User talk:Beagel/archive2008

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

Future Energy Worldwide energy consumption and production
you wrote in feb. 2007 "World Energy Outlook consists some forecasts of energy consumption up to 2030. Unfortunately this is not available via Internet and I don't have the printed book." I need energy forecast projections for citations in Kardashev scale. I've found some projections by International Energy; Agency the only problem is that they measured it all in btu's.... sigh. So I was wondering if you found an alternative source for energy predictions.--Sparkygravity (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So basically the "World Energy Outlook 2005" is under GFDL copyrights?--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well like you said the IEA makes documents free and publicly available after two years... so I know it's under a public license. But certain copyrights exclude users from the right to be copy material in any form. So I was wondering if you knew what copyright license it would most likely be under? I don't want future tables and figures deleted from Kardashev scale due to copyright infrigement--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, the last stipulation basically translates that any user who cites the IEA as publisher and respects copyright terms and conditions may use information by linking to article. So I think we're good... Thanks for the help.--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nord Stream logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nord Stream logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nordic Energy Link logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nordic Energy Link logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Atomenergoprom
I added source in Atomenergoprom, but i dont know how to put it right. can u improve it please? Secondly, A law adopted by the Russian parliament and signed by the Russian President transformed the status of Federal Atomic Energy Agency from Federal Agency to state owned company called Rosatom. Please change the Article's name to Rosatom. thanks Superzohar Talk 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wind Farms
Hello Beagle

Why? do you keep removing catagoreys from some of the pages I have worked on when they are relevant to the subject in question. Please do not remove them again(Polite Request) Stavros1 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Three Gorges Dam
The article Three Gorges Dam you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Three Gorges Dam for things needed to be addressed. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help with this nomination! It's the first that I've done one, so I'm sure to get a few things wrong. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Promoted
The article has reached GA status, and I have added it to the GA list. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Better References
About The three gorges dam, there are tons of references in the article. Many of them are out of date or not telling the truth. Even they are from CNN or Ruters. I cannot guarantee that all the information released by the Chinese offical is unbiased,but I think they are reliable. I will try to find more reference for this, but maybe only restricted to something about power generation.Calvingao (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Coal power in China
Hey, thanks for your hard work as always! You previously added a section to the article Coal power in China about a planned carbon capture and storage plant. I agonized about this for a bit, but it seems clear now that that's the same plant as the IGCC that I put some stuff in before.

My confusion steams from a few things. Firstly, IGCC does not directly imply CCS, right? Also, are there any CCS coal plants in existence? And I don't know, it just seems strange that they would make a CCS plant when they have thousands out there with age-old technology not even equipped with desulfurization. Anyway, I'm not 100% sure on any of this, so I wanted to run it by you first. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your copyedit request
On 15 September 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Oil shale geology, Oil shale reserves, Oil shale industry, Oil shale economics, History of the oil shale industry, and Environmental effects of oil shale industry. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your requests in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your requests, these articles may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be good candidates for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit these articles, please review them article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your requests in our new system, where they should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of SeWave
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on SeWave, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because SeWave seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting SeWave, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eesti Energia logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Eesti Energia logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eesti Põlevkivi logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Eesti Põlevkivi logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KazMunayGas logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:KazMunayGas logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yemen Liquified Natural Gas Project
I have proposed that Yemen LNG be merged into Economy of Yemen. Since this article has insufficient content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, I feel that it would be best in the interest of preserving what little content there is. Would you be willing to support or assist with this task? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Templates
Hi Beagel... I've added WikiProject Energy templates to some articles today, but have left the importance parameter free as I thought you may like to fill this in. Hope this is OK... Johnfos (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I made some assessments. However, you are free to re-assess any article if you disagree with current assessment.Beagel (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Peak uranium
Beagel, I would like to invite you to take a quick look at the article for a quick read through. I have identified a few places that need to be improved in the to-do box. However, I'm looking for a few things that need to be cleaned up. Also, the article has been marked with an NPOV flag. Could you please point out the areas that need to be balanced in this article.Kgrr (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Beagel, thanks for your comments and advice. It gives me some other things to do to finish the project before I move on to doing another one. BTW, I need someone impartial to take a look at Nuclear power (with a little more clout than I have) It seems to be written in a complete pro-nuclear POV and needs some serious balancing.Kgrr (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Beagel, it's good to hear from you and thanks for your advice. I will give him a ring. BTW, your advice on peak uranium is working for me. It's helping shape the article and helping it flow. Kgrr (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear energy policy
Hi Beagel, and thanks for your suggestion. Most of the nuclear phaseout material I've seen is quite fuzzy, and lacking in specifics. But I will keep my eyes open and, as things become clearer, hope to make some improvements where I can... Johnfos (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of LEO LT
A tag has been placed on LEO LT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 19:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

LEO LT
Thank you for your notification. Actually the article was deleted even before I finished fixing typos and I didn't had a time to response. But I think that you were wrong about A7. It was explained in the article why this company is significant to have its own article. Maybe it needed better explanation, but really not the case of A7. Beagel (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, your right, the administrators are really fast around here. This was one of those cases where it was questionable if it should, or should not be tagged. However, since i am merely tagging the article, i tend to be quite trigger happy when tagging, since its better to have a tag declined by an admin, then allowing a questionable page to pass trough. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Two articles
Hope you can give me a second opinion on two articles please. Domestic AC power plugs and sockets and Nuclear fusion are both A class but both are quite poorly referenced. I think they should be demoted to B class, but thought I would check with you first... Johnfos (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The main issue is a lack of references. I put some requests to fix this. Lets wait one week and if there is no progress to improve these articles, you may go forward with downgrading.Beagel (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

High quality articles

 * Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline
 * Energy policy of Brazil
 * Nord Stream
 * Oil shale industry
 * Renewable energy industry


 * Nuclear energy policy
 * Wind power in Texas

Hi Beagel, These are among the best B class articles I could find in WP:Energy. I hope that the first five of these would eventually go to WP:GAN or WP:FAC. As for the last two, well, I think they are too list-like to succeed at GAN, and should be made A class articles. Your thoughts? Johnfos (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In general, I agree with you. However, all these articles need some work to be done before nomination.
 * BTC pipeline needs still some cleanup and copyediting. It also misses some references and the lead should be properly expanded.
 * Energy policy of Brazil needs to be checked for updates. Also some subsections too short to follow the GAN criteria. Probably we should ask an assistance from the WP Brazil. From the energy policy by country series I would like to add also Energy policy of Russia, but it has similar problems.
 * The main problem with the Nord Stream is that this is a ongoing project and highly controversial one. Therefore there may be significant changes in the future or even again editwaring, so there may be problems with stability of the article. It needs also appropriate lead.
 * All articles spun-off from the main oil shale article last summer will hopefully be are GAs and FAs one day. Oil shale industry would be probably next GAN, but also the Oil shale geology after getting missing references. Unfortunately I am not able to find these and also requesting from the WP:Geology didn't help to solve this (although I get great assistance from these guys).
 * Renewable energy industry looks quite good. Probably the lead should be expanded. I propose to list it for the peer review before the nomination.
 * Nuclear energy policy should be split and the policies by country should be moved into separate article Nuclear energy policy by country. After that and some copyediting of the Nuclear energy policy it could be nominated for GAN (maybe also peer review would be good idea). The Nuclear energy policy by country should be dealt in the complex way together with the Nuclear power by country and the Nuclear power. I think that the Nuclear power by country should deal with the current nuclear facilities and capacities while Nuclear energy policy by country should take a care of the policy options and future plans of countries. All country specific information in the Nuclear power should be moved into these two articles.
 * Wind power in Texas looks quite good. I don't think it is too list-like. However, maybe it is better to list for the peer review first.
 * What you think, with nomination of which articles we should go forward? Beagel (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see that you are very methodical in your approach, which is good. But I have to admit I am a bit less so, and am certainly less inclined to use peer review. I've nominated Renewable energy industry at GAN and would suggest that you be bold and pick out one of the articles you've been working on and nominate it there too. Remember GA is all about decent articles, not perfect ones. And we could certainly do with some more GA articles for the Energy Portal... Johnfos (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably you are right about peer reviews. Usually you get better responses and more advices if you ask comments directly from other experienced editors. I will definitely go forward with some GANs when I have more time to be ready to make quick fixes if necessary during the GA procedure.Beagel (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale geology
Hi Beagel - I did some quite minor copyedits to the article, it is really pretty good (I think) from that point of view. Feel free of course to change anything I did if it changes meaning. I will try to find a reference for that section you mentioned, but it probably won't be today. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale industry
Hello B. - Won't be able to do much on this soon (am recovering from flu) but a few feeble suggestions - employment stats? Industrial safety? Growth projections? Couldn't find any GAs under "x industry". Thx for asking. Important topic, article is pretty good already. Hope to contribute soon. Best, Novickas (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello B. This may seem like a radical re-org idea, but am wondering about organizing this article by country - this valuable ref does it that way. I could put a preliminary version on my sandbox, so you and others could review it. For whatever reason, it seemed easier to digest that way. Let me know what you think. Novickas (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

News item
Hi Beagel, Thought of you when I saw this news report... Johnfos (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can't believe these nuclear plans are serious, but the information about oil shale sounds logical. Because of the EU climate policy, Estonia has to reduce its emissions, which means reducing oil shale combustion. At the same time they have oil shale related knew-how, so it's logical they try to use this knowledge in countries with lower emission targets. I will check if there something to be added into oil shale articles. Beagel (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale industry copyedit
I have completed the copyediting of Oil shale industry. However, i noticed on the talk page that u have not completed the LoCE request. Pls go to its talk page and copy the LoCE code and follow the procedure. After the procedure is complete, i'll sign in as copyed completed and only then the article will proceed for proofread. Pls complete the process at ur end....so that i can finish it and send it for proofreading. More info is available at WP:LOCE/R...As for the copyediting, it was hassle-free. I appreciate ur timely help and response in understanding the technical terms used in the article. As always, it was a pleasure workin with u !!!...some hidden notes have been left in the article....hope u will address those as well...thanx...Gprince007 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you and sorry for missing to complete my request. I hope it's ok right now. Will look for how to address your notes.Beagel (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Energy Portals
Beagel, great thanks for your invitation for Energy Portals of Wikipedia! Ricky@36 (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

JACOS
I looked at that story and thought you did a pretty good job with it. I made a few more changes, but I also revised the oilsands history to include a reference to it. I think we should argue very strongly that it should stay in. Thanks for bringing it to me attention. 16:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oil Shale Articles
I'll have a look at these articles for you. I seem to have had a lot of requests in the last short while though so to be fair I'm going through them in the order they asked. JMiall ₰  21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale
Hi. A little late, but I've dropped off peer review comments at the talk page for Oil Shale. I'l do Oil Shale extraction process next. Hope they're helpful. I'll keep an eye on the talk page for a bit, if you want to respond there. In return, is there any chance you could have a look at Saruman (peer review Peer_review/Saruman/archive1)? Ta. 4u1e (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congrats, Beagel, on Oil shale industry being passed as a GA: good work! Johnfos (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

undefined barrels
I have upgraded bbl to t. One change I've made is to replace the precision-based rounding to a significant-figure based rounding. How does it look? Do you have any suggestions? J Ѧ ρ 08:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale FAC
Hi B - that's a great ambition. I'm looking forward to helping as comments appear. You clearly have gotten support and help from some good editors, so its prospects are promising. Best, Novickas (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Beagal, thanks for the heads up about the FAC nomination, thats great news. not so busy these days so let me knwo if there is anything that needs doing or the like. Cheers Dexcel (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello B - maybe the remaining crude oil should be given as a range as well? Novickas (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a little bit complicated issue. As you see, there are figures about oil shale resources (potential shale oil in place) and oil reserves. The figure of remained oil reserves is quite exact. Oil reserves and oil shale resources are compared only to give some imagination about the amount of oil shale, but you can't directly compare reserves and resources. Conventional oil as recovery ratio (reserves divided oil in place) usually around 30-35%. It is not clear, what the ratio could be for different oil shales. So generally, there is no figures about the exact oil shale reserves, because the oil shale industry is not widely developed and the feasibility of most of deposits is not clear. So, I am not able to propose better solution right now. Beagel (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Still, it's too bad; it would be nice to have some comparison as a strong hook in the lead. Maybe someone else at the Energy Portal will have an idea...Novickas (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Novickas (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, I hope I can contribute something to the extraction/processing article too. Unfortunately, the oil-and-gas expert at work, who could explain anything in 3 minutes using ordinary language and a piece of paper - he left us. The industry apparently made him an offer he could not refuse. So it will be a little while, because now I have to learn on my own. Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also - maybe a separate article called "Shale oil"? - it has various specific properties and could easily be stubbed from what we have already. This would involve changing the current redirect, tho. Novickas (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a draft of shale oil: User:Novickas/sandbox, please feel free to edit it if you are inclined. Pour points, a complex issue. Novickas (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think this would be a useful addition to the extraction article - the diagram on page 24 (Figure 13)? It's public domain US government - could be captured and uploaded. Novickas (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Beagel, saw that Oil shale will be on the front page of wiki soon!! just thought i would pass on my congradulations to you for pushing it all the way to the fantastic article it is today. job well done Dexcel (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request re Klaipėda Geothermal Demonstration Plant
Hello B - could you please take a quick look at this, to see if there are any obvious errors, and put an Energy Portal tag on its talk page? Novickas (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC) PS: tons are not wlinked yet because it's not easy to find out whhich metric the World Bank uses. Novickas (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks much - Novickas (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Future dam
Template:Future dam has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Kildor (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nord Stream
Why the names "North Transgas" and "North European Gas Pipeline" are described as "former names". These should be described as "Other names".  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * North Transgas was predecessor of the Nord Stream project. Technically its the same project and the main partner (Gazprom is same). However, legally Nord Stream is not the same project and as of today, North Transgas project company was terminated. North European Gas Pipeline is the name, which is officially changed to Nord Stream (by the company). It is not officially in use anymore, however, in media it is used quite commonly.Beagel (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Southern Company Dispute
Beagel, given your long record of contributions to energy related articles, I would appreciate you reviewing and giving your opinion on the content discussion regarding campaign contributions on the Southern Company talk page. Thank you. 71.8.76.136 (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
I was just trying to get the hang of the tagging of the WP Energy project template when i found an oil fields of australia (about 10% done mind you) category and was stumped - not sure whether in the scheme of things how project management is done - here at the oz stralia project we have class=cat inside the template turns off the importance - and collects all the cat and non article pages - while in the Indonesian project we have all the non art pages at class=NA, would it be possible to let me know what i need to do to fix the few ones that i did to get em right - for some weird reason i havent sorted out what you folks do - cheers SatuSuro 08:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for that - It might have been me - but it would be good to work things out - thanks for the response SatuSuro 23:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Trans-Siberian Pipeline
Excellent excellent work on Trans-Siberian Pipeline. I'm very happy with the work that you've done. I'm going to try to expand on the political aspects of the pipeline when I get a chance. Keep up the great work! - Eric (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Extraction
Hello, B - yes, I'd like to work on it. Looks to be another good candidate, thanks to your work.

First off question - could we summarize the major process inputs and outputs somewhere early on? (some of the major outputs are mentioned in the lead already). Something like "The processes all require a source of heat, electricity to operate the x, y, and z, and water to keep the components of the retort cool. Most commercial technologies burn the oil shale at the deposit to supply heat, supplemented by x or y, although some experimental methods...Electricity is... Water is usually withdrawn from on-site wells or reservoirs. The useful outputs include (shale oil, gas, etc). Other outputs include the various products of combustion, spent shale, char, and the water used in the process." Hope you agree that such a summary is helpful - one can then think back on it while reading the more detailed descriptions. In the meantime I can do wording copyedits. Best, Novickas (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:PNG LNG
Your opinion is requested: here. Thanks! ~ WikiDon (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Renewable/Alternative/Green Energy
Beagel, I have started a discussion to organise the Renewable energy category and have included your recommendation of a possible merger of these topics. Your input is appreciated. GG (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Burbo Bank
Thanks for updating this article. Much appreciated... Johnfos (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Help: List of LNG Terminals
Can you please explain why Hu12 removed most of the LNG terminals in the List of LNG terminals? (HU12's page says he is on leave of absence.) The edit (dated 31 May 2008) is noted WP:NOT, but it is not clear to me why WP:NOT says certain terminals shouldn't be included in the list. TIA Pakaraki (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Coal reserve
Do you know in which year coal reserve will be finished? 3000 or later?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * much sooner. See Coal depletion and Peak coal.Kgrr (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Peak oil
Could you stop by and check this article. It looks like it's been overrun by two or three POV pushers. I may need your help. Kgrr (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Oil shale geology
Thnx for your request...but i am currently busy with Hilary Duff FAC which got rejected and i am trying to address the concerns for that article. Also this week i am very busy with work...so i may be able to look at the article only after 5-7 days. I'll try my best to look into the article as early as possible. It's been great workin with u B4 and it will be my pleasure to work with u in future. All the best with GA nominations !!!! Gprince007 (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there....Since Oil shale geology has not been taken up at GA nominations yet, i would advise you to get rid of the "red links" in the article by creating brief stub-articles about lamalginite, telalginite, Marinite etc. I have a feeling that when it comes up for GA review, the reviewer will definitely ask for it and it would be better if you could start work on it right away. The coming 3-4 days will be very busy for me but still, if possible i'll try to copyedit the article .....but i guess with my busy schedule for the weekend, i wont be able to commit anything right now...anyways best of luck and i'll try to finish the copyed when i get the time.....Gprince007 (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

NASA Spinoff
Could someone please provide more detail as to what needs to be "cleaned up" on the NASA Spinoff page? I'd be happy to do it, but not sure what's being referred to. There are external links to sources for each of the spinoffs mentioned (in parentheses), back to the original Spinoff articles. I can provide additional links to other NASA documents about those technologies, but I'm not sure if that's what you are looking for. Specific suggestions instead of just "citations needed" would be helpful. Since the page is about NASA spinoffs and the NASA Spinoff publication, I'm not sure why citing the NASA pages and the NASA Spinoff pages is not enough. AM (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD for Automatic Temperature Compensator
Your AFD for Automatic Temperature Compensator is incomplete. You need to create the deletion discussion page with your deletion rationale. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Indonesian cats
Thanks for following on with the cat sorting - I am wondering is there really a need for the extra asian cats? the indonesian cats are sufficient surely? Asian spread is a bit to wide for my thinking as th south east asian cts are even too broad at times - interested in your thoughts n this - cheers and thanks SatuSuro 00:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bakumi-Batumi pipeline
Your DYK hook has been queried. Please respond so that your hook can be promoted, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Doubt regarding Oil shale geology
Hi there, i just wanted a clarification regarding "One theory supposes that the organic material in the Irati oil shale originates from algae deposited in a freshwater to brackish lacustrine environment"......In the above sentence, what does the phrase "freshwater to brackish lacustrine environment" mean??? Does it mean "oil shale originates from algae deposited in a freshwater environment" or does it mean "oil shale originates from algae deposited in a brackish lacustrine environment" ??? or does it mean something else???....Gprince007 (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Promotion
I reviewed your GA nomination of Oil shale geology and promoted it to GA! Congrats! Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-nuclear movement in Kazakhstan
Hi Beagel, Thought of you when I was writing this stub, and wondered if you may wish to contribute... Johnfos (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I am not familiar with this topic, but I will look if I find something.Beagel (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting assistance on BTC Pipeline page
Hi there Beagel, you seem to have made all sorts of excellent contribs to the BTC Pipeline page. I recently added a concern about the Israel section to the talk page there, and I would love your input - if I'm right, I'd love your help, and if I'm wrong I'd love to know. Thanks! -- Eeblet (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will hunt down someone who is more knowledgeable than I am & has better sources, and then make changes if appropriate....  --Eeblet (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Dear Beagel, I feel very honored to receive the Barnstar award. It is a great motivation to me. Thank you very very much --anunezsanchez (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Royaldutchshellplc.com
Hello Beagel

The following is an extract from the Royaldutchshell.com article: "Alfred Donovan and John Donovan are both retired from commercial activities. Their former company, Don Marketing, ceased trading several years ago. Their websites are all non-commercial; do not seek or accept donations, offer all services without charge, and carry no advertising." This statement may make no difference to the opinion you have reached and indeed you may have already seen it. My point is that this is not a case of a Wikipedia article being used for commercial purposes. We believe that it is important that the public are aware of the potential power of a low cost website as a platform to campaign for businesses, particularly multinational corporations, to honour pledges of ethical trading. The One World Trust has kindly acknowledged the impact our site has had on Shell. Such sites are not free to publish anything other than the truth. Shell issues proceedings if it believes any such publication to be libellous. We have been operating Shell related websites for over a decade and Shell has never issued defamation proceedings against us (my father and I). I hope you will find time to glance at the comment I have added today to the discussion page on Royaldutchshellplc.com about adding new content. Johnadonovan (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale economics
I appreciate the compliment, and would be happy to take a crack at oil shale economics (though I may be getting a bit wikitired myself). Are you happy with the structure, and think it needs more citations and pictures? Or do you think it needs some restructuring?

On a seperate note, I've been working on oil reserves. Do you know anyone who would be willing to review it? I'm hoping to get it to GA and ulimately maybe FA staus.--Work permit (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * wow, I must say I didn't realize what I bit off. I'm suprised the industry has not created a structured framework to analyze the economics of shale oil extraction.  Perhaps they have, but it's only hinted at through the literature.--Work permit (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Beagel, I was thinking that we need to finish bringing Peak oil back to GA status. I think that Peak uranium is stable and should be ready for GA.  I certainly can help with the Oil shale economics article.  I will give you all a hand. Kgrr (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear power by country
Hi. I know you say you have left, but just in case you still watch this page, the featured list Nuclear power by country has been nominated for removal. You can comment at Featured list removal candidates/Nuclear power by country. I was looking through the talk page and saw that you thought it should be nominated about three months ago. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alemayehu Tegenu
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Alemayehu Tegenu, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:FA help
Hmm, I don't think we can take this on as a mission, but I'll be sure to help prose-wise. Best, &mdash; Ceran ♦ (Sing) 22:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Good to see you starting to edit again. Welcome back!

Sorry I had to vote to delist Nuclear power by country, but it seems to need a fair bit of work... Johnfos (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Oil shale in Jordan
Nice work BTW. Nice to see a country like Jordan with a DYK rather than the typical America, Britain, Australia and IndiaDr. Blofeld (talk)

Oil Shale Extraction
OK, I will look at the article again. JMiall ₰  12:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Mining companies of the People's Republic of China
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Mining companies of the People's Republic of China, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Mining companies of the People's Republic of China has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Mining companies of the People's Republic of China, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!!
=D Fintan264 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sino-Burma Oil Pipeline
Hi, I didn't notice that you wrote something in the Talk Page of this article. I already replied - basically I agreed with your suggestion on having separate article, but in my opinion, it's better to have one unified article because both oil and natural gas pipelines will be built under the same one project (possibly same route too). Furthermore, if the article is separated into 2 (oil and natural gas pipelines), I think we will just have simply 2 articles with not very much content in them. Heilme (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered on the article talk page, proposed a new name.Beagel (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem with your proposal. Heilme (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

African national oil companies

 * I hadn't caught that EG LNG wasn't owned by Equatorial Guinea, it is part of the GEPetrol website just like the other companies; I am left with the question of deciding whether or not an oil and gas company is national if it is run by the government as opposed to simply being owned by the government, and to whether the government has anything to do with running this particular company in the first place. I am not planning to do anything about this, at this time.


 * In view of the fact that National Oil Corporation of Kenya has a mandate from the government to participate in all petroleum and natural gas related issues and developments within Kenya, I would vote that it does belong in Category:Energy in Kenya.  Here's a link to the NOCK site with the company mandate information: - http://www.nockenya.co.ke/content.asp?ctid=2&title=About%20NOCK - if you've the time to check.
 * Might this categorization decision have something to do with the potential work involved in future explanation of why one oil company is in the category per se, while others are placed in the Oil companies category? --Mr Accountable (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * EG LNG is not a national oil or gas company. Although 25% of shares is owned by the national gas company Sonagas, the other partners are international companies. Also, this is a special project company and not involved in the development of national hydrocarbon resources more widely like classical NOCs.


 * Concerning National Oil Corporation of Kenya, the category of Category:Oil companies of Kenya is a subcategory of Category:Energy in Kenya. As a rule, if there is a more precise subcategory, the parent category is not included. ::If the company belongs to the Category:National oil and gas companies, it also belongs to the country-based category of oil companies, not in the more general "energy in ..." category. Beagel (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on EG LNG, perhaps I wasn't clear; as for NOCK, the point I am making, is that it belongs in both categories. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it belongs in categories Category:Oil companies of Kenya and Category:National oil and gas companies. As Category:Energy in Kenya is the parent category for Category:Oil companies of Kenya, NOCK should be categorized in the Category:Oil companies of Kenya and not in the Category:Energy in Kenya. Beagel (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it has an omniscient role in determining Kenya's energy policy, due to its constitutional mandate; the only reason not to put it in Category:Energy in Kenya is that this categorization situation is simply too complicated to explain to the next casual user who will come along and replace the categories as they are now. Due to this technical wikisituation I say that sadly, NOCK is out of the category Category:Energy in Kenya.  It's a "TKO", if you'll pardon the pun.    --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're done here. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Stubs
I don't know much about stubs, but tend to agree with you - I think there are too many articles marked as stub. &mdash; Sebastian 09:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Article on Bharat Thakur
Hi, Thanks for the suggestions. I'm still in the process of editing the article and I will incorporate your suggestions. Could you please check out the "Artistic Yoga" article too. It got tagged for having subjective content. I edited it. Could you please let me know how it reads now. I will use your Reference suggestion for this article as well.

Appreciate your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divya Sivaramakrishnan (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion on my Article. I am working on it!!!

A quick question for you - some of my images got removed from articles as the copyright info was incomplete. I have updated the info - can i just put the images back? What about your tags? Can i remove them once i have made the changes? My question in a nutshell - who removes the tags?

Really appreciate your taking the time to answer tedious questions. Divya Sivaramakrishnan (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Super! Phew - You're a great help to new wiki-users like me! Thanks! Divya Sivaramakrishnan (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Estonian surface mining
Thanks for the invitation to look at Estonian oil shale mining. The article uses the term "open-cast" which is somewhat uncommon in the US; I believe it is more commonly used in other English-speaking countries. In US usage, with which I am most familiar, "open-pit mining" and "strip mining" are distinct forms of surface mining. Unfortunately, I can't tell you the precise usage of "open-cast mining"; it may well include both. In addition, I can't tell from the article if the mining in Estonia is by open pit or strip mining. It may well be either for all I can tell. Sorry that I'm not more help. Plazak (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Energy service company
Thank you for the merge! &mdash; Sebastian 18:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wide area synchronous grid and super grid need class and rating
I created these earlier in the week. I didn't see what the process was for nomination on the energy portal, but I noticed you were cruising around rating these. Super grid is a split from the grid article. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the Barnstar. It is interesting to research and compile info for the energy articles, and it is getting to the stage where there is enough info to be useful. However, the wind farm articles seem to attract opposition. For example, I am currently trying to get deletion of Te Waka Wind Farm reversed. --Pakaraki (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine/Russia/Gas
Thanks for the clean-up on Russia–Ukraine gas disputes! This Gas negotiations with Ukraine again fail to produce significant progress - Gazprom article nicely sums up what happened the last months (I think), maybe hand to read. -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yamal-Europe pipeline & Yamal project
Hi, Beagel! I was aware of the ambiguity between the entries. After looking more closely into the matter, I agree with your proposal. Best regards MGTom (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC).

Holiday Greetings!
Every best wish for the festive season, Beagel, and thanks for your many and varied contributions to WP through the year!! -- Johnfos (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Future stadium
Template:Future stadium has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ninety:one 00:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Temporal templates
I posted the further below reply to your general comment at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_22. To date there has not been a central location for such a discussion. You'll find that some of the templates are manically defended, such as current sport, which has above 750 article uses, attached to any team or sports league that has a sporting season this year or next. Completely superfluous and an insult to the reader. In my view, it is desirable to have about 10 or fewer, perhaps as few as zero "current" and "future" templates. They never add actual content to the articles that the lede and the article and its footnotes cannot state more clearly, specifically and eloquently. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Places where discussion has occurred to date: Category talk:Temporal templates. At Template talk:Current and its archives you'll see there are years discussion on even the fundamental template current. Similar complaint about proliferation of varieties copying the functionality of future can be found at Template talk:Future. There's a bit at Wikipedia talk:Current and future event templates. This now out-of-date essay has continuing influence: User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. This policy has some relationship to the general conversation: No disclaimers in articles. Then there is the slightly related giant discussion and demise of spoiler, which can be found only in part part at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_8. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, etc
Hello B - nice to hear from you, hope you had a merry Christmas. I've been tinkering with the sandbox - thanks for improving it. Not quite ready for prime time. I'm a little stuck with the issue of whether it can or can't be used as gasoline - the refs seem contradictory at this point. Will do a little research. Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Electricity in Iraq
Thank you for contributing to this article and expect further help regarding this topic. --Glasszone33 (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)