Talk:Separation process

message: is scooping a method for separatingm chocoooooooo CALAMAAAR
'''
whats Centrifigation??
I might have misunderstood it, the examples of chemical properties used in the article are size, shape and mass.  Aren't these properties physical rather than chemical?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.73.244.177 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE BE POLITE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.14.91.122 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I am reviewing the article. I am familiar with some separation process literature that I can use for citations. I agree the headings may be better organized. The lede identifies that differences in physical properties may be exploited to effect separations. (e.g. gravity separation from differences in specific density, membrane separation from differences in permability, distillation from differences in boiling point). I believe I can reorganize the List of Separation Techniques into separate classes based on the physical property used by each process. For now, I am taking out a section that is highly specific to liquid centrifuges; I may add something like it back after better sources are found. Baltakatei 22:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: Some parts of this article seems to have been copied and pasted; do a Google search. I'm not sure which edit added the copy-pasted content, so I added the tag. David1217 What I've done 04:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See new section below.  LeProf.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted material 

message: I would like to clarify that Demister is a brand name of Mist Eliminator. Today, Demister owned by Koch-Glitsch company. The following link will take you to Kock-Glitsch site:
http://www.koch-glitsch.com/mistelimination/pages/Products.aspx 
Long time in the past, Demister is a very famous mist eliminator upto the point that many people call Mist Eliminator as Demister. This is just like French people call their dictionary as Larousse. It's true that Demister set the industry standard but the name Demister should not be used in place of Mist Eliminator as it would miss leading people to the wrong direction as searching for Demister will send to only Kock-Glitsch products.
Regards,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.231 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demister article 

message: See plagiarism and WP:Plagiarism. The terms refer to appropriation of ideas/facts that have been reworded, as well as direct appropriation of text. Even if text cannot be traced verbatim to a non-free article, the fact that so much information appears without citation violates the WPs relating to verifiable sources, as well as for plagiarism.  One citation for 900 words is a clear signal of either nonscientific prose (fiction), or original research, or plagiarism. The fact that there is direct correspondence between some phrasing in the article and some in the External Links is icing on the cake, but isn't necessary to make the clear case. (This from a university faculty member; see Ch. Lipson's "Doing Honest Work in College," University of Chicago Press, for more.)  The whole article should be redacted, if the original contributor of the blocks of text cannot be identified through the History, and contacted through Talk and agrees to make rapid changes. And let's have no talk of forensic referencing; post hoc repairs to large blocks of sloppy unreferenced work are a waste of time and cannot result in attribution of all ideas to their original sources.  The person originating this needs to fix it, or it should go.   LeProf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's call a spade a spade.  The article is plagiarized. 

message: It appears all the plagiarized material has since been removed, so I'm removing the tag. Thanks to everyone who helped delete the copied material.  If anyone sees anything that was missed, feel free to just remove it. -- Beland (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problems 

message: ... redirects here, but (as noted above) appears to be a broader topic/ field. Stub article anyone? Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Separation Science|Separation science]] 

message: I was very displeased when I read the liquid separator section. I think the creator of this article was very specific in a couple of liquid separators and also extremely vague on the details. Separating liquids from what? Liquid-Liquid? gas-liquid? solid-liquid?. If this is the case there is tons of techniques for every one of this cases such as centrifuges, extraction , distillations columns etc.. I also found that most of the things that I commented can be found right next to this section , so why to create a Liquid section at all if you going to cover most of them after it? The section should have a different title , or not exist at all.
Carvacha (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Selection