User talk:Beagel/archive2009

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

Review request
Hello Beagel - I put the sandbox article into mainspace (Shale oil). Would you mind giving it a brief review? Best, Novickas (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks much! For a hook...that shale oil was the first mineral oil used by humans? From ? Novickas (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the patent would be better, since the Moody ref describes some ancient uses of crude. How about "...that in 1694 the British Crown granted Patent No. 330 for a method of extracting shale oil from "a sort of stone"? Novickas (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thks again - you seem to have your hands full with the gas crisis. Best, Novickas (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're being modest. A calm voice on the talk page is invaluable :) It's too bad about the extraction FA; sorry I couldn't help more, but I just don't have the tech background. Also the FA process demands so much within a short timeframe. It will succeed eventually, tho. Later, Novickas (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

East Coast Basin/Trans-Orient Petroleum/oil shale
Hi Beagel, regarding your note about this article, you are correct that the East Coast Basin should be covered in Wikipedia. Trans-Oriental Petroleum is not a company I've heard of in NZ, so may not pass the notability test as an NZ article. It appears it is a Canadian company, so perhaps should be entered on that basis. The whole oil & gas side of NZ energy needs work (not just East Coast Basin), energy focus has been mostly on electricity generation. I'll have a look if I get some time. --Pakaraki (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New Europe Transmission System
Hi Beagel,can you retype the title of this article? It isn't New Europe Transmission System, but New European Transmission System. Thanks Erika.sn (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Beagel, thank you for your effort. Finaly it is possible to rename this page or no? I have to know it as soon as possible. Because the correct name of this article is very important for my company MOL. Thanks Erika.sn (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Beagel, I work in Slovnaft - member of Mol group, so we have very close relation with MOL. My company is situated in Slovakia. Our situation with gas is a bit different as in Hungary... Erika.sn (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it is possible to change the name also in the reference (like in the link or in results of searching?). Erika.sn (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi Beagel, thought this one may be of interest... Johnfos (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, John. THank you very much for this link. The situation with gas crisis is critical and S.A is having problems with Eskom, however, I personally don't believe that anybody will restart any closed reactor. It this technically and legally not easy procedure and could be politically damaging in relations with some fellow EU countries like Austria. Beagel (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Single-item categories
Hi, I am trying to reduce the overcategorization of company categories of developing countries. Do you mind if I revert the single-item categorization of VietNam Electricity in Category:Power companies of Vietnam? --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I need to bring the single-item power company categories to a deletion discussion, it is impossible to navigate these categories. Why do these power companies need to have their own category?  --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, how about if these power companies are categorized in the power company categories, for the multidimensional functionality, and also categorized in the parent category, for ease of use? Does that sound ok? --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to tag these categories with popcat, which is an underpopulated categories tag. I don't think I am going to bring them to a deletion discussion. Hoewever, they are impossible to use.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Eskom.
What do you think of the energy crisis in South Africa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.47.60 (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

WP Energy assessments
Hi Beagel, I've been doing some assessments, and am working on the basis that the "Top" importance rating is not for individual projects or even articles on particular countries -- they should be given a lower importance rating. Is this your thinking too? Johnfos (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, John. I knew that different WP projects use different approaches. In general I agree with your approach. However, so far I myself have worked on the basis that the most important individual companies (3-4 max per subsector) and project may be rated as the "Top" importance articles. Same applies to the individual country's articles, e.g. articles about the energy policy of U.S. or Saudi Arabia, and biographies. I think that biographies of Edison or Watt are worth to be assessed as the "Top" importane (for some reason, they don't have WP:Energy ratings so far). Right now we have following "individual" articles assessed as the "Top" importance articles:


 * Oil and gas companies:
 * Chevron Corporation
 * ExxonMobil
 * Gazprom
 * Royal Dutch Shell


 * Technology companies:
 * Areva
 * General Electric
 * Siemens


 * Projects:
 * ITER


 * Biographies:
 * Amory Lovins


 * I think we should have broader discussions, if we will have some limited exceptions in these subcategories or not. Another issue is that probably only the main article of the group of articles could be assessed as the "Top" importance articles. E.g., we have the natural gas article assessed as "top" importance, so the liquefied natural gas article should be downgraded from "Top" to "High" importance. Same principle applies also to Renewable energy, and Renewable energy commercialization and Renewable fuels articles. In general, we should go through and, if necessary, re-assess all articles in the "Top" and "High" importance categories.


 * I don't knew any other editor actively involved in the assessment of WP:Energy articles. However, I propose to move this discussion to some more appropriate place and invite other energy-related editors to express their opinion to generate more discussion. The rigth place seems to be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy/Assessment, however, I don't think that anybody will find this discussion there, so maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy? I hope that at the end of the day, we will have some sort of guidelines about importance ratings as we have about class ratings.Beagel (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi B, and thanks for that. I see WP:Environment has dealt with the situation by doing away with importance ratings altogether.  That would certainly be an expedient solution... Johnfos (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it could be definitely one possible solution. At the same time, I personally prefer to have also importance ratings. And from the very practical point of view, importance ratings (particularly "Top" and "High" levels) are an additional tool to get an article selected for CD/DVD selections (e.g. see the energy articles selection). So, I propose to follow the principle that "Top" importance rating is not for individual companies, persons, or project. This is not meaning removing current ratings (see the list above), but of course, if necessary, we should review these ratings. At the same time, lets try to work out some guidelines for importance ratings. I also think that maybe we should have criteria that "Top" and "High" ratings should be confirmed by two WP Energy members. What do you think? Beagel (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with what you say, but think that some energy companies deserve to have a top rating. These include: ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron Corporation, Vestas, General Electric.  Other organizations which should probably have a top rating include: International Energy Agency, OPEC. Johnfos (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fully agree that these companies and organizations (I would like to add also Areva, Gazprom and ITER to this list) should be rated as the "Top" importance articles. Beagel (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine. Feel free to make changes to the top category, along the lines of what we have discussed. Johnfos (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Mid-importance energy articles
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Mid-importance energy articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Mid-importance energy articles 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:Mid-importance energy articles, 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) 00:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

INOGATE/Baku Initiative
Dear Beagel, I would appreciate your reasoning if you were correct: however the INOGATE article is about the INOGATE programme as a whole, not about its technical secretariat. In fact the Baku agreement is simply a consequence of the INOGATE programme (that is, of EU/NIS energy policy), regardless of the Secretariat. Nonetheless, I have left your reinstatement, correcting it where it was in error and Englishing it. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article at the DG TREN website gives better understanding what is the Baku Initiative and how it is related to the INOGATE. Although related, they are not the same thing. Regards.Beagel (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Humm....not an entirely accurate article. DG TREN were not the main movers of the Baku Initiative; the Ministerial Conference at Baku was initiated through INOGATE (i.e. through the various projects supported by EuropeAid), as was the Astana Declaration. However I appreciate that this is a point that is of more interest to EU infighting than to the WP reader. Just to make it clear: the INOGATE programme,(of whch the INOGATE secretariat is only a small part), carries out a number of interventions in the INOGATE countries, in policy areas agreed at the Baku initiative and ratified at Astana, in the form of development aid projects, on behalf of the Commission, in accordance with the EU's energy policy. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this
Hello! Please note that Colonel Warden and I have eliminated some of the more extraneous material and added some referenced items. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on AfD
I have added a few links to address your concerns on the AfD discussion. While writing this, I have tried to stick to the basics, avoid adjectives and any kind of promotional information, and just give out facts in a straightforward manner. Would be thankful if you could help me with improving it further.

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Merging the Wellman-Lord process into the Flue gas desulfurization article
Beagel, you may do whatever you wish regarding the subject merger proposal. However, you should be aware that the Wellman-Lord process is essentially obsolete. I am not even sure that the Wellman-Lord patent holder or their licensors are still in business. I doubt that any Wellman-lord plants have been built in the last 10 to 15 years. For that reason, I would question why you want to merger it into Flue gas desulfurization.

Don't let Googling and getting a large number of hits mislead you. Most of those hits were written decades ago.

For any further discussion, you can email me directly using my Wikipedia email. I rarely vist Wikipedia since I became completely disillusioned with Wikipedia and transferred my energies into the online Citizendium encyclopedia. At Citizendium for over a year now, and have not encountered even one incident of vandalism nor had anything but pleasant collegial collaboration from other participants. mbeychok (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Energy in India / CSD / Kalpasar Project
Hi, I found this energy article Kalpasar Project that looks alright, it is up for deletion (crystal ball) because it lacked a link, I added a good link. Also added some wikiformatting. --Mr Accountable (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw this was successfully managed. Seems that WP:CRYSTALBALL was incorrectly interpreted. Beagel (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey
hey Beagel what are you working on these days, anythign oil/gas related that needs a hand. Have been away for a while. cheers Dexcel (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Dexcel. Nice that you are back. At the moment I am quite busy in ma real life and not very active creating new articles. Sometimes in the future I am planning to renominate Oil shale extraction for the WP:FAC, but it still needs some work to be done. Beagel (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - could you expand two articles?
Beagel, thanks for welcoming me. I've previously done some minor edits on articles dealing with history, before I created my Nepomuk 3 account. I created the Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage article, but it seems to have been erased. Perhaps Karl Josef, Andrewjlockley or you could help expanding it and bring it back online, I don't have that much time to do that right now. The Bio Energy with Carbon Storage article also needs some cleaning and expansion, now it is a bit confusing. Nepomuk 3 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

re: OECD & organisation/organization
hello Beagel, you left a comment on my talk page about the spelling of the world organization in the context of the OECD. Sorry for my late reply, I only just saw your message. the official language of the OECD is British English, this is why it refers to itself as an organisation with an s. hope it clarifies Jerjer (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello
What exactly does the move log indicate regarding my article? Thanks --Dream22 (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Dream22

Removed merge tags from Nuclear power in the European Union
hi Beagle. You removed the merge tags from Nuclear power in the European Union recently. However, now the problem remains that there is a lot of similar info on several different places, and for the interested reader or editor it is not intermediately clear that there are actually 3 copies of info, for example: Same goes for Sweden, UK, Poland, Lithuania... well, a lot.
 * Nuclear energy policy
 * Nuclear power in Spain
 * Nuclear power in the European Union

So what do you propose now, if you think there shouldn't be merges? -- eiland (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree that information concerning nuclear energy by country should be re-arranged. I described my views during the merer discussion. However, I removed tags for two technical reasons:


 * 1) Currently the is no consensus about the merger;
 * 2) The last edit to the discussion was done 6 month before removng tgas, so it was very unlikely any consensus would be found.


 * So, if you think it is possible to find any kind of consensus, be bold to reopen the discussion and also to make a erger if consensus is found. Beagel (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion was actually kind of concluded - at least, thats how i see it - the page shouldn't be deleted, just the country paragraphs. These are clearly (not on purpose) content-forks, and have to be dealt with. The fact that the discussion was about merging the whole page made everything a bit unclear. But now the tags are gone, no editor will be challenged to merge the country paragraphs to their proper place. I did merge some §'s over time, but I dont have time or expertise to do all of them. So thats why i think it would be useful to add the tags, and maybe just mention in the old discussion that people are invited to proceed in that way. There's nothing to discuss, the community just has to do it. -- eiland (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Future sports venue
Template:Future sports venue 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. ViperSnake151 Talk  14:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Energy Project notice
Thank you for the notice and invitation to comment. The wikilink to the talk page actually goes to the project page, so I created a section with a link to the relevant talk page. Feel free to revert, but I thought it might be helpful since I assume you're posting this notice to other project members' talk pages and it seems like there might be a little confusion. Mishlai (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than creating a new section for the purpose of reiteraing Mishlai's first statement, thought I'd just tag this on the end. Thanks for the notice. I support the proposal and such, and there's nothing I particularly feel so strongly about that I will comment on the talk page, so I'll leave things entirely in your capable hands. I did notice however that you removed Food waste in the United Kingdom's WP:Energy template from the project without leaving an explanation. I orginally added that template, thinking that the article did cover energy (the section on Disposal through anaerobic digestion etc.), but was I mistaken to have done so? Do you think the article has the potential to become part of the project again? Only I am planning to submit it for FAC and would love to see it join the ranks of WP:Energy's top articles. Thanks in advance. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. As the tagging by the bot was stopped to achieve more input about the categories, I appreciate if you would add your comment also to the WP:Energy talk page. As of Food waste in the United Kingdom, it seems for me a borderline issue. I removed this tag as I it seemed to me that the energy is only a side topic. If you prefer to restore the project banner, I have no objection. Beagel (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh in that case I'll add a/that comment to the talk page. I'll go with your judgement on the article not being in the project, I was really just wondering why you came to that decision. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oil shale extraction
Are you working on this right now ? H Padleckas (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you were. Good night.  H Padleckas (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Beagel, Ponas Padleckas. Yes, I'd like to work on it; may not have much time in the next few weeks. I think I can make a process water stub. An engineering FA might still be new ground. Do you think a simple schematic diagram or two would be useful? Novickas (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi to both of you. :-)  There are some process diagrams in Oil shale extraction article already, but they are bigger detailed pictures shrunken down to the point where is is very hard to read/see the details in there.  Some WP:editors seem to be of the opinion that all pictures should be limited size thumbs placed on the side of a page, usually the right side, with article text on the other side.  In many cases this is good, but I do not necessarily agree so in every case, especially with detailed diagrams like the ones in this article.  A problem is that the page width and text width and therefore placement of the pictures varies with individual reader's computers and settings, and making the pictures too large can squash the text onto one side of the page in an unseemly way for readers whose text display is not very wide.  Making the image wider for these readers may squash the text for readers with somewhat wider text displays on their computers.  Centering the image thumb or frame would solve this problem, but would leave empty margins on the left and right sides of the image for readers with very wide text displays.  I think this option is the least of the evils of image sizing for these pictures. So what if there is a little empty space in the article for some readers?  Surely that has to be preferable to making the images too small for anybody to read directly in the article.  I have found that an image width of 540px with center placement works well for this kind of purpose or, if the natural or optimal width of the image is slightly smaller, use that natural width of the image with a center placement.  If the image is far smaller, then right or left placement with text on the opposite side may be considered more desirable.  H Padleckas (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. There is a continuous problem with images for reasons you just mentioned. Using "thumb" feature was proposed during the Oil shale article FAC. However, MOS gives some room for interpretation. Beagel (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The diagram would be a good idea; however, I am not sure what exactly it should be as different technologies vary significantly. There are some schemes from the DoE website. It is possible to find schemes also for other technologies, but there are copyright problems. I thought also about the infobox, but again, there is no suitable infobox available. Beagel (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just throwing out an idea here. It seemed during the review that readers felt they were being rushed into the complexities. Maybe if it started with a kind of history section, it would be easier to follow - reflecting its evolution from simple chimney-type things to the complex modern ones. Those early simple versions might not be too hard to illustrate? Novickas (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems good idea. The only problem is that the article is already too long. Adding this historical evolution should be done in parallel with updating the History of the oil shale industry article. Beagel (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Chapter 4 of this report gives good overview of early retorting technologies. Beagel (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I copied discussion about the diagram and early retorts to the article talkpage. Beagel (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly for the thought- but in addition to being uninspired I have so many other commitments just now that I'm limiting myself to no more than 1/2 hour a day on WP. You have some good people working on it. I'll watchlist the FAC and maybe can help in little bits. Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Stubs and categories
Beagel,

A bit of friendly criticism of your editing if I may? You quite rightly removed the stub templates from Famo after I'd expanded it, but you left it uncatagorised. I see that you also tag articles without categories, so you think it's important that articles are categorised. By removing the stubs you've left this article uncat'ed, but I've now put them in. In future could you spend two minutes adding the relevant categories where you remove stubs that give categories please? Bigger digger (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad, I did not mention that categories are missing and, of course, every article should be categorized. However, stub tags are not suitable for categorization and stubs categories are not suitable to substitute proper categories. Any article should be tagged with stub tags only in case if the article is a stub and not for categorization. Famo was definitely not a stub. For more information, please see WP:Stub. Beagel (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree it wasn't a stub, it's just your edit made more work for me and I needed to moan! Bigger digger (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Oil shale extraction
Hi there Beagel....I assure u my full support and cooperation in getting Oil shale extraction thru the FAC. Though i am very busy with my work, i'll still try to keep an eye on the article and whenever i can spare time, i'll copyedit the article....Keep up the good work and Happy editing !!! Gprince007 (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my talk page
Hey Beagel, thanks for this comment on my talk page. I am not sure how much editing time I will have in the future so that may prevent me from running again, however if I do I will be sure to let you know. Thanks for the encouragement. --kelapstick (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Jaruga Hydroelectric Power Plant
Hi, Beagel! I assessed Hydroelectric Power Plants in Croatia as Low-importance (WikiProject Croatia) on the importance scale, because they are all small compared to others in the world. But, I assessed Jaruga Hydroelectric Power Plant as High-importance on the importance scale, because: Am I wrong (to high) in assessment, if yes please correct my assessment? Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jaruga power plant was set in operation on 28 August 1895 in 20'00 hours, three days after the power plant on the Niagara Falls.
 * The Croatian town of Šibenik was the first city in the world who got a polyphase system of alternating current. The system supplied 340 street lights and some electrified houses in the town.

Renewable energy categories
At the top level, I still see a confusing layout. We have Category:Renewable electricity and others like Category:Bioenergy and Category:Energy from oceans and water, both of which generally produce electricity but are not under Category:Renewable electricity. We also have Category:Hydropower and Category:Hydroelectricity not sure why we need both. Maybe my problem is that we need to split this out into forms of generation and products produced. So geothermal, can be used to produce steam or hot water and the steam can be used to produce electricity. Solar thermal systems, I think that is the right name, can be used to heat a material that in turn can be used to heat water for form steam which can generate electricity or it can be stored to generate steam when the sun is no shining. Hope this helps. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, how does Crystal Mill fit into the structure? Is was a water powered air compressor.  So it used a renewable source, water, but it did not generate electricity. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ITN
By "update", I meant the update about him being elected at the eight ministerial meeting of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum in Doha. The article currently has only one sentence regarding the event, and that is not sufficient. Hope this clarifies. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

IAEA chooses new head
I thought you might be interested in this news. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Beagel (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:IEA map
✅ :). Regards, Yarl ✉ 19:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

NO INTERVENTION INSIDE THE REFINERIES ARTICLE IN CANADA
Hello, DO NOT CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ARTICLE PLEASE, IT'S A QUESTION OF ORGANISATION OF THE REFINERIES IN CANADA. Name of compagny and the name of the refinery. It's important to do not put a box cleanup and others things because all articles for the oil refineries in Canada are in construction. THANKS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredoues (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NAME. The names you are proposing are not the most easily recognized names. As of the cleanup tag, it does not mean that the article would be deleted. It just indicates that the article needs some maintenance work and could be placed also in cases the article is under construction. By the way, marking articles as under construction, please use this tag: .Beagel (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER I put underconstruction but i prefer to conserve the name, please, keep that, it's a question of organisation and official name of the refinery. Trust me !

Thanks.


 * Please see WP:NAME. Beagel (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Weiherhammer Natural Gas Compressor Station.JPG
Is this station a part of the MEGAL pipeline? --BorgQueen (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: MEGAL pipeline
Saw your article on ITN and thought you might be interested in Template:Infobox Pipeline, which I created for use on Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and some other articles I've been working on. Nice work on MEGAL, btw. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this template is useful. Beagel (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the changes you've made. This was the first template I ever created, so it needs all the help it can get! :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wet sulfuric acid process image
Hello. I am not sure I am at the right place to ask my question, but I need help with the copyright for a uploaded picture. It is the picture on "wet sulfuric acid process". Please help I dont know where to change it. I didnt put any copyrights on it and I am not sure wheter I really have to do that??? It is a picture that I made myself and everybody can just use it as they wants to. But I guess I have to categorise it somewhere? Please help before it will be deleted. Anne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amse12 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Richard Morningstar.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Richard Morningstar.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Polly (Parrot) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't be so trigger-happy and read provided information carefully. If the United States mission to the European Union is not a part of the U.S. Federal Government, I really don't knew, what is. Beagel (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nabucco pipeline
It has been signed today. Please update the article accordingly and I will post it. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nevada–Texas–Utah Retort
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Request for review
If you have a moment, could you look over Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and let me know how I'm doing? It's in the middle of a massive revamp and expansion (I'd say about 80% done), and I'm curious how someone else views it. I've still got to complete a section talking about its impact and revamp the maintenance section and split of an "incidents" section to cover accidents and the like. But as for what's done now, is it comprehensible and on track for GA/FA? JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do in coming days. Beagel (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments. I've still got to finish up the maintenance section and create an impacts section, and it should be good to go. When all is said and done, I don't think it'll be much longer than the Sun. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know anyone else who might be interested in reading through this and giving me their opinion? I'm getting ready to push another article through FAC, so I've got a month or two before I try my luck at this. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Trans-Saharan gas pipeline
Hi, Sémhur. You have created lot of useful maps and I wonder if you are interested to create a map for the en:Trans-Saharan gas pipeline (fr:Gazoduc trans-saharien). There is a map at this page, but this is not for free use. Thank you. 08:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Beagel, is this good for you ? It can be used for several gas pipelines.
 * File:Gas pipelines across Mediterranee and Sahara map-en.svg
 * Sémhur 15:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems perfect. I will add this map to the relevant articles. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of Russian companies
I have a little problem with the categorization of Russian companies. I see you created the category Category:Engineering companies of Russia, so maybe you can help. If you don't know the answers, can you direct me to some info which would help? Thanks. Offliner (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is "mechanical engineering" the correct term for the industry sector "machine building"? i.e. is "machine building sector" = "mechanical engineering sector"?
 * 2) What kind of companies should be put in Category:Engineering companies of Russia? (I don't understand what this category means)
 * 3) What does "manufacturing company" actually mean? (if you know?) Is a machine building/mechanical engineering company also a manufacturing company?
 * 4) Should I create a new category Category:Mechanical engineering companies of Russia (where I would put machine building companies in)?
 * Sorry, I didn't notice your question. The current categorization is not perfect and I don't think there is single answer to your questions. However, I try answer how I understand these issues:
 * "Mechanical engineering" covers also "machine building". The mechanical engineering article says that "mechanical engineers use the core principles as well as other knowledge in the field to design and analyze manufacturing plants, industrial equipment and machinery, heating and cooling systems, motor vehicles, aircraft, watercraft, robotics, medical devices and more." At the same time, there is also category:Machine manufacturers.
 * I created the Category:Mechanical engineering companies of Russia for such companies as Atomstroyexport, Stroytransgaz and Hydroproject, that means companies who design and build energy projects. Ssimilar companies from other sectors should be included also.
 * Manufacturing company is a company producing finished goods industrially on a large scale. By my understanding, a machine building company is also a manufacturing company.
 * There is nothing wrong with creating Category:Mechanical engineering companies of Russia. Alternatively, it could be named category:Machine manufacturers of Russia or category:Machine building companies of Russia.
 * I copied your question also to user:Vegaswikian. Beagel (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for keeping an eye on my page. And for all the good new articles. Alas, still uninspired with regard to the extraction article. Best, Novickas (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! As of extraction article, I try to create their own articles for all processes listed at the classification table. Some more work still should be done and it definitely needs good inspiration. I don't see any major problem with the extraction article, except the overall size of the article. Also, short history section is needed by my understanding. After that we need additional some additional copyediting and fine-tuning. Maybe after one or two months it would be ready for the renomination. Beagel (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My question
Did you notice my question above? You haven't answered yet. Offliner (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Please accept my apologies about that terse edit summary. I thought that your edit was a revert to restore everything: I should have looked more carefully. However, those two sources are not needed. The eurasianet source says nothing about the actual route. "Armenia: A Neighbor from Hell?" (aside from the fact that it is a piece of propaganda, as its title suggests) also says nothing about the route of the pipeline. Its url is here, if you want to check it: Meowy  19:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think that the new reference is more neutral and corresponds better to the current text. Beagel (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

keep removing factual data from Sodexo page
Beagle mate, you're killing me. I've twice added additional factual info about the Sodexo division; Prestige, onto the site, and twice you've removed it. And yet looking at it, I can see info on other divisions that fall under the Sodexo umbrella. Any reason why?

Ta

213.38.166.131 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, if you look at the page history, you see that I reverted your edit only once, not twice. however, I will explain why I reverted your additions (short version is given also in the edit summary). The text you added is not backed by third party reliable sources (please see WP:V and WP:RS) and reads like blatant advertising (please see WP:ADVERT). Also, according to your IP address you are related to Sodexo, which is defined as a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). This does not prohibit you for editing this article; however, it would be appreciated if you discuss your edits at the article's talk page before editing. Beagel (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Panarctic Oils
Excellent changes. Thanks. Peter Pmbcomm (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian gas
Hi. Do you speak Russian? I've added an infobox to Sayanogorsk. Could you expand the article from Russian wikipedia? If you are interested in Russian translations, you are most welcome to join WikiProject Intertranswiki/Russian. If translations can be combined with other sources this could be a very useful project. If you know missing gas-related articles you are free to list them under this project too. The idea is to create a directory of missing articles etc. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for invitation. However, I don't think that my knowledge of Russian is enough to participate in this project. Beagel (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Vankor Field
I think Vankor Field is the correct name, since most of the field article names at List of oil fields also have "Field" capitalized. I suggest we merge into my article. Offliner (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem.Beagel (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Starter battery
Please comment at Talk:Starter battery on whether or not this article should be moved to Car battery. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  JL 09  q? c|undefined 09:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear optimism
Can you please review the modifications to Nuclear optimism?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * May I ask that the "synthesis" template be removed? I think that I have put sufficient explanation and references in the article now to demonstrate that this is undeserved.
 * Thanks.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There is straw poll going on Nuclear optimism. Please feel free to weigh in.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Porcine petroleum
FYI, I listed this on AfD. You previously removed the tag. NTK (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting of Shale oil extraction article
Hi there....I would suggest that u finish adding/removing content in Shale oil extraction article. Once you are through with this article (contentwise), then pls inform me on my talk page and after that i'll start the copyediting process. If you keep adding/removing content while i am copyediting it, then it adds to my workload and there is quite a chance that i might miss something in the process. Thats why i would suggest that u complete the article in all respects and then inform me so that i can start with copyediting it....Thanks for understanding...! Gprince007 (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there, with regards to peer review, u can list the article at WP:PR or contact some experienced editors for a feedback. These are generally constructive in nature and help in improvising the article. But i would suggest that u list it for peer review after copyediting. But first i'd like to get a confirmation that content-wise the article is complete in all respects. Only then can i start copyediting. Also i'm bit busy with my real life job, so it might take a while, so u need to bear with me...!! Just let me know... Gprince007 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have printed out the article and started re-reading it in detail. I should start making some edits on it this evening. JMiall  ₰  08:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * other than the things I've already changed
 * Has much of this article been written by someone with a Slavic language as their mother tongue? Anyway there's quite a few missing definite articles. Hopefully I've spotted most of them but it would be a good idea to check for more.
 * 'The Rio Blanco Corporation used a mining and blasting approach which created a bed with close to 40% porosity' - where, when? JMiall  ₰  09:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Baltic Pipeline System-II
You have made some editings, for the account of it the writing of the told was lost.--Andrey! 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduce logic in this section of article can to make the table?--Andrey! 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)--Andrey! 17:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see how the information is illegible? There is no need to overkill the article with details like pumping stations numbers, which makes it hard to understand and read. I don't think that any important information is missing and I don't see what is lost. As your question "Introduce logic in this section of article can to make the table?", what you exactly mean? Beagel (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a sense to add in Infobox Pipeline "capacity" and "Commons" parameters.--Andrey! 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a parameter "discharge", which is actually means the maximum capacity. Could you please elaborate what you mean by parameter "commons"? If type (oil; natual gas; etc), this parameter already exists and depending this parameter, different type of pipelines have different colour of the infobox. For more information, please see the template documentation. Beagel (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Energy bot tagging
Sorry for the delay, but if you still want AnomieBOT to go ahead with tagging all these categories I'm ready to start it. Anomie⚔ 19:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your notice. Yes, I think it would be good idea to restart with this process. Beagel (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gas pipeline maps
I think it would be great if we could create a big map of Eurasia with all the pipelines and planned pipelines, as well as all the production fields. This information is available in several smaller maps, for example on the Gazprom website. Do you have a suggestion of how such maps could be created, or do you know someone who could make them? Offliner (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The best map of Eurasian pipelines in the Internet is probably this one. To see the details, please use the resolution of 400%. However, this map is only about the gas pipelines, and it is little bit out of date. I am not a specialist on creating maps myself, so I am really not able to help you with this. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That indeed looks like the most detailed overall map. I'm going to ask around if someone can create a free map for us. Offliner (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Lights (pipeline)
I've recently created Northern Lights (pipeline). It is obviously a very important pipeline, but it's really hard to find information about it. I couldn't find anything else than what is in the article. Do you know anything more about this pipeline? It appears that according to some sources "Northern Lights" means just the pipeline from Torzhok to Europe (like my source says), but according to others it starts from Western Siberia (like the map seems to indicate.) Offliner (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the work by Yafimava talks about the Belarus section of the pipeline and not about the whole pipeline. Most of this pipeline is laid in Russia and includes several parallel pipes and branch lines. It was originally planned to run from Yamal, however, it was later decided to be run from Urengoy. At the first stage it supplied the Central and Northwestern Russia and later was expanded to supply also Belarus, Baltic States and Finland. I will try to find more sources, but probably I am not able to do this on coming days. Beagel (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see...
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks, Johnfos (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for notifying, but I still have a good faith and I still hope that this user will remove these personal attacks voluntarily. Beagel (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

South Stream
Hi Beagel,

I see you moved my recent edit about Russia and Slovenia signing an agreement from Route to History section. While I do agree with the move, do you think it would be best to add a line or two in the Route section too, just to mention that the route might/will involve Slovenia? --Tuscumbia —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Right now the text says: From Subotica, one branch continues through Hungary to Austria ending at the Baumgarten gas hub.[26][27] Another branch will run through Hungary and Slovenia to Arnoldstein in Austria near the Italian border to supply northern Italy. So, by my understanding it is clear that the project involves also Slovenia. Unfortunately, I have not find more precise information about the possible route in Slovenia. Any suggestion? Beagel (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess let's see and wait until the agreement is signed and exact or near exact routes in Slovenian and Italian sectors are uncovered. Thanks Tuscumbia (talk)19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, looks like someone already created a better map :) Conscious (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Culverts
Hello. It seems to me, to you is what to tell about Culverts. Help us to develop the correct point of view.--Andrey! 16:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)