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

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess everyone has an opinion now about you and Johnphos and the others mentioned Lawrence Khoo and that fisher guy. No doubt there is good and bad in that http://www.archive.org/details/EssayInformationOnTechnocracyDesignAndHowItIsPortrayedOnWikipedia

Personally I think you are only doing your duty of defending the correct procedure and I do not think your part of an editing team. Beamer guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.41.61 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! I need advice on what to do now. I am new to the wiki and have a disagreement with an editor over an external link. He recently pruned the external links, leaving only advocacy and educational links. He is accusing me of "some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising." (disclosure, the site removed was mine so there may be a COI issue) First, the link was in the external links list for several years and traffic it generated was much less than 1% so it's not about advertising. I posted it because it offers a perspective that is either not possible or ignored on the wiki page. Please note that the site does not violate any of the WP:ELNO. Now the editor has shifted to using both WP:SPS and WP:EL to justify his actions. Sorry to spew on you, but I need to know how to proceed. I also hope you understand the need for anonymoity at this stage to prevent an escallation in passion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick36502 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, I wonder if you would care to comment at Talk:Renewable energy#RFC: Which navbox to use?. Johnfos (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!,

I have improved the article and added a section. Also note that recently, a news article relating to the organization has been published which I believe does establish notability. I would really appreciate if you could have a look at the article. I would request your feedback before I move it to the main page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mecheng761/Zishan_Engineers

The news link is reference number 20.

Mecheng761 (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beagel, any idea how long does it normally take for one to get the reviews on his/her article in AFC? Mecheng761 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why the article was not accepted on premises that the differences from the two Afd ones are minor. From my understanding, the initial article was deleted due to no secondary referencing to establish notability. Do three newspaper references not establish notability? From our discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mecheng761/Zishan_Engineers , I thought this did establish notability and should have an article. Could you please let me know. Mecheng761 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will just need a little bit more time to check due the history of being previously deleted. I am quite sure it will be submitted. Beagel (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

okay. as of now it says that there are only minor differences from the Afd ones and the review has been completed without accepting it. The review has been completed and article has been declined. Should I resubmit it so that it comes under review again? Thanks for the help with news citations. Mecheng761 (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I opened another merge discussion about Heavy crude oil and Oil sands. I think that it's possible to establish consensus now, since the awareness has been raised by your clean-up of the Oil sands article. Also, I can confirm that User:RockyMtnGuy is an expert in this the and what he's said in the talk page is indeed true - there's not many differences between Heavy crude oil and Oil sands. Thanks! 1exec1 (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right Template:BM&F Bovespa, the ticket symbol has not been put. Therefore please correct that. I don't know the ticket symbol of Brazil's stock exchange.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did an amazing editing job on Hydraulic fracturing. Very precise!Smm201`0 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you explain what sort of format you would like to see on this article - my main problem is that the text is not currently written to make a clear distinction between "technical specifications" and "construction" as that would result in duplication of a lot of material. I also very much do not like short sections - ie ones that are only one or two sentences long - MOS tends to favour prose over heavy sectionalisation. Also the construction history overlaps the project ownership history too, which complicates things. Oranjblud (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just cleaning up the created mess. Still did not sorted out all the information. Lets use the standard headings and formating per WP:MOS. Beagel (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea it was a mess - why have you split different aspects of the construction? ie cable laying is in history but substation construction isn't - are you going to sort that out.? Please let me know when you have finished.Oranjblud (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me but can you just bloody stop - you've added zero content since I expanded the article, and the other stuff you've done is minor. It's not helping. It's a known guideline to group multiple references under a single note to avoid "citation overkill"

Please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter and the links thanks. I see you are trying to help but there is no need for the edits you are making now. Thanks.Oranjblud (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid WP:OWN. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem..

For what it's worth I see that the current two section structure is better than the single section I originally created. In future can you please discuss with me very briefly about what you want to do. This will be easier than "consensus through minor edit war".. I am likely to agree with what you say if you take the time to ask first. Thanks.Oranjblud (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, please avoid WP:OWN. Also, if you want to discuss the article, please do t at the article's talk page. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

diff my mistake - I didn't see your intermediate edit, when I saw that I had removed it I attempted to put it back in.Oranjblud (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before you move pages why don't you check facts eg http://www.thewindpower.net/windfarm_en_3042_viking.php there are two viking wind farms - also stop stalking my contributions if you can. You do that by not stalking my contributiuons. Thanks/Oranjblud (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop messing up my talk page with false warnings. I already asked this and I hope you respect my request. If you want discuss the article, please to this at the article's talk page. As for page move, there is no article about the other Viking project. If there will be , lets discuss then but right now per WP:TITLE there is no need for this (pls see my edit summary). As for stalking, please stop this nonsense as I am not stalking you. Energy search results are on my watch list and I am regularly checking new pages find by bot. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel - Please could you confirm that you are now content with the way I have extracted the information from the profit & loss account on page 13. It is not easy to show nil revenue so I have changed it to "0". Further details are on my talk page. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing this move of yours at the help desk, here. Please consider adding your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added my comments there. Beagel (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article 'Belarusian nuclear power plant project' has some dead links that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix them?

Dead: http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=12258438&PageNum=0

• You added this in August 2008.
• The bot tested this link on 15 March, 17 March, 19 March and today, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Dead: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/industry/Belarus_nuclear_plant_gets_Russian_credit-120607.shtml

• You added this in August 2008.
• The bot tested this link on 15 March, 17 March, 19 March and today, but it never worked.
• This copy from the archives might be good.

These links are marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the 3RR rule on the Hydraulic fracturing page.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this nonsense. I am tired of you disruptive behavior and POV pushing. Please cooperate to bring this article in line with the Wikipedia quality standards and please stop giving false notices and calling names. Beagel (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, thanks a lot for your welcome message you left on my talk page.

I have a question regarding articles about solar power plants. As you are active in the Energy Project, you might be able to give me an answer: How much in-depth info is desired in articles about solar power plants? Only basic info, lets say capacity and used modules? Or any info I can get like inverter, racking system, any additional special feature?

I'm looking forward to your answer, maybe I can contribute to some more power plant articles. -- Consectatio (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There is no any unified requirements which information about solar plants should be included. Basic info for sure, but if there is information about more specific details such as inverters etc, it also belongs to the article. The most important thing is that this information should be supported by reliable sources. I hope this answer is helpful and I hope to see you contributing also for other articles. Beagel (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article 'Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://www.petronas.com.my/intranet/ascope/ascope.nsf/3b269571c10e71e5482568960033edc8/d9b2645688f00ced48256b05001451f1/$FILE/Myanmar.pdf

• You added this in January 2009.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the west australian project did in the past have a sort of interpreter or two of the labyrinthian if not byzantine pile of weird company changes in the energy sector - but it seems as though they no longer edit or no longer interested... both the gas and electricity ownership and shenanigans need careful unfolding like some rubrics cube needing interpretation - to get an easy explanation might require going piece by piece through online financial press records - which i am not sure how to do - sorry cannot help more... re alinta et al SatuSuro 09:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting that figured out. INeverCry 19:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, thanks for correcting my mistake and removing the flags from the infoboxes, I had no idea (on the Italian wiki works the other way round) and will rememeber in future. Just one question: Why does it say that it starts in Malta and not Sicily? The interconnector will bring electricity from Ragusa's exsiting substation to Maghtab and the rest of the island. It's Sicily that has a overproduction of electricity and not Malta and I would have thought that the "main" flow of the current would have to be considered. Thnaks.--Sal73x (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The interconnector will work both ways, so both ends are correct. Putting Malta as a starting point is for the reason that the project is implemented by the electricity company of Malta. Beagel (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I get why the above and I understand that if the project exist is because Malta needs electricity and is Malta connecting to the Italian grid but all the Italian documents say Italia-Malta (example: here, here) and it is really unlikely that Malta will ever supply energy to Sicily. Are there rules like for for the roads where in wiki.it they generally get listed north-south? Just to have a future reference. I have tried to find some official documents from an external point of view (not Maltese nor Italian) but even the EU docs available on-line are saying Malta-Sicily, Italy-Malta, Sicily-Malta, Malta-Italy and don't help to clarify the order. And last, would it not be more correct to say Italy instead of Sicily? Thanks.--Sal73x (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no that kind of rule by my knowledge. However, as I said it is correct to say both ways, so if you feel that it would be better other way around, I have no objections. Beagel (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Beagel. It's only a detail and the substance doesn't change. I rather wait and see for the next developments of the project on find some official documents. Thanks again.--Sal73x (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your deletion, Rosie and I have moved it to Uranium mining in Namibia and removed most of the essay. Best solution would now be to delete the capital letter original title and close AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.

There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.

The new energy outlines are:

• Outline of solar energy
• Outline of wind energy

Please take a look at them, and....

if you spot missing topics, add them in.

if you can, improve the descriptions.

add missing descriptions.

show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).

fix errors.

For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.

Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.

Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...

As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking {{Main}} links, etc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: see also Outline of energy

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Shandong Energy at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for my welcome to wikipedia. The Template:Infobox dam is protected. Can you tell me, please, how to add new foreign language link cs:Šablona:Infobox přehrada to the english template? Thanks: Karel61 (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Karel. I added interwiki link in Czech language to this template. Just for your information that in case of templates, the interwiki links should not be added to the template, but the template documentation which is usually unprotected.

Many thanks. There is a little confusion of interwiki links in this template. For instance the Template:Infobox dam contains fifteen interwiki links but the adequate German template Vorlage:Infobox Stausee ten ones. I do not understand, why the template links are not updated automatically as in other parts of wikipedia. With best regards: Karel61 (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just thought I'll clarify why I do these bold redirects. There isn't an issue of merge here, since this all started with User:Musukundan (which is now indef blocked) copy pasting Tamil Nadu Electricity Board into three articles, TNEB Limited, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited and Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited (without attribution of course). He then removed some parts, but in essence introduced very little new material, if at all. As I oppose this bold "split" I reverted it, and per WP:BRD, if the editor still wishes to split, they can start discussion. There is therefore no need to discuss the merge, there is need to discuss the split. There is also zero material to merge anyway, since this is just the material which was split originally. I hope I am making myself clear, it is a bit late. --Muhandes (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you and at the moment your action seems to be the best solution. Beagel (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree. I find that an ounce of explanation saves a pound of edit warring so was just playing it safe. The editor was indef-blocked until they get to their senses (which I hope they'll do). --Muhandes (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in view of your interest in the BP article you might be interested in the current discussion on the Dispute resolution noticeboard about the article lead: [[1]].Rangoon11 (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagle,

Wanted to ask you to join us as we try to rework the BP intro. We're working specifically on the third paragraph and making sure no bias exists in the Lede, and the article in general. Your help would be greatly appreciated. petrarchan47^Tc 20:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Your suggestion for adding to the History of BP was good, and there is no dispute over adding it. Sorry no one addressed it in the Dispute Resolution. I would suggest to go ahead and make the changes. petrarchan47^Tc 00:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beagle, I could not find the talk page section discussing why BP loss of half their stock price after the Gulf spill was not appropriate for the article. Can you point me to it? petrarchan47^Tc 01:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the relevant discussion. Beagel (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I wasn't clear, I was referring to this. petrarchan47^Tc 21:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean. Beagel (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you copy and paste the exact text you're referring to? petrarchan47^Tc 22:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found it. I've replied to you at the talk page. petrarchan47^Tc 23:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beagel,

I work for the communications team of Dolphin Energy, and have tried to update the details to reflect current position of the company. I have been careful to use objective and factual information from the Dolphin Energy website, and cited third party sources where applicable.

On uploading the details, I have noticed that you have edited and reverted to the original content. I am unclear why this is. Has there been an oversight on our part?

I am keen to receive your feedback, so we may take this forward.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saranadnoam (talk • contribs) 04:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Wikipeadia is an encyclopedia not a tool for corporate promotion. Copied text from the company website was clearly promotional and not encuclopedic. Second, the text at the company website is copyrighted which is not suitable for Wikipedia. Even if you say you work for the company, it does not mean you necessarily have permissions to add this text here. For copyright issues, please see WP:COPYRIGHT. Third, by your copy-paste edit you removed all wiki-formattings (links etc) in this article. Fourth, as a member of the communications team of Dolphin Energy, you have conflict of interest and therefore, according to the Wikipedia policies, you should avoiding (mass) editing of articles related to your organization. I encourige you to add proposed changes to the talk page of the article and let other editors to decide which changes to implement. Please see WP:COI to learn how to avoid conflict of interest. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your response Beagle. We will definitely look into this and ensure our edits are more suited to wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saranadnoam (talk • contribs) 06:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Scarabeo 9 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

corrected the spelling of the title, not sure why you moved it back. Hoping you could shed some light on this? S1id3r0 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TITLE. Beagel (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that

Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun

Hydraulic Fracturing, is indeed a proper noun. see:

Proper_noun > nominal

If it was being used as a industry term it would be hydro-fracturing not the two word phrase in the title, it has only just started to be used in this way, primarily in the media (on each side of the controversy). So there for it is a phrase, acting as a proper noun. Fracturing - would be an entirely separate process, normal assumed to be "naturally occurring". as you can see: correctly referred to on the Fracture_(geology) page. As you can see by a simple google search, the community seems to agree: https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&client=ubuntu&channel=cs&ie=UTF-8&q=hydraulic+fracturing+

S1id3r0 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policy talks about proper name, not about proper noun. This is not a proper name. I also would like to ask you to continue the discussion at the article talk page. Beagel (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	energy
	Thank you for renewing energy with energy - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this gem and your kind words. Beagel (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel. I have suggested an addition to the Consol Energy article. I noticed you have done some editing to the article in the past, so I was hoping you could take a look at it. As disclosed on the talk page, I have a WP:COI, and I would appreciate any help. Thanks. Namk48 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking out the addition Beagel. Due to my WP:COI I am limiting my activity to suggesting additions. Could you possibly implement the addition? Thanks. Namk48 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meclee (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Vladimir Pavlovich Makeev, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.itera.ru/isp/print_eng?page_id=236.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beagel,

Above mentioned page has been a place for dispute. It is now given references and citations. I've also removed the tags which you've placed. May I request you to visit and voice out. --BabuOnWiki (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, I wonder if you could look at the CCS page please. A new editor is trying to do a "major rewrite", with the subsequent loss of much sourced material, instead of just editing the article in the usual way. A Talk page comment from you would be greatly appreciated. Johnfos (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at proposed image change. Delphi234 (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, I expected somebody to notice my change from Scotland, UK to only UK in the infoboxes. My interest is to make these boxes consistent and clear. I noticed that some had only UK, while clearly located in Scotland. I'm fine with Scotland too, but it should be consistent. There seems to be a lot of discussion on whether Scotland is a country or not. My suggestion would be either to use Scotland or UK, not Scotland, UK. And since UK is larger, I chose the latter. Ligtvoet (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Scarabeo 8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nassau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, I noticed your comments on the BP Talk page. Since you seem interested in helping to add more useful information to the BP article, I wondered if you would be able to review proposed material regarding the company's operations? In my user pages I have prepared a new draft for the US operations. If you're able, I welcome your review and ask that you make any comments on the BP Talk page where I have also added a request. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I answered to you at the BP's talk page. Beagel (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Scarabeo 8 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not putting in explanations. I am new to editing, and I started with the complete reformatting and rewriting of the Energy Charter Treaty article, because it was and still is in a horrible shape.

I wanted to make the map larger as to see, at least a bit, which nations participate in the multilateral treaty that the energy charter is, you know the primary purpose of a map. I apologize, when I re-edit a change by another editor I will provide explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainad (talk • contribs) 13:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paraguaná Refinery Complex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Universal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		Dear Beagel, You are an outstanding editor and I award you this Superior Scribe Barnstar in recognition of all your excellent efforts. Since you began editing in 2006, you have created a large number of FA and GA articles, especially in the area of Oil shale. As de-facto leader of WikiProject: Energy and the main contributor to the Energy Portal, you have made an enormous contribution to expanding horizons in the energy subject area. You interaction with other editors is always polite and helpful. Thank you for all your good work! Johnfos (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Beagel (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beagel, Thanks for the correction on the Environmental impact of the oil shale industry. I thought hydraulic fracturing was used for instance in the Bakken formation. That is how I understand the Bakken formation article. Is that not the case?

Thank you!

Julienbc (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bakken shale is not oil shale. While the Green River Formation includes oil shale, the Bakken Formation is oil bearing shale. Oil shale is a solid sedimentary rock which contains kerogen from which synthetic shale oil could be produced. Oil bearing shales are shales containing natural gas or natural oil (rude oil) reservoirs. The gas produced from these shales are known as shale gas while produced oil is known as tight oil. For latter, the term shale oil is also sometimes used, but this is incorrect as the term 'shale oil' has been used in the meaning of synthetic oil produced from oil shale since the work of Selique and Young in the 19th century. It is also terms used by scientific journals, including Oil Shale journal, and industries.

Definition of shale oil by Britannica: "shale oil, in fossil fuel production, either a synthetic crude oil that is extracted from oil shale by means of pyrolysis or a naturally occurring crude oil that is extracted from underground shale deposits by means of fracking (hydraulic fracturing)."

The analysis in Forbes U.S. Might Have More Oil Resources Than Saudi Arabia, But... The Difference Between Oil Shale and Oil-Bearing Shale says: "The oil that is being produced from these [Bakken and Eagle Ford] shale formations is sometimes improperly referred to as shale oil. ... This oil is properly called “tight oil“. ... The term shale oil has been used for over 100 years to describe a very different resource."

I hope that helps. Beagel (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It helps indeed! I got confused between 'oil shale' and the improper use of 'shale oil'... I will stick to the term 'tight oil' from now on to avoid confusion.

Thanks a lot! Julienbc (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phillips 66, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COOP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagle, I noticed a while back that you set the BP talk page archival to 60 days. Since we are in such a heated debate there it does seem a good idea. Now the bot is archiving things at 20 days. Could you change it back to 60? I have no idea how that's done. petrarchan47tc 01:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was set for 20 days not by me. However, I strongly support to keep shorter archiving period at the moment and set it back for longer period when the talk page is becoming less dynamic. Before it was set for 20 days, there were 28 discussion sections. At the moment there are 20 discussion sections. It is too much for easy navigation at the talk page and keeping the whole talk page readable. I think that all active participants watch this article actively, so there is probably no problem with archiving the discussion if during almost three weeks nobody bothered to comment. Beagel (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sure does make sense, however it was for the mediation team, not for the present group of editors that I thought it would be helpful. petrarchan47tc 20:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, Beagle, are you happy to go ahead and file the mediation? I think all the major players are on board, it should be fine to do, and none too soon :) petrarchan47tc 23:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make both comments? One was unsigned and the next one was indented. Sorry for that. ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gazprom Neft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convert (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of companies in the nuclear sector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EDF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I seem to have some free time these days... What's the fields you'd like to be added? Feel free to post the suggestion here, my talkpage, or at the infobox talkpage. I'll do my best in putting it together bit-by-bit everyday. I finish work early these days heheh. :D See you around. Rehman 08:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I meant wave farm specific fields. I try to find the old discussion about this topic and will post my proposals later today or tomorrow. But of course, your ideas about wave farm specific fields are most welcome. Beagel (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) Rehman 09:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started relevant discussion here. Beagel (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal to upmerge Category:Nuclear power by country and subcategories (4) to Category:Nuclear energy by country Hugo999 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some discussions, I might support a rename of Category:Energy infrastructure by year of completion to Category:Power infrastructure by year of completion. I just wonder if this would be ambiguous. So if you have a better idea drop me a note. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I understand the reason for this renaming. Renaming these categories will exclude pipelines, refineries, LNG plants, oil terminals etc. That means that we should create a separate category tree for these facilities which by my understanding is unnecessary (at the moment). Also, that means we should change a parent directory (Category:Energy infrastructure) for these categories. In overall, without more arguments I would oppose this proposal. Is there any open Cfd about this proposal? Beagel (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No open CfD, but the current one (power v energy) got me to thinking which is not always a good thing. I felt it was better to ask since I'm still creating and adding to this part of the structure. I think a lot more remains to be found and added so better to proceed in the right direction. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion power versus energy is quite complicated but in case of infrastructure the distinction is more easier to establish. I think that probably we should continue at the moment with Category:Energy infrastructure by year of completion and later, if necessary, it is possible to create subcategories Category:Power infrastructure by year of completion and Category:Fuel infrastructure by year of completion. But at the moment I personally don't see any urgent need for this. Beagel (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and I'm not sure when those would be populated. The biggest problem to this seems to be the fact that many buildings and structures are not being placed in any by year category or in by year categories that are not in the building and structure trees. So what you find by combing through the building and structures tree is only the tip of the iceberg. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West–East Gas Pipeline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rolls-Royce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, I'm hoping I can get your help on a BP draft again. A few days ago I posted a new request and a draft for the BP Alternative Energysection. The draft is in my user space here: User:Arturo at BP/Alternative Energy and the request on the talk page explains the changes I've made. Also, I posted a second short request below that looking for help removing outdated information from the United States operations section. I'd appreciate help with that request too. If you have any questions please leave them on the talk page and I'll respond there. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, the draft has now been reviewed by Rangoon11 but not moved into the article yet. If you're able to, would you mind reviewing and moving it into the BP article if you agree with her assessment that it is an improvement on the current section wording? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of companies in the nuclear sector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karlstein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beagel. Thank you for your article on Tallinn Power Plant. I have nominated it for DYK. You may want to monitor the nomination template in case reviewers there have any questions or requests for you regarding the article. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Many congratulations on reaching this milestone! You are already at 33 and counting. Your energetic contributions to Wikipedia have featured in the DYK column of the Main Page and are greatly appreciated by the community. Moonraker (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, thanks for your review of the Worldwide / Other countries draft that I proposed last week. Since then I have made some of the changes you suggest and left a longer reply to explain these on the BP Talk page. Would you mind taking another look at the draft now? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Beagel, have you been able to look at the updated Other countries draft and my reply on the BP Talk page? There have not been any other comments, so I will also ask Rangoon11 to review the draft. I hope one of you can move it into the article if it is suitable. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this later today. Beagel (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still very new here, so apologies if I should have posted this elsewhere. The energy related articles concerning Belgium were in my opinion a disorganized mess of incomplete, random, outdated, or even false factoids. I spent some effort trying to improve mainly Nuclear energy in Belgium, Energy in Belgium, Wind power in Belgium and lesser additions to related pages. For the first I took your remarks on the talk page into consideration. Because I perceived the articles to be in a serious state of neglect, I made invasive changes, perhaps more than my new-ness warrants. As such I was wondering if you have the time to determine whether or not I'm actually helping. Pinfix (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are doing good work on improving these articles. Keep going and if you have any further question, please don't hesitate to contact me. Beagel (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of companies in the nuclear sector, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rio Tinto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lund deserves an own page. However, I will not start any new pages before Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell is solved (see User talk:Arctic.gnome#Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell). Now I am not suppose to be here. However, I find the actual statistics relevant for the climate change 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference COP18 Doha climate change conference taking place from 26 November to 7 December 2012. [2] Watti Renew (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken you did some cleanup at Jatropha and Jatropha oil quite some time ago. Please comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jatropha#Why_the_merge.3F --Pjacobi (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi user please i request u not redirect TNEB Limited to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. because both are different organisation. so different articles are needed ...to know more see official website of TNEB Limited.................Muniyankaruppan (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring the company is not itself a reason for a new article duplicating most of the information already presented in the existing article. Please try to explain at the talk page how the article is different from the existing one instead of reacreating it against of consensus. Beagel (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, thank you for your comments on my proposed draft for the Canadian oil sands section. I am hoping to get your input on the new, shorter version of the draft that I offered on the Talk page following your input. Martin Hogbin reviewed the new version several days ago and had no objections. When you have the time could you please take a look as well? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I answered at the article's talk page. Beagel (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, thank you again for looking at this request. Since it seems that you and Martin Hogbin are in agreement regarding my shortened version, I was wondering if you would be able to use it to replace the existing section if Hogbin hasn't already done so? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

regarding this article redirection please don't redirect this article TNEB Limited to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board both are separate entity ..........thanking you Muniyankaruppan (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus that these article should be merged. It is the same entity, just restructured, and this alone is not a reason for separate articles. Please explaine at the article's talk page why a separate article is needed when it still contains the same information (mainly about restructuring). Also, please do not copy-paste material into articles as you did, this is copyvio and is not toelrated in the Wikipedia. Also, please do not make a copy-paste page moves. If the move is needed, use a special function for this. And again, please discuss it. Beagel (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Glen Davis Shale Oil Works at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, thanks for commenting on my request to remove the Mist mountain project subsection from the BP article. Aside from you and BozMo, there haven't been any other comments. Since you both agree on removing the section, I wondered if you would be willing to remove it if BozMo hasn't already done so? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited London Array, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pound (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kashagan Field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

Shenergy Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wujing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi You May help me to create a Page on Neyveli Power plant Perumalism (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Perumalism. Please go forward and prepare the draft. I definitely will take a look. Beagel (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, thanks for assisting on my creation of the page AP Bank. I wanted to create AP Bank rather than Ap bank but wasn't sure how so I'm delighted you did, could you advise me for the future how to do so? Then, I fixed all the disambiguation links, so the next issue is you tagged it as an advert, I've ensured there are a lot of legitimate external third party references and thought the tone was very factual, could you advise me on other elements that I could improve to remove this tag? Much appreciated. Readyforlara (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Readyforlara. As for page titles, when creating an article you just should use upper case where apprapriate and the title will be shown exactly as you typed. If you want to change the title (due to incorrect spelling, uppercase etc) you should use the 'move' function on the topof your page and type in the opening window the new title. This function works if the new title is not already occupied by something else. If it happens, the page should be listed according to WP:RM. As for advert, I will take a look later. In general, there is no big problems but I had a feeling that some minor wordings etc may need some work. Beagel (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagle, I think I can find cached versions of most articles. However, it would help tremendously if you would post the articles you've tagged with "dead link" in a list on the talk page. Otherwise, one has to scroll through the edit history - which is incredibly time consuming. Thanks for finding these, by the way. petrarchan47tc 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to copy links at the talk page as all these links now marked with a small dead-link-tag and therefore they are easy to find. Beagel (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tags don't appear until the link is clicked on, but I can do a "find in page" search to find them. Cheers petrarchan47tc 04:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, I bet the reason I can't see the tags is that I'm using an iPhone. Nevermind. petrarchan47tc 04:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Atomenergoprom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nuclear energy

Energoatom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nuclear energy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neyveli Thermal Power Station Perumalism Chat 15:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I expanded it. Beagel (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on Neyveli Thermal Power Station Thanks Perumalism Chat 13:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hii I think that we have to merge Kothagudem Thermal Power Station and Kothagudem Thermal Power Station V Stage article Perumalism Chat 17:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I merged these articles and updated. Beagel (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Eletronorte, 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 encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. I am One of Many (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Eletronuclear, 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 encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. I am One of Many (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi Neyveli Thermal Power Station 1 and Neyveli Thermal Power Station 2 coordinate different location so we have to create difference page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perumalism (talk • contribs) 08:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. It would be enough to have just two infoboxes in on article, e.g. see Narva Power Plants. Beagel (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]