User talk:Beagel/archive2011

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

sock

I noticed this and wondered if you started proper investigation. --Muhandes (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Based on recreation of almost identical copy of deleted article on Zishan Engineers, it seems to be quite clear WP:DUCK. As there is no block or ban involved, I did not see any reason to start a formal procedure. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my question is why is there no block involved? And what's the point of the sock suspicion tag if no block is involved? Please don't take this as criticism, this is just me learning the ropes. I thought when one editor tags another editor with sock suspicion this should be followed by investigation and block. --Muhandes (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was misuse of multiple accounts by my understandings as there was no links provided between accounts. However, beside that there were no major violation such as block evasion or voting. In this case I prefer to believe in good faith that the person is just not aware of the WP:SOCK policy and the tag is sufficient to remind the editor not to use multiple accounts or to disclosure the link between accounts. Unfortunately it seems that this is not the case. Beagel (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so this was a sort of warning/notice. Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mekong Dams

Regarding the de-proding, I explained myself here as to why. I am curious as to where you disagree. Somewhat similar to WP:NALBUM, I don't think we should have articles on planned dams unless they are an international controversy. Plenty of countries have larges dams planned and some go up, some don't and some are just on hold for decades. For those articles which it applies, I think if Wikipedia had an article for every planned dam International Rivers (or other similar groups) were against, we'd also end up with POV issues as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not de-proded all dams you tagged. However, for these I de-proded I explained my reasons at the edit summary. The fact that the dam is still in the project stage does not mean automatically that it is not notable. However, if necessary the broader consensus may be established through the WP:AfD procedure. Beagel (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will reexamine those soon here and if needed bring em' to AfD. I tend to be an inclusionist but I don't think a bunch of proposed dams are necessarily notable enough for stand-alone articles. I agree with you that planned doesn't mean it isn't notable and I wouldn't have done the same with let's say the Belo Monte Dam which is internationally renowned through independent sources as controversial.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


BritNed

I wondered why you reverted the INTNED information as SPAM? It's technical information quite difficult to locate on the Elexon site(s) and useful for real-time stats as BritNed comes on-stream in April.

I don't wish to undo your undo and start some sort of edit war, but that is bona fide useful relevant spec.

79.135.97.81 (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link may be suitable on the external links section, but added like this into the main text it qualifies as a promotion and spam. Beagel (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you say but I'd like to assure you that there's no commercial or other gain in it for me or anyone else (!) and I was unable to find a decent reference doc (nor indeed proper confirmation from Elexon).

I've had another go, ie linked to the PDF 'changes' doc: see if you feel that that is better...

79.135.97.81 (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 5, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 5, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shell's experimental in-situ oil shale facility, Piceance Basin, Colorado

Shale oil extraction is an industrial process for unconventional oil production. This process converts kerogen in oil shale into shale oil by pyrolysis, hydrogenation, or thermal dissolution. The resultant shale oil is used as fuel oil or upgraded to meet refinery feedstock specifications by adding hydrogen and removing sulfur and nitrogen impurities. Shale oil extraction is usually performed above ground (ex situ processing) by mining the oil shale and then treating it in processing facilities. Other modern technologies perform the processing underground (on-site or in situ processing) by applying heat and extracting the oil via oil wells. The earliest description of the process dates to the 10th century. The industry shrank in the mid-20th century following the discovery of large reserves of conventional oil, but high petroleum prices at the beginning of the 21st century have led to renewed interest. As of 2010, major long-standing extraction industries are operating in Estonia, Brazil, and China. Its economic viability varies with the ratio of local energy input costs to energy output value. National energy security issues have also played a role in its development. Critics of shale oil extraction pose questions about environmental management issues, such as waste disposal, extensive water use and waste water management, and air pollution. (more...)

Beagel, Congratulations again on Shale oil extraction, this time for having this Featured Article (of which you are the main author) shown on the English Wikipedia front page. H Padleckas (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Also your contributions helped to achieve this. Beagel (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful! How're your nerves? It wasn't too bad this time, eh - the vandalbots help a lot. What's your next one? Novickas (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Novickas. As I said, without you this article unlikely achieved the FA status. In longer term, I have an ambition to have oil shale as WP:FT, but this needs a lot of work with a number of articles. Because of personal reasons I don't think that I will be able to start any serious work with any of these articles in this winter/spring, but will see. Maybe we could have a next target bringing your child Shale oil to GA level? Beagel (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, I remember feeling that I'd exhausted the shale oil resources, although there were of course some that treated specific oils in an extremely detailed and technical manner; it seemed hard to integrate those. If you have any organizational ideas and/or sources, pls let me know. Best, Novickas (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_offshore_wind_farms

Thanks for un-doing my screwup... wanted to add the first US offshore wind farm to the "notable" list, and it looked good when I saw a preview, but then when I saved, it screwed up the formatting. Couldn't figure out what I did wrong! Should I try to add again, or not bother? --82.170.203.75 (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Aras Dam

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nice DYK, I was surprised. Regarding the Iran dam AFD, it closed as no consensus. I was thinking of redirected the articles to List of power stations in Iran. I thought an acceptable consensus was to at least redirect all but Azad and Aras Watershed Dams.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of windmills in the Netherlands

Hi Beagel, thanks for your notice of my contribution in the energy project. Why did you delete Category:Electric power in the Netherlands from Category:Lists of windmills in the Netherlands [1]? In my opinion windmills were the early technology in the development of wind power and therefore, deserve a place here. Watti Renew (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Watti Renew. You have done a great job for creating all these Electric power in X categories. However, I don't see a relation between these categories. Theoretically, lists of windmills may belong to the electric power categories if listed windmills are/were used for power generation (which is not the case). However, even in this case they rather belong to the category of the relevant power stations and not directly to the electric power category. Also, I have mentioned that sometimes you have overcategorized some pages and categories. As a rule, each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. That mean to avoid a parent category if more specific category exists. For more information please see WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT. Beagel (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If windmills do not produce electricity at place, it is unrelevant. I try to check the relevance better. Watti Renew (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have correct, not main info in the Category:Electric power by country. If you feel the work useful, please join the team: Energy and electricity by country. This is an open invitation for everybody since Wiki’s power is the teamwork. The main article in the category is like: Electricity sector in Finland, Electricity sector in Sweden, Electricity sector in Norway, Electricity sector in Denmark, Electricity sector in Iceland, Electricity sector in the Netherlands, Electricity sector in Germany, Electricity sector in Canada etc. You see, the teamwork is essential. The English Energy project has done greate job, thanks. My intentions you may check from my sandbox: User:Watti Renew/Sandbox. Thanks for your help. Please feel free to give comments also in the future. The notice of your massage was super! I have never seen it before. Watti Renew (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pile of barnstars

A pile of them

I am so happy to see your calm, reasoned, and referenced contributions to energy related articles in these troubled times. Thank you! Novickas (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Renewable energy sources

I wonder if you could take a look at this template please. We've generally tried to take the IEA approach and follow IEA terminology, but a new editor has some other ideas. Johnfos (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of European countries gas supply cut.svg

Hey, I've recoloured the svg here. Anything I've missed? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beagel, thank you for your contribution in the article Eastlink. This link supports the new article: Electricity sector in Estonia. You are wellcomed to supplement this, if you like. Watti Renew (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will look it in coming days. However, some quick remarks:
  • Estonia is a member of the OECD since December last year. At the same time I don't think that information about the OECD or Soviet Union is relevant in this article.
  • Most of Estonia's electricity is produced by the oil shale-fired power plants. References may be found in Oil_shale_in_Estonia#Power_generation.
  • There is some confusion between energy and electricity. Electricity production of Estonia is bigger than own consumption as the country is a net exporter of electricity.
  • Data about wind energy share in electricity consumption is for 2008, not 2010 (figure 3.7, footnote 7).
  • information about being part of IPS/UPS system etc would be relevant to be added.
Beagel (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beagel, this was Super! Thanks!
* Since the OECD info is new and not clear for everyone, I find it relevant. This was quoted from IEA Key energy statistics. They found it relevant. As indicative numbers may be given for groups e.g. OECD and OECD may give country specific info, reference groups may have some relevance. I correct with no ref. As such, this is not a big issue for me. I do not mind changes.
* Oil shale explains the high CO2-emissions per capita in Estonia. I have read that Estonia has nevertheless even plans of new oil shale plants. This was the reason I started the article, even if not describing the point yet. My contribution is also some restricted. Thanks. Watti Renew (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The European wind capacity installed at end 2010 will, in a normal wind year (I consider that the footnote refer to definition only) produce 181 TWh of electricity, representing 5.3% of the EU’s gross final consumption.Wind in power 2010 European statistics 2/2011 p.4, 11
See also: EU Energy Policy to 20503/2011: p. 7, 43. Watti Renew (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work done!!! YOU DESERVE THIS

The Original Barnstar
Wow, I couldn't believe how you had remodeled by article FPSO Kwame Nkrumah. Totally awesome. Thanks for the work you did on it. Hope we can work on other projects. A friend called CrossTempleJay  → talk 20:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mr. Louie

Calmer Waters 06:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:VKG EV logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:VKG EV 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) 08:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PATH2RES

Hi. It appears that you nominated PATH2RES for deletion per AfD. However, the link to the AfD discussion is not working correctly. The link does not go to any discussion as far as I can tell. I thought you might be interested. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I clicked on the wrong link. I found it. Thanks anyway. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in Naftogaz

Hello! Why did you delete the following categories in Naftogaz Ukrainy:

Economy of Ukraine - Clearly, Naftogaz is closely related to the economy of Ukraine since it is, in effect, the largest company in the country.

Companies of Ukraine - Naftogaz is a "company of Ukraine"

Ukrainian brands - Ok, this category may be out of place, but it is added to virtually any article about Ukrainian company.
Best,

Invest in knowledge (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Categorization "Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch". The Naftogaz article already has a category:Oil and gas companies of Ukraine, which through category:Companies of Ukraine by industry is a subcategory of the category:Companies of Ukraine. At the same time, category:Companies of Ukraine is a subcategory of the category:Economy of Ukraine. Per WP:Categorization the most specific category among these three categories is category:Oil and gas companies of Ukraine, while two other a moore general and do not belong here. Talking about category:Ukrainian brands, this is really not applies to Naftogaz which is really not a brand as such per a brand definition. Beagel (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electric power in Finland

Hi Beagel , I found such an old change.[2] In my opinion the Category:Electric power in Finland deserves a place in the Category:Electric power in the European Union. What do you think? Since all the European Union countries are in the Europe, the above rule is not practical. Other European Union pages may rather link to this energy specific category. Therefore, in my opinion both Europe and EU specific energy categories are useful. Watti Renew (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we have, and still need, both categories— Category:Electric power in the European Union and Category:Electric power in Europe, the first one should be a subcategory of the second one, and all the EU countries' articles should be categorized only in the first one. Thank you bringing up this issue, I will go through all relevant articles. Beagel (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thanks Watti Renew (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parsifal EU

Thank you for your support for the European collaboration! I wonder if we could expand that more general topic, as proposed on the side of the deletion discussion of PARSIFAL Project EU. If the project survives I would try to rename it. It first had a mix of caps and others, then (for the EU) was all caps, but in later References rather "Parsifal" which is more WP style. If it doesn't it should at least appear, with some refs, under a common denominator such as Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. I am also concerned about several other EU projects but can't go after those also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetwater Wind Farm

Hello,

I am writing to you because I have seen that you have contributed to this article in the past. I would like to translate it in french (to make a link blue), but this article is poor and seems out of date. Is this wind farm finished? Do you have some additionnal informations? Thanks and Regards, Skiff (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Baku Initiative

The article Baku Initiative has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flag icons in infoboxes

In case you're not watching User talk:AnomieBOT, BRFA filed. Anomie⚔ 19:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean Sea location map

Hi, first of all thanks for all your helpful edits at Sarah and Myra et al. I'm starting an article on Block 12 (Cyprus) but am having difficulty getting the location map for the Mediterranean Sea to appear in the infobox. I've tried to follow what you did at Sarah and Myra but it's not working. Can you take a look? User:Biosketch/Block 12. Thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I extrapolated the coordinates from this image, by tracing a line westward from Israel's border with Lebanon and southward from that toe-like protrusion jutting out of Cyrpus' southern coast.—Biosketch (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if your Wikipedia email account's getting flooded now because of my messages here. At any rate, I figured out that the location_map field needs one word, and now it's working fine.—Biosketch (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gasoducto del Norte

Hi, in reference to the above, it's not clear to me why you did THIS and THIS. Those edits support a non-neutral article title and are a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.

I have never come accross you before that I remember, and it was perplexing to see that in your revert you made an invitation to "discuss" HERE but when I checked the Talk page for your discussion text there was none. This amounts to reverting without substance.

Maybe there is something you wish to discuss that you have so far not stated or clarified. Or maybe you just don't know enough about this subject (as shown in your multiple questionings HERE and HERE) which are common knowlege to folks familiar with the subject.

Thus if you can show how "making correct page move instead of the copy-paste move", as you stated HERE, constitutes violation of Wikipedia policy, or if you can provide a reasonable rationale for making an exception of the NPOV policy in this case (as allowed by THIS), then wonderful and please do so. Otherwise, please do not revert my edits in question again.

To address your curiosity, I had difficulty making the move via the automated tool, which is why I made the move manually. In the summary box HERE this is your most prominent objection. However, I know of no Wikipedia policy against that - if you do, go ahead and share it by all means.

I will shortly go ahead and reinstate the main article and its redirect to the form they were before your subsequent changes. Hopefully you will see the wisdom in not reverting a 2nd time without first discussing your objection as you did already.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Please see WP:MOVE, how to move the page under new title. Copy-paste moves are not allowed as this is not allow to preserve the page history. To change article for the new title in case the move may be controversial (and in this case it is controversial), please see instructions at WP:RM and please use template:requested move to create discussion. Beagel (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Wikipedia is not about "common knowlege to folks familiar with the subject", it is about reliability and verifiability. Therefore, all these statements a marked with "citation needed" actually need reliable sources for verification. Beagel (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern on the effects of the copy-move. I am glad you decided to address this head on and w/o further vacillation. However, and please don't take this personal, you missed the point when I made the observation about your multiple requests for citations. Check my edit history anywhere and everywhere and you will see I am a stickler for documentation (read: "reliability and verifiability"). The point there was that you were either not aware of or ignoring WP:common knowledge. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
I think that your interpretation of WP:common knowledge is not correct. There are several points listed and non of them are valid here. Saying that this is a project of the governor of Puerto Rico is not a common knowledge. Moreover, WP:common knowledge says that controversial claims (and this is a controversial claim about living person) "should most definitely not be left to common knowledge without citations." Beagel (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sakhalin–Khabarovsk–Vladivostok pipeline

Hello! You seem to be an expert in the topic. Could you help expanding the Sakhalin–Khabarovsk–Vladivostok pipeline article a bit more? I've nominated it on WP:ITN/C. GreyHood Talk 13:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Jayron32 19:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcoule Nuclear Site

I noticed that you updated the Infobox for the power generation element of this site. Should it not also include the Phénix fast breeder reactor? Skinsmoke (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against if the fast breeder reactor will be added to the infobox. As I myself don't knew so much about this site, you are welcome to go forward with this addition. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid I know even less about the site, and much less about the technical side. Haven't even got a clue what a Phénix reactor is. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naftogaz Ukraine

Hi! 1. Firstly the erratic page moves lead to the deletions of several of the redirects I set up.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naftogaz_Ukrainy&diff=450224542&oldid=450154956 you say it's controversial. I say it is not.

You said: "As a rule (with some exceptions), you don't translate company names, but use transliteration." - Usually that is NOT the case. You use the name used in English, i.e. Japan Airlines instead of Nihon Koku, Air China versus Zhōngguó Guójì Hángkōng Gōngsī. I read your rationale. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) says nothing that contradicts the practice I mentioned. The rationale is not correct.

Just because there was a previous discussion doesn't mean it had good foundation in Wikipedia practices. It was also an outdated discussion as MOSes change. The company clearly uses "Naftogaz of Ukraine" in its English materials. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Andrewa said: "Weak oppose, just on the grounds that no case was made by the nominator, see official names. Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)" So official names says that the official name is not always the best choice if there is another common name. I'll do you a favor. I'll look up English newspapers and see how they refer to the company. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there was previous move discussion with no consensus, the new move IS therefore potentially controversial and needs move discussion using Templated:Requested move. I also think that all double redirects were repaired by bots. I don't think that any redirects was deleted; however, if this happened I would apology if any of redirects was deleted. I also made my comment at the article's talk page that I support the move to Naftogaz. Beagel (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South East Europe Pipeline

Hi Beagel, how have you been? Created an article on new proposed South East Europe Pipeline. Please feel free to edit in once you get the news. Cheers. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AMSO & Genie Energy

Hi Beagel. I saw that you made multiple edits on the American Shale Oil page and thought you might be interested in helping create a page for its parent company, Genie Energy, which will be going public in at the end of this month. I work in the investor relations department at IDT Corp (parent company of Genie) and therefore do not think it's proper to create the page myself, but I have drafted a Wikipedia page for Genie Energy, which you can access here. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind looking it over and editing as you see fit before creating the page. I will be happy to work with you on this. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Yonatancantor (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Actually I have thought quite a long time to create a page on Genie Energy as an important player in the oil shale; however, for several reasons (mainly because of my lack of time and even more due to my laziness) I have not done that yet. I think thant your draft page is a perfect start. I will go through of this in coming days (probably on the weekend) but my first impression is that there is no big problems. So far, I only find some minor formatting and style issues, but nothing major. I will also check the references, and, if necessary, to try to find additional sources. I also appreciate that you are notified about your potential COI issue. This is the correct way to handle these issues and I think no problems should be on this ground. Best regards. Beagel (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It probably needs some additional third party reliable sources. Will look for it later. Beagel (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I glanced at the changes you made and it looks great so far, though I might ask if we can change a couple of things after you're through. Yonatancantor (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should clarify Vinegar's official title with Shell according to this: http://www.barrowandschuck.com/pdf/38-42%20chief%20scientists.pdf Jdkag (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yonatan's Genie page seems ready for publishing as regular article. I can do it if neither you nor Yonatan want to take the initiative.Jdkag (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved it from your page to the title Genie Energy. I still see some problems with the part of IDT Energy, which needs better and reliable third party references. There is also some discussions in media about the aggressive marketing methods of IDT Energy, so I think we should add also this information. Beagel (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beagel, I don't want to be overly aggressive, though I do have strong opinions about what AMSO and IEI are doing. It is not correct to say that IEI's pilot will be based on technology "similar" to that of Shell ICP. That implies that they have developed some independent technology, such as a new heating method or heating configuration, or new extraction method, etc. In their Shfela report, they cite statistics of Shell's 2005 trial to support their claim that they know exactly what they are doing, and the specifications of their planned pilot show that the pilot will have almost the identical configuration of Shell's 1995 pilot, with slightly larger well spacing and well depth. So the sentence should read, "IEI plans to use the Shell In Situ Conversion Process technology for its pilot project."82.166.158.90 (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The just can't use Shell ICP technology without getting license from Shell. So, they have to get a license or modify it in the way that does not violate IPR. So far, there is no talk with Shell about using their technology, so they definitely have to modify it. So, it could be the similar technology but not the same technology. Beagel (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Shell has patents in Israel, anyone is free to use their technology in Israel. One has to assume that there are no patents in Israel, given the specs that IEI has published for their pilot.Jdkag (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Anyway, while we may not be able to confirm whether or not IEI has rights to the technology or how they obtained those rights, what is clear from their published specs is that they are not planning to modify Shell's technology in any significant manner for their pilot.Jdkag (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Beagel/archive2011! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Gasoducto

In re to [3], what are you then proposing? We can't have two different translations for the same word in the same article. I am not picky which one we use - they both have the same translation; but we have to be consistent. 'My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Gasoducto del Norte

In re to [4], what criteria are you using to classify what is History and what is Recent Events? As a tip, keep in mind this is a project currently unfolding - making news almost daily- and I am afraid you are not weighting in on that. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC), and I approce this message[reply]

The line between the history and recent event is arbitrary, as it was in this article. By my understanding - if the event in notable to be added to the article, it should be notable also after one or ten year and therefore, it belongs to the history section even when happened just yesterday. The only exemption should be ongoing events which may have very fast developments which change the situation very rapidly. Beagel (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish

Was just wondering, how's your Spanish? For some time now I have been wondering if AEE or Ecoelectrica will be running this pipeline once (if) in place, but I am not able to determine that from the news reports, and think the article sorely needs this. If you have fairly good Spanish, could you take a look a this >>> [5], which I believe has the answer, but I am not sure either. Who will own it? who will manage it? who will operate it? who will liquify the gas? who will transmit it through the 92 miles? or, Will it be run contracted out, etc, etc, ect. You can leave your answer here - I'll check back later. Thnaks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

My Spanish is very limited related just to some very specific terminology. However, by my understanding, the LNG and regasification is EcoEléctrica. There is also some information about this in the EcoEléctrica's article. However, it is not clear who will own and operate the pipeline. By my understanding AEE, but I am not sure. Beagel (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oil shale in Israel

Hello! Your submission of Oil shale in Israel 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! ResMar 23:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report

Hello, The name of a page I created which was called the Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report has been renamed to Foster Natural Gas Report. I believe you made this change. Could you please change it back to Foster Natural Gas/Oil report. The publication used to be called Foster Natural Gas Report. But in August it entered the oil industry and has since been renamed Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report. However, it is still the same publication being produced by the same team and used by resources such as LexisNexis and Factiva. Thank you for all of your help and contributions. I greatly aprreciate your support. --Katya Foster (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be. However, there are search results for Foster Natural Gas Report but no mentioning Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report outside of Wikipedia. According to WP:TITLE, the name which is commonly used/best known should be used. If you could provide reliable sources saying that the report has a new name, it is worth to consider moving this page back to the previous title. Otherwise, if the article survives AfD, it has to use the name for which we have third party sources. Beagel (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the sources are old and need to be updated. The name of the report has been changed in August 2011. You are writting information which is outdated. Would you like to speak to the editor of the report? I could put you in touch. I am sure he would be happy to expalain to you what the report is about, where to find more information about it, why it has been renamed, etc. But please put the title back to what it was. I called it the Foster Natural/Gas Oil Report for a reason. The reason is that this is its true name. I thank you for all of your help and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information in Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. At the moment, there is no single source saying that this report has changed its name. Even Foster's own website gives the name Foster Natural Gas Report only.[6] Also, if the report is better known by its previous name, the TITLE should use this. Of course, in this case the name has to mentioned in the text with a reference to reliable source. Beagel (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the report was changed in AUGUST 2011. It is now only NOVEMBER!!! If you do not believe me, I would be happy to put you in touch with the editor. However, if you continue to make changes to the page which are wrong, out of date, etc. without any warning or even consultation, I will have to report this as vandalism. Thank you. --Katya Foster (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before making accusations and giving baseless warnings, please read the relevant policies I referred above. You are always welcome to ask for help and explanations, if needed. However, if your only purpose is just to promote this report and push your POV without civil discussion and following relevant policies, I rather prefer if you do not do this at my talk page. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion discussion is not linked from renaming, probably due to renaming and rescue, but should be, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ESCOs

I saw that you did some of the initial work on the Energy Service Company entry. The entry focuses only on energy consulting companies, whereas ESCO in the US has come to mean a utility reseller. This connotation should be mentioned prominently. The whole entry needs to be cut significantly and include a section on the reseller connotation. Or should we create two entries?Jdkag (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions to this article have been more like "housekeeping" edits, not initial. But I agree with you that it needs some cleanup and the prose should be trimmed. I prefer if different type of ESCOs are included in the same article. Beagel (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
For your work rescuing and improving Willbros Group‎. Thanks. Sparthorse (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oil shale in Israel

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Eletrobrás Furnas

Moved. A reason why admins should close these discussions. But since everyone was in favor the decision was obvious. Enjoy. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Oil shale in Morocco

Hello! Your submission of Oil shale in Morocco 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! Norstrem (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oil shale in Morocco

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Oil shale in Morocco

Hi there...I m sorry buddy that i may not be able to copyed the article....My Work keeps me too busy these days and i rarely find time to contribute to wikipedia these days...but let me c what i can do...Maybe i can glance over the article over a weekend...but i would advise you to request some other copyeditor also...Gprince007 (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This issue with this article was resolved, but once more, thank you for your kind proposal. Beagel (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:FPSO vessels

Category:FPSO vessels, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 04:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDF Luminus

Hi Beagel,

I work for the Corporate Communications department at EDF Luminus in Belgium. This week, our company changed its name from SPE into EDF Luminus. I would like to adapt the existing pages on SPE into EDF Luminus (in English, French and Dutch) and we would like to add our company boilerplate. As a reference we can use the company website www.edfluminus.be, where the official press realease has been published. Can you tell me what is the best way to do this?

Thank you for your help!

Kind regards, ElsDevalez (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ElsDevalez. For changing name of pages, you could use 'page move' function or add {{move request}} to the relevant talk page. In English and French Wikipedias the name was already changed. For changing it in Dutch Wikipedia, I recommend to ask this at the talk page of Dutch article.
One of the key principles is verifiability and reliability. Press releases may be good source for information but it would be better if the information is supported by secondary sources thats as news, books etc. It should also to be ensured that the text is neutral, not promotional. Beagel (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleanup (but reconsider about nbsp)

Thanks for editing the Osório wind farm page. One small complaint though: those "&nbsp" make the wikisource much harder to edit, especially by newbie editors. They are the sort of purely visual, zero-information nits (such as paired quotes) that Wikipedia originally and intentionally left out in order to make editing easier. Inserting them also creates many inocuous events in the history, which waste other editors' time. Thus, the benefit of inserting those funny spaces is slightly negative. Whatever the current guidelines may say, please consider sparing yourself that trouble in the future. Thanks again, and all the best. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Although I understand your concerns, I disagree with your arguments. Regards. Beagel (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holaniku/Sopogy

Hi Beagel, Thanks for your interest in Sopogy and renewable energy. I've added a citation pointing to an article by a University of Hawaii professor who looked into Sopogy's project, Holaniku. It appears the developer of the project is claiming his gross thermal energy collected, ~2MW, as his net capacity. Fact-checking by the the professor shows the net installed capacity to be .1MW. Sadly, it seems like a misrepresentation by the developing company, Sopogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidesbirds10000 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited West Seti Dam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kanchanpur (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) 10:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Governance of Hydropower in Scandinavia

I am concerned at what appears to be very heavy handed deleting of 9120 bytes, by you, from the above article. It is the work of a very new editor (since 11 November, 2011) and I spent a lot of time fixing up the article. You have stated that the deleted parts of the article are covered elsewhere. Can you please tell me where? --Greenmaven (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have done good work for fixing it. However, deleted parts are too general for so narrow title and overlapping with existing articles. Section hydropower is covered by Hydropower and Hydroelectricity. These are so general topics that there is no need to have a summary section in the Governance of Hydropower in Scandinavia. Criticisms of Hydropower is covered by the section "Advantages and disadvantages of hydroelectricity" of Hydroelectricity. Governance section is covered by Governance article. Again, no need for a summary section. There is no one single article for Global Governance of Hydropower—information is spread between different articles. If you think it would be necessary, this section may be moved to the separate new article. It definitely does not belong to this article.
It also seems that as the article covers both: Hydropower in Scandinavia and Governance of Hydropower in Scandinavia, better title for the article should be Hydropower in Scandinavia. It is also worth to consider if instead of 'Scandinavia' the term 'Nordic countries' would be more correct and in line with existing articles (e.g. Nordic energy market). However, the current article covers only Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, so the term 'Scandinavia' is technically correct. If the current title will be kept, it should use small caps per WP:TITLE (same applies to the sections' titles). Beagel (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]