, in modern diesel engines huge amounts of effort are expended in designing the best fuel injectors to give the best possible combustion event. The time of fuel delivery is crucial as this dictates the timing of the combustion event. Because of this ( as far as I'm aware ) carburetors cannot be used to deliver fuel to a compressed ignition engine.
  • Unlike how I used to, the last few years I've not been closely following all developments with the various kit developers / retailers. While I was following, Lovecraft Biofuels systems were found to be very basic and of (very) questionable quality (you can no doubt find lots about this if you search related American discussion forums) - they apparently did quite good media though.

I would support the development of a compressed ignition engine for biofuels. I am spread rather thin and have not currently got much time that I could invest in such a project.

--Darren 01:37, 23 August 2012 (PDT)

I'm allready working on it myself, figured out most if it allready. Model will be completed soon.

KVDP 01:41, 23 August 2012 (PDT)

Hello KVDP :)
I'm not sure about the classification of biofuels into 1st/2nd generation.

To me it was never totally clear where the boundaries were, what the definitions were (I'm not sure there really are any?) or who decided what went where (after 1st/2nd division appeared people soon talked about their *new* pet technology being 3rd generation - even though often they were not new technologies). It often felt like some kind of marketing tool.

The division by food/non-food use is new to me. What about PPO made from non-edible oils (eg. Jatropha?+there are others). I always thought it was more to do with when the biofuel came into use/was proposed for use - although as I say it was unclear.
Slightly confusingly - there is ongoing (? I think) work in Europe developing fuel standards for PPO and they are talking about different generations of PPO (you could call it grades?? - I think I would). This comes down to level of different minerals in the oil and requires further refinement after pressing to reduce levels of minerals.

--Darren 09:14, 3 September 2012 (PDT)

Hi Darren,

Sure there are well-described boundaries. I mentioned it at the pages. 1st generation comes from crops that do compete with human food production, 2nd generation do not. I myself also don't use the "3rd generation" term, the latter is indeed nonsense.

In regards to food/non-food: I mentioned non-humanly consumable crops at waste vegetable oil. Indeed you can say that if a agricultural field is specifically planted with (even non-food) crops, it does compete with food production, as it takes up space nonetheless and derives nutrients from the ground. However, that's an issue that needs to be left to the policy makers/law writers. They should mention in their document that these non-humanly consumable crops should only be planted in areas where humanly consumable crops wouldn't thrive
Looking at the articles, what I mention here isn't yet described anywhere, so I'll put it in there, probably at
Regarding grades: I actually don't make any division in regards to oil purity. This btw doesn't matter with a good engine (ie say crosshead/indirect injection). In any way, I don't think a filter should be present in the system as mounted on cars at all, I myself took it out, and just provided heating trough electric wires (not even via the cooling system). This simplifies everything hugely. A filter can be used seperatly (so filter it first in a standalone device, then put it in the tank). I mentioned the filter to Chriswaterguy (see his talk page). Perhaps you're intrested in making one, :) ?

KVDP 23:54, 3 September 2012 (PDT)

Please use edit comments[edit]

Edit comments are always important, but especially when making major changes. Here you deleted existing content. Why was that? --Chriswaterguy 04:46, 3 October 2012 (PDT)

Moved that section to Sewage_collection. Although it relates to the potable water system, it's still part of the "water distribution system" so it makes sense to have a page specific on that alone.

KVDP 04:53, 3 October 2012 (PDT)

Thanks for the explanation. Please remember to always explain such moves in the edit summary in future, both in the source page and the target page. (I see that you did note this in the target page in this case - thank you. That's essential to help someone find out who the original author was for the content that is being moved. That's often overlooked in wikis, but it's an important part of our license which requires attribution for contributions.) --Chriswaterguy 06:00, 3 October 2012 (PDT)

Btw, at Water conservation #See also, I changed your link [[Earthship|Earthship water system]] to Earthship #Water. I think it's good for links generally to be "transparent," so if it says it's a link to X, it actually takes the reader to X. Does that make sense? --Chriswaterguy 06:00, 3 October 2012 (PDT)

Yes. I actually prefer to link to the appropriate sections myself aswell. However, I still need to update that exact page, working on that as we speak. 02:04, 6 October 2012 (PDT)


Hi KVDP, Miscellaneous food preservation techniques looked like a copyright violation, but you've been around long enough to know that's not acceptable. It took me some time searching before finding that it was from an old public domain source. Please credit the source in such cases. I would really appreciate not having to waste my time like this, and readers would like to know where the information is from. If you moved it from elsewhere on Appropedia, always explain in the edit summary.

Also, as I have asked multiple times before, please install a spell checker. I spend more time than I would wish in checking up on your edits and fixing your errors. I would really appreciate it if you could help me in these ways and reduce the trouble this causes me. Thank you. --Chriswaterguy 07:48, 5 October 2012 (PDT)

Hi Chris,

Re Miscellaneous food preservation techniques --> I didn't create this page, just moved the info (see the old "food preservation" (or was it "food preserving"? page) Sorry about not always mentioning it in the edits: I change a lot of pages, and so don't always work that precise (I sometimes forget). Having the articles cleaned up at all is perhaps more important.

Re the spelling checker: I never got around to this, and formatted my drive just recently anyway (so even if I install it, it won't be on long). I also use upto 3 browsers (primarily firefox though) 01:59, 6 October 2012 (PDT)

Keep in mind the effect the edits have on others in the community - so the edit summaries are very important (and the spellchecker would also save me time, as well as helping your English).
Thank you for putting the edit summaries in more consistently in your recent edits. One extra tip - I always link the pagename in the edit summary - [[pagename]] - so it shows up as a wikilink when viewing the history. I find it makes it easier to see the moves and to follow the links. Thanks --Chriswaterguy 06:44, 9 October 2012 (PDT)

Do not link to userspace articles from mainspace[edit]

I removed this from an article: ==See also== * [[User:KVDP/Appropriate nutrition manual 1|Appropriate nutrition manual 1]]: crops produced at the community should be complemenatry to each other in regards to the nutrients they contain

The fact that the pages were regarded as unsuitable for mainspace means that they are unsuitable to link from mainspace. I'm sure you would find it beneficial to do some research and find good quality sources to link to instead. If not, it is better to have no link. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 07:51, 5 October 2012 (PDT)

I didn't know I couldn't/shouldn't link to the userfied page either. I'm still wondering how to proceed on the manuals. I kind of need them to explain things well, but it seems I need to make the pages better someway first then. It could help however by explaining exactly why some pages were userfied (I don't always see the reason/way to improve them) 02:02, 6 October 2012 (PDT)

Sorry, I'm not able to go through them in detail now, but I know there should be an explanation. I think in most or all cases it relates to issues that have been discussed before - concerns about accuracy, and about being prescriptive. --Chriswaterguy 06:40, 9 October 2012 (PDT)


I use "Interwiki links" as a separate section, as I feel that it's good to distinguish open editable content like ours, from standard websites. I haven't had other feedback, but I'd rather it be discussed before you make further changes to this.

Please slow down on making large unilateral changes, especially page moves. I moved "Human population management" back to "Population management" - it was an unnecessarily long name, and "human" will be assumed in absence of other info. All such things are open to debate, but it is a problem when your perspective is often different from others in the community, that you continue make many such changes.

Please, again, let me emphasize very strongly - concentrate on researching and developing well-sourced content. That is our greatest need here, and I believe it is your greatest need as well. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 20:26, 12 October 2012 (PDT)

Re 'Human population management': the 'human is present in Wikipedia's Human population control page aswell, so it seemed useful to add it. Also, a article on animal population control can then be made without hassle.
Re making changes/moving material. I actually try not to make changes unilaterally, but we do need to get articles sorted at all (so we can't stick around waiting for responses of the community that never come). The information in the meantime isn't available for those that need it. See Appropedia:Village_pump#Portals_and_taskbar I btw also asked RichardF to work on issues (the portals and the "Green living" page). Moving info is vital, as at present the info is only available at certain pages people just won't look for when they need info on a particular issue. Also, some pages here have become far too cumbersome (people will never go trough the whole thing). 01:36, 13 October 2012 (PDT)

Argh. You deleted a highly relevant quote without comment. Please restore it.

I placed it at the Talk page. I don't think it fits in that page, perhaps only in a Environmental organisations page. I thought about making one, and add info on how environmental orgs differ from appropriate tech orgs. However, if I make it, I probably end up making something "controversial". I btw moved the quote to the wikipedia talk pages on environmental organisations, WWF, ...

Your editing is very problematic and this is causing headaches. I feel that I need to check every edit you make, and I don't have the time for it. Please help us - let's find ways to reduce this.

You don't need to check everything, I keep all all vital info at appropedia and the articles get better after each edit.

Could you please adopt a strict personal practice, starting now, of never deleting anything without giving an explanation in the edit summary? And if you don't have a very strong, clear reason, don't delete it.

I indeed try to do this more (see old edits -edit history- at "Autonomous houses and neighbourhoods"

And maybe you shouldn't be moving material around between articles so much - these are the hardest to check on. Stick to making well-researched new content. That will help me a lot, and will improve Appropedia. --Chriswaterguy 20:37, 12 October 2012 (PDT)

Btw, I know I give you a hard time, so I just want to say I appreciate your progress. There will still be areas where we disagree (probably many), and I'll keep asking you to install a spellchecker, but I see a very significant improvement in your contributions. I also appreciate your very even temper in all these discussions. Thank you. --Chriswaterguy 06:12, 18 October 2012 (PDT)
Thanks Chris;

btw I took a look at and improved this article a bit, but it now looks a bit controversial and perhaps some text is out of place (ie part on colonialism). Not sure what to do with it though. KVDP 06:17, 18 October 2012 (PDT)

Image uploads[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Deaths from air pollution.png - this is an important subject.

You haven't put a source, so I assume you made this map? It would be good to mention that whenever you upload your own images - thanks.

I find that the image is very clear at full resolution, but not at lower resolutions. Would this be solved by uploading a more high resolution version? SVGs are very good for sharp images, but I don't know if they're practical for maps. --Chriswaterguy 07:24, 19 October 2012 (PDT)

Yes I made the image myself, perhaps a seawater pollution map is useful too, I made a request for this at the wiki image lab. It may be useful for aquaculture/my next project (see Native marine organisms by region)
You asked me this before. The reason why I make png maps is because I can make them using the GIMP, svg's are generally made using Inkscape (programs differ depending on file type). Anyway, if it isn't clear when zooming in, it's best to use another image viewer (the GIMP works well too). You'll find that when zooming far, the image is much clearer.

BTW: regarding the Majority world article: perhaps we can rename and then rework this ? The title (and the huge text explaining the term "majority world" (which is politically motivated btw)) can then be removed. Also, I think the term gives a wrong idea in that developing countries "work together" against the "developed nations". In reality, it doesn't work that way and society is much more polarised. Perhaps also read the text at Poverty regarding "fair trade" and the product chain. KVDP 07:36, 19 October 2012 (PDT)

Ok, I remember now. It's a pity if you can't use Inkscape, as SVGs would have many advantages for many images. Inkscape is free - is it just difficult to use?
The problem isn't that I can't use Inkscape (I've used it allready a few times, for some specific images wuch as the trade routes image). The problem is that it's very slow to work with, and I also don't like it, as I like to make many images, that's a problem to me. It's difficult to explain like this, if you use both programs yourself you would see what I mean (raster and vector image software works differently). 00:30, 26 October 2012 (PDT)
Besides, even if we were to show svg's, they still come up scrambled, so they're unusable. We need to fix this first (I allready mentioned this aswell). Try searching for File:Rainwater harvesting system.svg, the image shows, but scrambled. 00:36, 26 October 2012 (PDT)
Majority world arguable should be renamed. What would you rename it to? There are a few possibilities and they each have problems, so I guess we go for a compromise, a term that isn't too complex or inaccurate. --Chriswaterguy 04:24, 25 October 2012 (PDT)
I agree, I think plain Developing countries seems to be the best solution (comprises high medium and low development countries). Third world is unsuitable, as it's a term marking the stance of a block of countries in the Cold war. 00:30, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

Reference tag errors & comments when cutting[edit]

I notice there are reference error notices (in red) at Ultra-low energy house and Materials, and perhaps other pages. When a page is split up, a reference that is used more than once may need to be copied in its full form, from whichever page has the full form.

Also, it would be really helpful if for edits like this removal of content from "Green living", the edit summary could say "Moving content to [[Materials]], [[Net metering‎]], ..." etc. When I look at RecentChanges now I see what you've done, but someone who visits the page in 2 months' time may wonder where their contributions have gone, or what the motive was for removing the content.

Thanks --Chriswaterguy 04:24, 25 October 2012 (PDT)


Re mulching:

  • [[Tillage|growth of weeds]]: those are different things
  • [[Tillage|Other forms of weed control]]: in see also sections, my strong opinion is that it's better to list the actual page name and (in rare cases when needed) add a comment. I did that just now, in this case.

Re title - cover crops are important enough to deserve at least one full article by themselves, with a passing mention on mulching. What do you think about moving it back? Thanks --Chriswaterguy 00:08, 31 October 2012 (PDT)

Re growth of weeds: I updated the page, see there what I meant with the link.
Re weed control; perhaps we need a seperate page on it (which I don't like to do), or figure out another solution. Having thought about it, weed control incorporates mechanical weed control (ie "Tillage"), biological control (ie pesticides) and other methods (ie burning with gas burner, ...) I just linked to tillage to mention the burning

I suggest working on the pages some more for now (working on that), we'll see about the solution later.

Cover crops and mulching are best kept as 1 page, else it gets cumbersome to detail this "type of weed control". See the list at Organic farming to understand what I mean.

KVDP 06:11, 31 October 2012 (PDT)

Mulching is about more than weed control. Single topics for a page are almost always best, I think.
I won't split it now - as you say, the solution may be clearer later. --Chriswaterguy 04:09, 3 November 2012 (PDT)
Re a separate page on Weed control - I redirected that to your page Weeding as it's a closer match than Tillage. Perhaps Weeding should be moved to Weed control. --Chriswaterguy 04:15, 3 November 2012 (PDT)
No, weeding should remain the main page, as weed control incorporates also other things as mulching, ... See the updated list at organic farming. Weeding is more specific and fits better in the list. I think I solved everything now.

KVDP 05:25, 3 November 2012 (PDT)

I meant that the weeding article, as it is, covered other things as well. But the pages will develop over time. --Chriswaterguy 19:17, 4 November 2012 (PST)
It indeed mentions many other things aswell but that's a good thing. I do see that there is little distinction between both names by mentioning the other things aswell, however we need to mention them for ie weeding in the garden (distinction agriculture-gardening). You can rename it to Weed control if you wish, I just kept "weeding" as it focuses better on mechanical control (which makes the list at organic farming clearer).

Two pages moved to userspace[edit]

These pages looked like rough notes, so I moved them to your userspace: User:KVDP/Professionally executed cultivation and User:KVDP/Grafting and inoculating. It's okay not to be polished, but there should be at least a clear and complete sentence. They can be moved back when they have a bit more info. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 19:17, 4 November 2012 (PST)

I improved the text at User:KVDP/Professionally executed cultivation, please put it back. You can leave the other page at userspace. Please rename Composting to Humification (it's a less employed term but much more accurate -it's a convertion to humus not compost; compost refers to the green manure that is in progress of being transformed-

KVDP 00:27, 5 November 2012 (PST)

Good progress[edit]

I know I give you a hard time. There are editors who have put terrible content on Appropedia, and if I see them, I remove them or fix them, and it looks unfair that I don't give them a hard time. But because you are unique in your enthusiasm and the effort you put in (that's a very good thing) any problem in your editing is amplified. Your contributions have been improving, though, and I'm glad to see that.

I've seen significant changes in your editing - e.g. recently with your edit summaries when you move text, making it much easier to follow what you've done. I haven't followed all your moves, but ones I've looked at were good moves - thank you for these contributions.

You tend to be very sure of what you are doing, but everyone is wrong sometimes - and we've needed to be very blunt with you at at times, otherwise you seem to not pay attention. At the same time, I recognize your contributions, and your enormous potential. Please be patient, and realize that on any given topic there is a great depth of knowledge that no single one of us fully grasps. Those of us that you mainly deal with here do have a reasonable amount of knowledge of these subjects, though, so when we raise an issue, there's generally a good reason for it.

We've had a lot of frustrations between us, but you're on a very impressive trajectory. Keep learning, and stay passionate about your contributions. --Chriswaterguy 05:47, 8 November 2012 (PST)

We didn't have much frustrations between us (atleast I didn't have any frustrations) and I consider you a friend/pen pal. I also don't respond like this untill there is good reason. I just find that at times, you seem to work with 2 standards W. You didn't need to type this text, regardless of this, I still keep working on improving appropedia (working on the diet stuff at the moment). After all, our fates are linked (we pursue the same goals).

KVDP 06:04, 8 November 2012 (PST)

Okay, glad to hear it. --Chriswaterguy 00:31, 12 November 2012 (PST)

LEC lighting[edit]


You've added references to LEC lighting - I hadn't heard of this. Good sources about this would be helpful. Only the Wikipedia article is currently referenced,W but it doesn't explain if these lights are currently sold on a significant scale as lighting.

If you find good data on total impact, that would be great. Something like a life cycle analysis would be the ideal. What do you think? --Chriswaterguy 08:22, 2 December 2012 (PST)

As far as I know, they're just not sold at all at present. They are only just being produced on a roll-to-roll production method (probably a test rather than commercial production). See the link to the Umeå University at wikipedia.
An LCA sounds fine, but I think that ultimately, they're of little benefit. The most important thing is to just mention them in articles, and have people actually use them, preferably in a effective approach in buildings (due to the 2 second delay, they're best used for rooms such as living rooms, and not say storage rooms, garages, ...) LED's seem better here, aswell as regular incandescents (these are pretty environmentally produced, and cheap, the CFL's seem far worse to me). Ultimately, a good setup in houses, buildings (which include the use of several light sources, including daylighting seems the best approach). Keep in mind btw that lighting in general isn't that important regarding energy use, the amounts of energy used are very minor regarding of the lighsource used. The heating is much more important.

KVDP 04:10, 3 December 2012 (PST)

Okay - then if they're not currently sold, this has to be made clear. It is not appropriate to advocate for the use of something which is not available. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 07:40, 13 December 2012 (PST)

Bicycles in developing contexts[edit]

I think your idea to have a "Converting bicycles to freight bicycles" page is a good one - I see the value of a separate page. However, the content you moved to cycling was on the topic of Bicycles in developing contexts, not general cycling information, so my strong opinion is that it should stay there. Try again, moving the freight info instead, to a new page at Converting bicycles to freight bicycles.

I reverted your changes when I saw a large removal of good content without explanation. It was only after that I found where you moved the content to (Cycling) also without attribution. Do not do this. Though your intention is good, it looks like you are adding your own content to the target page - which amounts to you taking credit for something that is not yours. Proper attribution is essential and edit summaries are an important part of this.

(Note that if I see anyone removing good content without an edit summary, I'm likely to revert. If there is an edit summary to explain, I'm more likely to respond differently. I'm sure other active editors are similar.)

So, if you move or remove content you must (A) use edit summaries, and (B) keep the attribution notice, if there is one on the page. (In this case, it should be copied, so it's on both source and target pages.) I've explained about edit summaries before - hopefully it's clear now. Thanks for understanding. --Chriswaterguy 07:40, 13 December 2012 (PST)

I'm not going to do all of the changes all over again. I agree I should have added edit summaries, the reason I didn't was because I was in a hurry yesterday (little spare time). I spend most time wikifying the text (very poor formatting, filled with br tags, ...) I can look at the changes needed and update the page (splitting off my own content from the practical action content, ..) if you revert your revert action. I don't have time to redo everything though.

KVDP 00:20, 14 December 2012 (PST)

It's not hard to redo edits if you follow this method: Go to the history page and open your last version. Click edit and then save - and that's how to revert easily.
(First check if anyone else has made approriate edits, to avoid deleting them. You can use "Show changes" to help check.)
In a case where something has been deleted just due to lack of essential edit summaries: just do this reversion with a suitable edit summary, and I think that solves the problem.
Or: Go to the history page and open your last version, click edit and copy what you want to move elsewhere.
I left an edit summary at Bicycles in developing contexts to make it clear that doing the changes differently would be welcome. Some of the other changes should be thought through again.
Thanks for removing the
tags etc - I prefer to not rollback edits, but attribution is serious issue, and explaining content moves is important additionally to avoid other editors including me spending time and getting frustrated trying to understand what has been done. --Chriswaterguy 23:45, 14 December 2012 (PST)
The last revision of me probably sits at the removed page ( Converting_bicycles_to_freight_bicycles) I don't find it in the revision history though (Revision history of Converting_bicycles_to_freight_bicycles. If the article can be reinstated to the last version I made, I can get started on the work. I'll then also cross-compare with the changed bicycle page.

KVDP 02:54, 15 December 2012 (PST)

The full history is accessible via the history tab on the current location of the page after its most recent move, which I'm pretty sure is Bicycles in developing contexts. I'd rather not revert - either the reversion should happen at the same time as the other edits for the moving of that content, or just open the edit view for the old version, and take the text from there as needed.
Lonny is working on moving the server today, I think - it's very slow now and hard for me to check the site.
I found the revision (looked over it), I'll see about updating the cycling page a bit more to make it even more structurized

KVDP 04:53, 18 December 2012 (PST)

Thanks for catching spam[edit]

Thanks for deleting spam on Category:Organizations.

An approach which you may find useful: in history you can see which is the most recent genuine edit. E.g. in this case, the edit by Ecofitter was the last genuine edit before the spammers. So I viewed that page, clicked edit, and saved that version. (I.e. reverted it.) The advantage is that it restored text removed by the spammers. --Chriswaterguy 04:06, 5 February 2013 (PST)

Edits to Composting page[edit]

I'd just like to point you to Composting as I have made substantial edits. I am happy to take criticism for it on Talk:Composting Joeturner 05:41, 6 February 2013 (PST)

Please do not add things to the Practical Action page. Joeturner 09:53, 13 March 2013 (PDT)

See the talk page

KVDP 09:56, 13 March 2013 (PDT)

Your information is inaccurate, as I said in exhaustive detail on Talk:Composting. Just replacing the information on different pages does not make it accurate. Joeturner 10:00, 13 March 2013 (PDT)

Green cleaning[edit]

See Talk:Green cleaning - thanks. --Chriswaterguy 20:00, 11 April 2013 (PDT)

Replied there.

KVDP 00:21, 12 April 2013 (PDT)

Thanks - I replied there. Also see Talk:Underground farming re purpose of that method. --Chriswaterguy 04:48, 18 April 2013 (PDT)


I have covered the infection risk of imperfectly treated human feces here: infection risk from Ecosan. There are a wide range of possible infections. Most of your other questions are also addressed there. I'm not going to even try addressing the legal questions - if you do, I'd appreciate it if you made a special effort to properly source everything you say. Generally speaking, there is no evidence that sludge is 100% treated after composting unless you have a proper system for microbiological testing. So outside of a sewage treatment works, it probably never is properly treated. I know Joe Jenkins says differently, but I haven't seen any evidence of his claims other than books he has himself written. Joeturner 04:39, 19 April 2013 (PDT)

Take a look at Talk:Composting_toilets#Heated_composting_toilet I found the diseases, mentioned them at infection risk from Ecosan article.

KVDP 05:41, 19 April 2013 (PDT)

Replied again at the same talk page.

KVDP 06:55, 19 April 2013 (PDT)

Disagreements about composting[edit]

Thanks for the heads up - I replied at Talk:Composting_toilets. --Chriswaterguy 07:33, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

Double-checking before adding[edit]

Thanks for adding the new section to Water wells. There is an issue, though - see Talk:Water wells. It's a lot of work to oversee edits to this degree, and I can't continue to make time for this, for personal reasons (time commitments, priorities).

It's fantastic that you've got your own wiki where you can add content without worrying about Appropedia's restrictions. For any contributions to Appropedia, please now follow a much, much stricter approach, so that this level of oversight and correction is not needed. E.g. please ensure that links are on topic.

A while ago I actually asked the board if we should restrict you from editing mainspace - but now that you have your own site I am hoping that we can find a way to not have to do that.

With your understanding of our concerns I'm sure we can have a cooperative relationship. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy 17:47, 21 June 2013 (PDT)

Look at the talk page of water wells, I explained why I mentioned the organisation.

KVDP 08:42, 22 June 2013 (PDT)

Thanks, that's clearer. I also replied there.
Please in future ensure that it's much clearer before someone has to spend a lot of time checking on the links/info. --Chriswaterguy 19:11, 22 June 2013 (PDT)

Find another place for images[edit]

The image File:A frame sleeping room.JPG is not suitable, and has been deleted, like many other similar images. I think you understand why - what you need to do is to find a place and a way to explore and share your ideas, as we've discussed.

Thanks for understanding. --Chriswaterguy 01:52, 22 July 2013 (PDT)

I knew you/appropedia had deleted some images which appropedia opposed, but I wasn't aware I couldn't simply add no images at all anymore. I actually made this image, working with Vinay (hexayurt). Anyway, can you supply me the description (I don't have this anymore). I'll sent it to Vinay directly and perhaps make a better image for him. KVDP 01:57, 22 July 2013 (PDT)
To be clear, nobody has restricted your ability to edit or upload images. However, you need to understand that we now have a low tolerance for poor images - if they have no scale, are barely legible, the contrast is poor or have other factors that make them indecipherable, they will be removed. For these reasons, your hand-drawn images are no longer suitable for Appropedia.
So there is no problem for me to continue uploading images if they are high quality/not handdrawn ? I guess I should have known not to upload this, I indeed did saw you labelled a fair share of my images as low quality. Sorry about not realising this before uploading this image. KVDP 03:21, 22 July 2013 (PDT)
We have removed several hundred of your hand-drawn images from Appropedia. Further images are likely to be removed quickly if they are low quality, other images and content is being reviewed and removed if it is not suitable for Appropedia. As discussed, we believe that you understand what is and is not suitable, but if you do not then you will have to get used to your content being removed until you do. Joeturner 04:53, 22 July 2013 (PDT)
The description you want is below - please do not ask for this kind of thing again. Chris is very busy, if you want to keep anything you are uploading to Appropedia, you need to upload it to your own wiki, or (ideally) provide content that is not likely to be removed. Thank you. Joeturner 02:50, 22 July 2013 (PDT)

Schematic of an a-frame shelter, providing a place to sleep for 2 people (2 integrated beds). The a-frame shelter is intented to be used as a component of a modular city for the homeless. This idea was inspired on Dignity Village. The a-frame shelter is made using

  • 3 wooden triangle frames (marked in blue); this is similar as in a regular A-frame house, see here Only one is shown, but there are 3 in total; 2 at the ends, and one in the middle
  • marked in red are rafter top ends (see here) which have been given a hole; this serves to put pole 1 through. Optionally, rafter top ends can be made for the other corners aswell (where pole 2 and 3 go through).
  • 3 wooden or metal poles (marked P1 to P3)
  • 3 particle boards (marked in black); serve to keep rain out on the sides, provide a floor at the bottom. 2 additional particle boards are present on the ends too off course.
  • a wooden rain-diversion block (marked in black); this makes sure the top of the roof isn't perfectly flat, and so no water can keep standing on this. Block should be impermeable (ie covered with rubber, impregnated, ...)
  • the blue squares are concrete blocks, holding the wooden floor off the soil.

SR indicates the storage room. This room is present in the otherwise useless space above bed 1 (above the lower body/feet, not above the head obviously, to prevent claustrophobia).

B1 and B2 indicate bed 1 and bed 2. They are attached directly unto the wooden triangle frames (small cutouts can be made in the wooden triangle frames to allow this).

Note that the shelter is entered via a particle board side on the end, by just taking off the particle board (one side should be fixed with clamps).



Does File:House glass tilt.png have r source? Also, I can't see a reason for this to be an image - it would be better as text in a table.

Comparison of free off-line GPS software is taken from Wikipedia and you did not attribute - it's very important that you always attribute. That took our time checking it, only to find it was from Wikipedia.

I thought you were finding another outlet for your energy? I'm concerned that due to our different approaches to referencing, verification, speculation and safety issues, most of your work is not really compatible with Appropedia. We (myself and other admins I'd discussed this with) hard hoped that you had found a more suitable outlet.

Thanks for understanding. --Chriswaterguy (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2014 (PDT)

The image you mention indeed had a source, namely Living Homes: Integrated Design & Construction; I found that the google book seemsto be removed now -link no longer works-. I got the initial idea for making the image from the Earthship books (nr 2 and 3). I doubt you'll find the exact data I implemented as I calculated the optimal tilts for the region mentioned. The book reference will explain how exactly I calculated things however.

Re Comparison of free off-line GPS software; If you look at the wikipedia page history, you'll see I made that page (at the time when I uploaded the same article here). I uploaded the article here as I thought it was of use to JPearce for his projects.

Re finding another outlet for my "energy". I hardly edit any pages at appropedia anymore, besides some occasional low-importance edit.

KVDP (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2014 (PDT)

Thanks, & sorry - I somehow didn't see the source. Thanks for updating it.
Thanks for the explanation re the GPS page. If you made it, then attribution isn't needed, but it would be helpful to mention this in the comment field when adding it, just to avoid confusion. Cheers. --Chriswaterguy (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2014 (PDT)