Archives... 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

On 14 December 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Central Asia – China gas pipeline, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am new at this but I decided to try and update the Portal:Energy/Energy news page. Can you please check because I think you have updated this section in the past —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.22.92 (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's that time of year again, and I wanted to wish you all the best for the festive season... Johnfos (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linksmų Kalėdų ir laimingų Naujųjų Metų! Thanks for your energy contributions and your calming influence. You make this project feel worthwhile and sustainable. Novickas (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, with reference to this revert, I apologise for my bot's error and am happy for you to revert such edits, but please do let me know so that I can prevent it happening again. Thanks Rjwilmsi 19:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rjwilmsi. I think your bot is doing excellent work and it had fixed a number of references I added before learning this specific formatting issue. As of this specific case, I think this is quite exceptional and probably there are only few similar case in whole Wikipedia. Therefore I did not want to make a big noise about this and just reverted it. And please accept my apologies for not notifying you.Beagel (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Rich Farmbrough's page, you asked about the date template. It doesn't actually format dates, does it, except for something to do with ISO dates. Is that why you are interested in using it? Tony (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Actually, it formats dates according to the template documentation. However, I understand that the issue of formatting dates is still controversial and there is no consensus about doing this. Therefore, please consider may question just as an idea, which was a little bit premature. Beagel (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 January 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious why you took out the categories for this page. I would think coverage of SPRs for each country would fall under a basic category of "Energy for [Blank]". Publicus 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that listing global articles under individual countries categories is the usual practice even if they have country-specific sections, and 34 country-specific categories for one article seems too much. There is no country categories, e.g. on the Nuclear energy policy or List of countries by natural gas production. Beagel (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool sounds good. I'll be more careful in my categorizing. Thanks Publicus 21:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beagel. I just edited the "Typical power output" section in the Power Station article. This section had the "This section requires expansion" tag. My first "major" edit and first time I have had to add a new reference to an existing article etc. If you have time, maybe take a look and make sure I have not done anything egregious. Any advice welcome. I made a bit of a mess of the edit to the discussion page there because I added my summary into the wrong section initially. Not sure if its considered taboo to delete material from discussion, but I did, so I could put it back in the right place. Thx. Turbine1 (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits look fine for me. Concerning the removal of text from the talk page, in general this is not accepted. However, there are exceptions like removing vandalism or spam, which was exactly the text you removed. So, I don't see any problem here. Beagel (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Taner Yıldız. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I havent gone thru the article yet as My PC is not booting since past 3-4 days and seems like it might take some time.. I cant guarantee this as my PC is not working and only when it gets OK, i'll go thru the article...However I have that article on my watchlist and would try to keep an eye on it....All the best for FAC !!! Gprince007 (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it will take a while for my PC to get repaired....I'll try to take a look at this article during weekend but still i cant commit....Gprince007 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Hard Drive has crashed and it will be a while till i return for active editing....Sorry..but some factors are beyond my control...i'll take a look once its fixed....all the best for FAC !!! Gprince007 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beagel! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Ahmed Diane Semega - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Salvador Namburete - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Léon Emmanuel Monnet - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Mohamed Ould Sidi Mohamed Aly - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, i suggest for you to work with me for to create a real oil refinery portal with some a good articles like the Montreal Refinery or the Montreal East Refinery. To create a menu on the lower part of the article all refineries in Canada. To help me to search a picture for any refinery. Please, don't remove anything inside the oil refinery in Montreal, all articles in the Montreal Oil Refining center are in construction.

THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.233.169 (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given you have commented on the subject. I would welcome any comments or suggestion you could offer regarding a move request for Montreal Oil Refining Center. See: Talk:Montreal_Oil_Refining_Center.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Gladstone LNG, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had moved Gladstone LNG to GLNG, and then I saw the move request discussion at the above location.

When I first tried to look at the article's talk page, I got an error - which I assumed was because the page did not exist (I've been getting some errors like this from Wikipedia pages recently, I think it's a WMF server issue)

It wasn't until afterwards that I saw the conversation. I have explained my rationale on the talk page, and I hope that you are OK with it - I did not mean to ignore your contribution to the discussion, and if the error had not occurred, I would have left a similar message as part of the discussion and see what people thought, rather than just going ahead and performing the move!

I thought that I should apologise to you for what might appear to be rudeness, which was in fact a simple mistake on my part - I'm sorry.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel. With regard to this edit, it is also said that it can be placed on top ("...or inside a section with a list or table of features...", here). I wouldnt really mind keeping it the way it is, but the new section is empty except for the template, making it look a little odd. I will now put the template back up. But of course, feel free to revert if its still a wrong move. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is really ugly inside of the section. If necessary, put it at least in the See also section. Beagel (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as most academic journals nowadays are mainly international and journals that clearly can be assigned to one nationality are becoming the excezption rather than the rule, we are retiring the "journals by country" categories. If you have a look at Category:Journals by country, you'll see that I have now emptied almost all of these categories (haven't had time for the British journals yet) so that they can be deleted. Hope this explains. --Crusio (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Energinet.dk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. I knew you could fix it right quick, but also saw that you'd created it and so weren't supposed to remove the speedy tag. Could have saved myself some time by checking the history and finding the earlier refs, but it was kind of interesting looking up the new ones. Best, Novickas (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to be very concerned in a number of oil and gas issues - one can be amazed by the time you actually spend on these issues; while I usually appreciate collaboration with editors who have this kind of concern, I am sorry to realize you are doing POV-pushing on most of the articles you are editing. Why is that ? Are you being paid by an oil company ? What are your motivations ? Rgds--Environnement2100 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give concrete examples which edits done by me you consider POV pushing. Concrete articles and concrete edits, please. I am always ready to discuss all edits I have made and I would apology for every edits I made which is not in line with Wikipedia policies. And if you still think that there is something wrong with my edits or with my behavior you are always welcome to use tools like WP:3O, WP:EQ or WP:RfC. However, at the same time making baseless accusations is considered disruptive and in some cases even as a personal attack and harassment. I am really tired of your baseless accusations you are repeating over a number of talk pages, so please provide your evidences or stop this name calling. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beagel. You seems to have a fair knowledge on the creation of infoboxes. Could you have a peek on my proposal here? Thanks. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from List of megaprojects, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! .

I think the list can be improved and come into line with WP list guidelines with a bit of work that I've already started.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beagel! Thank you for helping me on the Safaniya Oil Field article. Keep it up and I'm expecting you to guard that article when I'm busy.

Majen27 · talk 09:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:OECD member economies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member economies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove sourced information, as you just did on this occasion. You are again in a case of deleting information you do not like.--Environnement2100 (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I explained, why I removed the UK from the list. Once more, in 2007 there was no import from Russia, import started in 2008. However, unfortunately I was able to find comprehensive and reliable source only for 2007, not for 2008. As there was no import in 2007, I don't see any mean to add the UK with 0% and not to add all other EU member states (Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus) with no Russian gas import in 2007. Picking up one specific country and refusing to add others (according to your edit summary) definitely needs explanation at the article talk page. Without explanation I may contradict the WP:NPOV. As you see, it has nothing to do what I like or dislike, it is about WP:NPOV.

One more thing. Per [this edit] you continue accusing me in POV pushing. Unfortunately, notwithstanding my previous request you still did not provide any explanation what is my POV contradicting WP:NPOV. Once more, I kindly ask you to provide explanation of your accusations; otherwise I have to consider these accusations to be personal attacks. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just removed information for the second time (this diff FTR), in spite of being warned; this info is sourced and pertains to the article. Please stop this behavior, thanks.--Environnement2100 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are always welcome to discuss how to improve the content of Wikipedia. However, if your only aim is to make personal attacks and making baseless accusations, please do not edit my talk page. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beagel. I've noticed that you placed a notice on Talk:Inguri Hydro Power Plant (and a relating template on Talk:Inguri Dam) regarding the talkpage history. There seems to be no history in the talkpage. Would you mind if i simply redirect (or delete, since it is a talkpage of a redirect) to Talk:Inguri Dam? Or it could be that i am missing something here... Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 09:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the talk page history, this notice is about the article history. Please see the documentation of Template:Merged-to. Beagel (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah i get it. I had a feeling i missed something there. Thanks. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry i made a mess with this article Trolley Car but was hoping to make an article like Horsecar but due to lack of time i was unable to finish. Please feel free to do whatever you feel necessary and when i have more time in the future i will create the article properly. (Maybe in the user space next time :P) L blue l (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Aban Pearl. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aban Pearl. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is impolite to remove other projects' banners from article talk pages without asking first, and I've reverted your removal of the {{WPSCUBA}} banner from Talk:Byford Dolphin. If you feel that the article is also within the scope of other projects that you are a member of, then please add then without removing the existing banners or without providing a good reason why they should be removed. --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of WP:SCUBA banner was accidental and my apologies for this. However, your removal of WP:Energy and WP:Ships banners seem me intentional and particularly non-understandable in the light of your message in my talk page. Beagel (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies. I hit the revert button on Twinkle when I saw the SCUBA banner was removed, and only realised you'd also added banners after the page had reloaded. I'll take more care in future and hope that you'll do the same. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I tried to address the lack of citation issue in the page about the International Centre for Hydrogen Energy Technologies (full disclosure: I'm the Information Officer of the said organization). Do you think it would be appropriate to delete the "lack of citation" mention now?

Gregory Dziedzic (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the templates color scheme to be in line with WP:Redlinks, and I would like to know your opinion of the change!69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! thanks!..cheers mate! --emerson7 08:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the article should bear the vessel's current name. the particulars can be hashed out in the decidedly cumbersome infoboxes. i'll try my hand at it if you like.--emerson7 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel,

The BP people cat and section of the template contains people that no longer work for BP or who are actually dead. I don't think including those people misleads readers since their current employer (or date of death) is in the article once you click on it.

Similarly, I think the vessels should stay because:

• 1. The template is a navigation aid to more easily find articles likely to be of interest to readers of an article; basically a sophisticated "See also" section. The exact status of each subject is covered in the article. Especially right now, readers of BP would be likely to be interested in these articles.
• 2. The business world has evolved away from outright ownership. Oil companies used to own their office buildings, tankers, oil fields and equipment. To free up capital, they now lease them but the amount of control has not diminished. Indeed, BP got blasted for hinting it wasn't calling all the shots on Deepwater Horizon.

But, if the consensus goes against me, so be it. I don't see a clear consensus in the template discussion though. The only other editor to comment so far seems to agree with you in one sentence to not include and then disagree by suggesting a separate section in the next. That second part was why I created the BP vessels cat, although nearly all those article were already in the more broad BP cat before I touched them.

So basically, I would suggest letting more people weigh in. I know that, like me, you also edit oil company articles when there's not a breaking story. If you want to solicit opinions from the Energy WikiProject, that might bring in some people fmailiar with this type of cat/template.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating this one! Needed.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made a suggestion[1] on when should geopolitical organizations use the infobox template for organizations and when the infobox for geopolitical organizations. Hope you have something to comment! Shubi (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Image Screening Bot (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beagel, I noticed your category reverts and have a question. In most countries, including the U.S., a dam article usually has a category for it as a dam and if it has a power station, a power station category, like the Hartwell Dam in SC/GA. Some hydroelectric power stations, although rarely, don't have an associated dam like the Sir Adam Beck Hydroelectric Power Stations in Canada. The dam and its power plant are often two separate facilities and I am familiar with the categorizing both. Is there a stated policy that China articles are following and not the majority of other articles I have worked on? --NortyNort (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all hydroelectric power stations have also dam (except pumping storage power stations). Therefore, categories "hydroelectric power stations in X" are subcategories for "power stations in X" and "dams in X" and "dams in X" is a parent category for "hydroelectric power stations in X". E.g. "Category:Hydroelectric power stations in China" is a subcategory for "Category:Dams in China" and "Category:Dams in China" is a parent category for "Category:Hydroelectric power stations in China". There is a general rule that that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory. Therefore, hydroelectric dams belong to hydroelectric power station category which is a subcategory of the dams category, and do not belong to the parent category. I fully agree that there is a large overlapping of dams and hydroelectric power station categories and these articles need a proper categorization. Beagel (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this issue is may be a bit more complicated. In India for instance, there are several, rather big dams that are not for hydroelectric use, so they do not have a hydroelectrical powerstation. Even if they might get one in the future, their categorization today would not fit a parenthood for the hydroelectric powerstation-category. Therefore, in the Norwegian Wikipedia, we generally treat dams and hydro-stations as two distinct phenomena, which they also are. To further complicate, one dam can support several hydro-stations (as in a Bosnia-Croatia case), and several dams can support one station (as in Japan cases). So there is not a general 1:1 relationship in dams vs hydro-stations. Is it not easier to simply categorize them in two different families of categories, dams and hydro-stations distinct? Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my reply. There are still two different categories while 'Hydroelectric power stations in country X' is a subcategory of the 'Dams in country X'. It is clear that if there is no power station related to the dam, it can't be categorized in the 'Hydroelectric power stations in country X' series, but in the 'Dams in country X'. I also agree that these cases you mentioned need case-by-case approach and in some cases there could be both both categories applied. My previous post was about dams which are integral part of the hydroelectric power stations and which do not have any other purposes than production of hydroelectricity.Beagel (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand! But I still wouldn't put category Hydrostations as a subcategory under catagory Dams, simply because that is not wehere all readers would expect to find them. The last twenty years have seen an ever increasing number of hydrostations without dams, or hydrostations that are placed many miles from their dam. For this and other reasons, we have chosen not to treat Hydrostations as subcategory to Dams on the Norwegian Wikipedia. Good luck with your debates and keep up your good work! Bjoertvedt (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this discussion is still here. I was just in Category:Dams in China and it is mostly filled with hydroelectric power station sub-cats. Out of the roughly 30 articles in the sub-cats, only two have "power station" in their name. To put the rest of the articles with "Dam" in their name within those categories makes no sense. As pointed above, if a reader is looking for dams, they may not look in the hydroelectric power station cats. The way it is now defeats the purpose of having categories for easy navigation. I think articles with "power station" in their name that are hydroelectric belong in those categories. If the article has "dam" in its name and has a hydroelectric power station, then it still belongs in the Dams category. To properly categorize both, we may be forced with some sort of redundancy, i.e. placing each dam in both categories. One of the many examples in Canada is the Jordan River Dam which is in both categories. I think the redundancy is justified because you have an article that covers two structures.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I haven't completely read the above discussion, so I don't know if it would help in any way, but some time back, Vmenkov and I discussed about the categorizations of hydroelectric-related articles here. Hope it helps or trigger any ideas in any way :) Kind regards to both. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rehman. Like you guys pointed out, some hydroelectric power stations don't have dams and some dams don't have hydroelectric power stations. I think the best option is category redundancy. This problem seems to be inherent and also somewhat unique.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel. For your information, there are now some lists of power plants in the Norwegian Wikipedia. The lists contain some 5.000 power plants. Even though the lists are in norwegian language, I presume it might be of great interest to you and other uers as a reference guide to find and describe power plants. The lists are:

• no:Liste over verdens største olje- og gasskraftverk (oil ang gas-fired, list very complete)
• no:Liste over verdens største kullkraftverk (coal fired, list very complete, maybe except China)
• no:Liste over verdens største kjernekraftverk (nuclear, list almost totally complete)
• no:Liste over verdens største vannkraftverk (hydro power, list not totally complete)

All in all, we have articles on approx. 2.700 international power stations, and some 2.000 Norwegian ones.

Kind regards, Bjoertvedt (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is very useful information. Beagel (talk) 20

20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and prompt action which has enabled me to fix this with minimal problems. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, thank you for helping to revise and edit the VIASPACE article. I would like to let you know that I disagree with your removal of "DMFC cartridges onboard aircraft" as this has everything to do with VIASPACE. Regards CleanFuture (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For inclusion in a categroy like Category:International Renewable Energy Agency, the article needs to establish the fact that this is defining for the individual. A mere mention does not merit inclusion in a category. In some discussions, I have seen editors state that if there is a paragraph on the topic then you have established a case of inclusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated these caregories, which are key INOGATE objectives; in fact INOGATE can claim to be a major animator of these in the countrioes where it operates, so I be;leive the categories are clearly justified. Best regards, Smerus (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

most of the the data in the table, are not really relatable to the infobox. i spent some time on it and the article the other day, but lost all the changes before i managed to save it. i'll give it another go later. cheers!

I'm not user:Kaiserble. I am one IP user in wikipedia. I have not wikipedia account. --211.214.239.139 (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An user from the same country editing same articles in similar way. Yes, maybe just a co-incident. Beagel (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I've blocked the IP as block evasion from Rayesworied. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other day you submitted a false positive report because you found yourself unable to edit someone's talk page. If you have not already seen, it was due to an accident in the code of a particular edit filter which was quickly fixed by the MediaWiki software itself. The code has been reverted to the last good version and this should not happen again. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, however; if people hadn't reported it we wouldn't have known there was a problem. I have removed the false positive reports as I felt it was easier to just go to the people who submitted them directly. —Soap— 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B, I wonder if you would care to offer an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Mountain University and Talk:Photovoltaic array#Merge?. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already saw the merger proposal of merger proposal of Photovoltaics and Photovoltaic array and I already planned to comment this proposal. Still going through different articles in this field to create a better overview of the overall articles' tree which is needed. Concerning the AfD notice, I see a problem with notability, but I am not sure if it could be possible to fix or not. Still thinking. Beagel (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment since you don't do closes. Some of the closers want to see more then one opinion before they close a discussion. I try to look at ones on the last day to see if I can offer an opinion on the topic if no one else has. Sometimes I can't for various reasons. It would be nice if one or two others could also look these over and offer an opinion, even if it does not agree with what was proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. Will try to look although I can't promise to do this on very regular bases. Beagel (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beagel, I know you are a energy-category guru and thought you might want to join a discussion here in the Commons. Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. Beagel (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why did you drop the categories in the Electric Car article? The categories you dropped seemed entirely appropriate. Please respond on the article's talk page. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electric car is categorized in the Category:Electric cars, which is a subcategory of Category:Electric vehicles and Category:Green automobiles. Category:Green automobiles is a subcategory of Category:Green vehicles. Category:Green vehicles is a subcategory of Category:Sustainable transport, which is a subcategory of Category:Sustainable technologies. Per WP:CAT you don't include parent categories if more precise subcategory exists. Beagel (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! Ebikeguy (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Volumetric Production Payment - VPP. Since you had some involvement with the Volumetric Production Payment - VPP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). SnottyWong ^soliloquize 22:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Bridgeplayer's oppose !vote at the RfAd for Fossil fuel drilling makes it less likely that the deletion will carry, imo. He tends to dominate the discussion at RfA and is a trusted voice. As I stated at the Rfa, I feel strongly that we should WP:DENY Mac/Hamiltha the satisfaction of getting any of his edits through, for to do so if reinforcement to come back and resume socking. I've speedied a number Hamiltha's other redirects accordingly. None have been deleted yet -- just his Category:Television sets. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Interestingly, the same admin who just !voted to keep at the Rfd was the one who processed all my other G5 speedies for Hamiltha's other redirects, most of which could be kept for similar reasons. I think it underscores my point about how once a redirect is brought to Rfd, well meaning editors such as Bridgeplayer are likely going to find a reason to keep: that's what generally happens there. Speedy deletion is the best course for any of Mac's future redirects, per WP:DENY, as I am sure he will be back and will be creating more of them, best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beagel, would you care to have an opinion on Talk:List_of_offshore_wind_farms#Proposal_for_a_revised_article_scope ? Talk is also at Talk:List_of_offshore_wind_farms#Additional_operational_offshore_windfarms. Only a few users have voiced opinions, so consensus is thin. TGCP (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I just restored an old version. Left a note since the edit history and merge still need fixing. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus or not, this is too widely used to be left broken. I don't have the skill to step in and fix the merging. So at least the error messages are gone and the old users of the infobox will still work. Someone else will need to do the merge and cleanup the edit history. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and thanks! Cheers. BineMai 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Beagel, Thanks for reverting the catagory. i agree that u droped the catagory coal fired power plant in the page list of power stations in india. I understand the reason. but what is the need to drop the same catagory in each and every individual power plant? .for example if some body wants to know the list of power plants in india while visiting the rajghat power station, what they will do? please justify. Amarnath aravabhoomi (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean by "wants to know the list of power plants in india "? However, I think your question was about dropping category:Coal-fired power stations in India from the Rajghat Power Station. This article included Category:Coal-fired power stations in NCT Delhi, Category:Coal-fired power stations in India and Category:Electricity in India. The most specific subcategory is Category:Coal-fired power stations in NCT Delhi, which is the subcategory of Category:Coal-fired power stations in India. At the same time Category:Electricity in India is a parent category for all power stations in INdia. Per WP:CAT we usually don't include parent categories if more specific subcategory exists. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Amarnath aravabhoomi (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you just reinstated an old disambiguation page for Sinan, replacing an improved version. Could I ask why? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I did not look the whole Sinan article and as it has long introduction about the man name It did not see the disambiguate meanings afterward. I don't think it is a good idea to start disambiguate pages as articles. Maybe Sinan should be just an article about the name and Sinan (disambiguation) should be pure list of disambiguate pages named Sinan? Beagel (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened the introduction a lot. Will that do? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel. I have changed my mind about the merger, please share your views here. Thanks! Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 13:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. The discussions on the implementation of {{Infobox power station (temp)}} has sort of stalled. If you get the time, please see my comment to TGCP, and let me know if you think the basic merge support is good enough. Please comment at the template talk. Thanks. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 07:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too noticed that the documentation is out of sync with the actual template. Let me know if you want any help fixing this issue. For example, do we want to support both lat/lon and coordinates, or, say go with the formats supported by templates like {{Infobox building}}? Also, it looks like the map feature is completely broken, since {{Infobox}} doesn't have an image3 option. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel. You might be interested in this. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Afternoon, Beagel, having come across your contributions to a range of Wikiproject Energy articles, I was hoping that you may be able to weigh in on a revision I've proposed here(on the article's talk page) to the opening paragraph of this article's Members and history section. Being one of the less-frequented articles, this post has not received any response as of yet.

In the interest of obtaining adequate consensus before moving forward, might you be able to take a peek and add your two cents? Cheers, Carthan (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already made these changes. I think that these changes are adequate and there is no objection from other editors. Beagel (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Beagel. There is a tiny issue with using turbine_manu from the wind farm infobox. As we normally fill more than one field in the "turbine information" section, it'll look ok. But as we use only turbine_manu (for use in other infoboxes), it displays a separate header just for that field, which is a bit odd.

What we could do is, as I said before, create new fields for each. That wouldn't be a problem as we are already using subclasses, and we have plenty of more room to add more fields, if necessary. Is it ok if I create separated fields? Rehman 08:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Just tried not to overload the template code. Beagel (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we have a long way before it gets overloaded ;) Kind regards. Rehman 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Now that dust is settled, and all the major fixes complete, I would like to thank you for all your help and opinions in bringing the template:infobox power station through its merges and transformations. Thanks! Rehman 02:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there...The article is pretty stable and good in content...but my busy work schedule in real life has left me with very time to devote for wikipedia editing...But still i will try to keep an eye on FAC and see what i can do...Hope it gets thru the FAC...Byee and all the best...!! Gprince007 (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, best wishes - will be available this week. Regards, Novickas (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beagel, you can see a minor comment at File talk:Chevron Oil Shale Project.PNG. For a viewer to more easily distinguish them, I plan to make the "Groundwater and Temperature Monitoring" pipes a light blue shade, the "Production Well" pipes a light yellow shade, and leave the "Injection Well" pipe as is. If you have any objections, let me know. H Padleckas (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this. I wanted to finish some edits on Shale oil extraction first. H Padleckas (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of the house for a few hours, but will return to the article tonight or tomorrow. One thing I wondered about but haven't looked at in enough detail to comment on: the article is not very long, so could more specific information be added on some of the processes that are only mentioned without being described in detail? E.g. Hom Tov isn't mentioned except in the table. More later -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the size of this articles was mentioned several times during previous stages of editing this article. Therefore, instead of describing separate technologies (with some exemptions of the most significant or impart processes) it was decided that this article should try to provide common features of different technology groups. As a result, most of the single-technology related information was moved to the specific technology articles. Almost all technologies listed in the table have their own article or are described in the related companies' articles, and are accessible via wikilinks. Concerning Hom Tov, this technology had a lot of publicity some years ago. However, its technical details were never made publicly available except of the fact it uses waste bitumen to catalyze the extraction process. As of today, it seems that this technology is more likely hype than a real existing technology. Beagel (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a long article by FA standards as it stands, but if that's a consensus decision of current editors I'm OK with it. Mike Christie (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After my recent edits, the article is now about 72000 bytes long. H Padleckas (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to edit the page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates to indicate that I support making Shale oil extraction a Featured Article, but it seems my edit was not made to this page, but a similar page called Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shale oil extraction/archive1. Anyway, you can see a few edits I made by looking at the article History, and what few remarks I made on its Talk Page. H Padleckas (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! And happy holidays. Novickas (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel. I noticed you are quite active on the oil shale article, and also brought it up to FA. Just wondering if you could help update this section? Rehman 13:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not so much to add. There are some test/pilot project in China, but it is almost impossible to find any reliable data about these. This source is the best one I was able to find. In addition, there is a 9.9 MW unit at the Dotternhausen Rohrbach Zement factory, which produces electricity as byproduct.[2] The only significant plan for the building of oil shale power station is in Jordan (Jordan oil shale power station); however this project is still in the planning stage. Also Morocco is looking for a oil shale-fired power plant, but this is just an idea at the moment. Beagel (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I guess filling in Dotternhausen for now would do. :) Kind regards. Rehman 09:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, please see a new article on Umid gas field. It's a newly discovered and second largest. See if you can add more information. Thanks! Tuscumbia (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, Congratulations on bringing this informative article up to FA standard... Johnfos (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Beagel, Congratulations on improving Shale oil extraction up to a Featured Article. H Padleckas (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't userfy it, otherwise that defeats the point of G5 deletion (in my view) because the original banned author would then still get credit for the resulting reworked article. However, the one ref on the page was this and the one external link was this. Hope this helps. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox power station 
| name               = Rice Solar Energy Project
| official_name      = 
| image              = 
| image_size         = 
| image_caption      = 
| image_alt          = 
| location_map       = California
| location_map_width = 
| location_map_text  = 
| lat_d     = 
| lat_m     = 
| lat_s     = 
| lat_NS    = 
| long_d    = 
| long_m    = 
| long_s    = 
| long_EW   = 
| coordinates_type   = type:landmark
| coordinates_display= inline,title
| coordinates_ref    = 
| country            = United States
| locale             = [[Riverside County, California]]
| status             = P
| construction_began = 
| commissioned       = 2013 (expected)
| licence_expires    = 
| decommissioned     = 
| cost               = 
| owner              = 
| operator           = 
| developer          = Rice Solar Energy, LLC
| constructor        = 
| solar_farm_type    = CSP
| csp_technology     = 
| csp_units          = 
| heliostats         = 
| thermal_power_solar= 
| cpvt               = 
| turbine_manu_csp   = [[SolarReserve]]
| land_area          = 
| installed_capacity = 
| max_planned_cap    = 150
| capacity_factor    = 
| average_annual_gen = 450
| net_generation     = 
| website            = [http://ricesolarenergy.com/ www.ricesolarenergy.com]
| as_of              = 19 December 2010
| extra              = 
}}

{{Solar power in the United States}}

[[Category:Energy resource facilities in California]]
[[Category:Proposed solar power stations in the United States]]

{{Renewable-power-plant-stub}}
{{US-powerstation-stub}}

There we go, this is what you added to it. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 14:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NASDAQOMXCommodities logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you help me to improve this article - Neft Daşları? I think there is few errors and I would appreciate your help.--NovaSkola (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have improved this article significantly. Is there any specific topic you are particularly concerned? Beagel (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]