User talk:Beagel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives... 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Puma Energy: update to 'Ownership' section[edit]

Hi Beagel, hope you're well and a happy new year to you. I posted here on the talk page for Puma Energy on the 17th last year. Trafigura has reduced its stake in Puma with a sale of shares to existing minority shareholders as well as a further divestment to Sonangol, which now owns 30% of the company. If you could take a look at the proposed four-sentence paragraph, which I suggest adding to the end of the existing 'Ownership' section, that would be much appreciated. The Financial Times article referenced also states that Puma Energy employs 6,000 people – until now we've only had primary sources with that figure, so that could also be updated at the same time. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I updated and answered at the article's talk page. Beagel (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sympathy[edit]

Cosmos bipinnatus & Ipomoea nil.JPG Sympathy
Sorry to hear you had a sad time. I can only offer virtual flowers, sympathy, copy editing when you'd like it, and appreciation for all you've done here. Best wishes. Novickas (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Novickas. It is pleased to feel being supported when it's needed. Beagel (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

NUM:MOS listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NUM:MOS. Since you had some involvement with the NUM:MOS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 02:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wingas may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | foundation = {{Start date|1993}})

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bituminous shale[edit]

Dear Beagel, I received your message about merging the article on pyrobitumen with one on bituminous shale. That, in turn, has a link to a short article on organic-rich sedimentary rocks that needs a lot of work. At the moment, I don't think that is a good idea, but I do agree that this area in general needs work. I should start with the assertion that bituminous shale is a terrible name for oil shale, as nearly all of the organic matter in oil shale is kerogen, not bitumen. So there is merit in renaming oil shale as kerogen shale or kerogenous shale in light of confusion caused by oil production from fine-grained source rocks, but there is a lot of history to overturn with that move. I resisted renaming tar sand as oil sands for years--it would have made much more sense to rename them bitumen sands. The logic for the change was twofold, I understand. One was an attempt to make them more politically acceptable, which I think is nonsense. Then I heard the justification that they should be called that in analogy to oil shale as a source of oil. The same logic applies to calling the grapes used to make wine as wine grapes, as Jerry Boak says frequently. I got quite a bit of input from Ken Peters and Joe Curiale, both very prominent petroleum geochemists, on the pyrobitumen article. Joe was particularly aghast that the online Encyclopedia Britannica still considers lignite coal as pyrobitumen. I see how the bituminous term could be stretched for higher rank coals, but some of the old nomenclature systems are not logical. An interesting question is whether Wikipedia could be a driving force on trying to straighten out nomenclature. Common terms such as clay, shale, and shale oil have multiple meanings in difference contexts, and scientists do not agree completely on their precise meaning. This spills over into confusion in the general public. For example, people talk about producing shale oil by hydraulic fracturing. Of course, if one claims that shale must be a fine-grained fissile rock with more than 50% clay minerals, most such formations are not shales, as hydraulic fracturing works best with higher carbonate content, I am told, because they are more brittle. If one realizes that clay also means fine particles less than 5 microns, these unconventional reservoirs are shales, even though scientists are moving to more consistently call them mudrocks, which does not imply mineralogy. It is worth continuing the dialog. AlanAkburnham (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox dam cleanup[edit]

Hi. You're receiving this message because you are a major contributor to {{Infobox dam}}. You opinion on this cleanup proposal is very much appreciated. Best regards, Rehman 14:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Accessdate[edit]

The is no need for accessdates in a reference when the source has a publication date, ( also applys when the content is archived with a clear archive date)

eg Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date Template:Citation

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For rebuilding an article practically from scratch using independent sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD that might interest you[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LuminAID. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look. Beagel (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox power station[edit]

Hi Beagel. While working on refining {{Infobox dam}}, I was also did some changes to {{Infobox power station}}. There are minor tweaks pending here are there, including a function which changes the header and footer colour depending on the type of the power station (for example, usage on wind farms will automatically make the header and footer blue). I would like to know for your opinion on what you think of the template as a whole? The new template sandbox is here, and the transclusion test is here. Best regards. Rehman 10:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rehman. I tool a look and I have some comments and questions. But I think it would be more beneficial to have the centralized discussion, probably at Template talk:Infobox power station. For this it would be useful if you provide a list of changes (which fields are removed and name of which fields are changed). I am not agree with every proposed change but as I said, the centralized discussion would be useful. Beagel (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course. The changes list are currently off-site in a non-wiki format, will bring it in and start a discussion as soon as the dam template is done, just to avoid making things look messy. Thought of just letting you know anyway since you are one of the key people at the energy wikiproject. Best regards, Rehman 00:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Greetings again. I saw on my watchlist that you (quite reasonably) reverted Geo project editor Colonies Chris' move of that double-barreled Vietnamese dam to full Vietnamese fonts here. Chris didn't participate in the RM and appears to be simply going round fixing a few remaining titles according to the Vietnam geo names RfC a few months ago. If you want I'd move it back and ask Chris to put in a new RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That page move year ago was technical one and has nothing to do with Colonies Chris. I have no problem with the movement to the current title as by my understanding the consensus on the Vietnam geo names RfC supersedes the results of the older RM discussion. So I don't see a need for a new RM discussion. Beagel (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I've just been notified of this discussion. @IIO, I resent the suggestion that I'm some sort of loose cannon changing names without consensus. And looking at the article history, I see that noone has changed it back since the move I initiated. So what is the point of this comment? Colonies Chris (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this was just misunderstanding as the previous page moves happened in February 2013 and now we have February 2014. As a rule, if the page was moved as a result of RM discussion, it needs a new RM discussion before moving to the new title. However, as I said, by my understanding the later Vietnam geo names RfC overrules earlier RM discussion. So there is no complain about your action. Beagel (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ships of BP Shipping[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Beagel. You have new messages at Vegaswikian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Merge discussion for Sha Tin Heights Tunnel [edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sha Tin Heights Tunnel , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jc86035 (talkcontributions) 10:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Runaway greenhouse effect may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • reason=as there is no reference, it is not clear what exactly is meant by ämining shale oilä (is it mining [[oil shale]], [[extraction of shale oil]] or producing [[tight oil]].|date=March 2014}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tight oil may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • WER_2013_Survey.pdf |title= World Energy Resources 2013 Survey | year = 2013 | publisher = [[World Energy Council] | page = 2.46 | isbn=9780946121298 |format = PDF}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • each incident. Most spills occur because of equipment failure or engineering misjudgments.<ref>(Surface Spills, 2013</ref> The management practices behind hydraulic fracturing are crucial to the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mohammed Saleh Al Sada[edit]

Hi,

I got the message on why my updates were deleted. Our only objective is really just to ensure that the Wikipedia information on Dr. Mohammed bin Saleh Al-Sada is correct, as many people are using this information to introduce him during conferences and other events. Unfortunately, there are many erroneous information on there and it would be greatly appreciated if this could be corrected as soon as possible.

Anyway, I have prepared a draft correction below for your review and kindly advise on whether this is okay and I would be very grateful for any guidance or assistance.

Best regards,

Qatarpetroleum (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Qatarpetroleum

Dr. Mohammed bin Saleh Al-Sada is the Minister of Energy and Industry of Qatar.

Education Dr. Al-Sada graduated from the Qatar University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Marine Science and Geology.[1] He also holds a PhD from the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST).[2]

Career Dr. Al-Sada held the position of Director Technical of Qatar Petroleum, wherein he directed the implementation of major oil & gas projects and related infrastructure projects. He also previously served as the Managing Director of RasGas Company Limited.

In April 2007, Dr. Al-Sada was appointed as the Minister of State for Energy and Industry Affairs.[3] On 18 January 2011, he replaced Abdullah bin Hamad Al Attiyah in the post of Minister of Energy and Industry.[4] The following month, he was also appointed as the Chairman and Managing Director of Qatar Petroleum.

Within Qatar’s energy industry, Dr. Al-Sada is also currently the Chairman of the Board of RasGas, Qatargas, Qatar Chemical Company (Q-Chem), Qatar Petroleum International (QPI), Qatar Gas Transport Company (Nakilat), Qatar Chemical and Petrochemical Marketing and Distribution Company (Muntajat), Gulf International Services and Qatar International Petroleum Marketing Company Ltd. (Tasweeq). In addition, he is also the Chairman of the Board of ASTAD Project Management, Industries Qatar, and Qatar Steel.

Dr. Al-Sada’s position remained unchanged in the cabinet reshuffle in June 2013, which saw the change of the country’s prime minister.[5] Therefore, he is part of the cabinet led by prime minister Abdullah bin Nasser bin Khalifa Al Thani.[5]

Community Involvement Dr. Al-Sada is an active member of the Qatari community and has served as a member of several distinguished committees and organizations, including the Permanent Constitution Preparation Committe, and the National Committee for Human Rights. He is currently the Chairman of the Joint Advisory Board (JAB) of Texas A&M University at Qatar (TAMUQ) and he is also a Board Member of Qatar Foundation and of the Supreme Education Council.

Personal Life Dr. Al-Sada is married and has two daughters and three sons.[2]

I copied your post at the article's talk page. Beagel (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing[edit]

I greatly appreciate the work you have been doing on energy-related articles, particularly those related to hydraulic fracturing. Your reorganization of the Hydraulic fracturing article looks good to me, particularly the environmental section. My opinion is that when a subject has a separate article, the main article should have no more than a link and a summary paragraph, but I am probably outvoted on this. Your effort in summarizing these sections in the main article and moving material into the branch articles is a great improvement. Because of my conflict of interest, I have not contributed as much as I otherwise would, especially on controverted environmental and regulatory points, even though there is a lot of blatant POV and misinformation on these topics. So your disinterested editing of these articles is especially appreciated. Plazak (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear renaissance[edit]

Hi Beagel, Wonder if you could offer a comment at Talk:Nuclear renaissance please, to help move things forward... thanks, Johnfos (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Re Oil shale in Estonia[edit]

Hi Beagel - nice to hear from you. Yes, I'd be happy to work on this article - most of us eventually get to a stage where we've been working too long, and/or looking too long, at a piece of writing:) It's not very far from being GA-quality; wonderfully referenced. My first thought after a very quick scan was that the section Oil_shale_in_Estonia#Industry has too many short sub-sections that consist of only a few sentences. Two options - they could be combined, eliminating the subheadings, along with more intro sentences, or the subsections could be individually expanded. Also, district heating use isn't discussed, unless I missed something? Or it doesn't contribute very much? Later, Novickas (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I fully agree what you said about Industry subsections. I just waited to see if there would be enough information to satisfy sub-sections or not. I think that at the moment they could stay and lets make the decision later. I also try to find some information about district heating. I don't think they use raw oil shale anymore (probably shale oil in some places) and its share is not too big but lets see what would be possible to find. Beagel (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Claude Dauphin – change of role[edit]

Hi Beagel, hope you're well. It's recently been reported that Claude Dauphin, formerly chairman and CEO of Trafigura, is now its executive chairman after a management reshuffle (see here). His intro and infobox should be updated – I've posted on the talk page and put the reference in a Harvard template in the HTML. Would you mind having a look and making those small changes when you have a moment? To disclose my COI, you'll remember that Trafigura is my client. Many thanks.HOgilvy (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I made this change as verified and non-controversial factual change. I remember you link with Trafigura; however, thank you mentioning it. Paid editing has become highly controversial and in this respect the maximum transparency is essential. Beagel (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Beagel, thanks for that. Yes it's very important and I always disclose a COI. Thanks again.HOgilvy (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of RasGas[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on RasGas, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

  • It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
  • It appears to be a clear copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

    If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

  • It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, 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. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please disregard. EvergreenFir based this speedy on a "company approved" rewrite by RasGas representatives, without seeing that a non-spammy version had existed previously. I've reverted to the last "good" version. --Finngall talk 19:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Oil sands[edit]

Hi Beagel, re your recent revert at Oil sands, I think if you check the cited source, you'll see it doesn't really support the statement as given. At minimum some rephrasing and reattribution is required. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi LeadSongDog. Yes, I did not check. I reverted based on fact that no explanation for removal was provided (no edit summary or discussion at the talk page). No problem with changing (removing/rephrasing) it according to the cited source. Beagel (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave it with you. Nice to sometimes see gf edits from ip editors.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Chicago Options Associates/GA1[edit]

Thank you for your review!

I've responded, at Talk:Chicago Options Associates/GA1.

Hopefully this is satisfactory,

Cirt (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In essence: The company is indeed notable for multiple things, two of them being its former Research Director and the Illinois Supreme Court case. Both of those things are noteworthy, so I don't think the article should be renamed to anything else but instead remain at the name of the company itself. However, if you would like to help in additional research to try to find more references to use in this article -- I would most appreciate that ! — Cirt (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Coal by country[edit]

Beagel, thank you for reading my work (I have also seen it elsewhere...sorry for being busy). In my opinion the main articles of the Category:Coal by country like Coal in Finland, Coal in China, Coal in the United Kingdom, Coal in Australia and Coal in the United States deserve place in the category. The link in the articles would also be a plus. can you accept with these reasons to return the change? Watti Renew (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:CAT "... each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." All these articles are already categorized through specific "category:Coal in X" categories. Therefore, categorizing them separately is not the best solution. Beagel (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This does not apply Category:Nuclear power by country. All energy forms should have same rules. Watti Renew (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I cleaned it up. Beagel (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

I had no idea canvassing was a "thing." Is your comment really necessary?Christopher Lotito (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is. Canvassing is a leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Requesting somebody to advocate your point of view does not qualify as a neutral point of view. As a rule, editors invited this way are discouraged to comment the discussion. Beagel (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the information, I did not know any of that.Christopher Lotito (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oil and gas industry[edit]

Would you mind if I added some important Petroleum industry subcats to the merger nomination? [1]Fayenatic London 22:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that these subcats should be reviewed and cleaned-up, if necessary. At the same time I am afraid that every of these subcats may have their own arguments which may complicate achieving consensus on the current merger proposal. Therefore I prefer the step-by-step approach. But, in general, I have nothing against if you would add some subcats to this nomination. Beagel (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

energy
Thank you for renewing energy with energy - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 180th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Beagel (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

International Renewable Energy Agency[edit]

Umm, it's a long-standing page, and on looking again, I'm not sure that there is a serious problem anyway, I've restored Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk restored Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Stuart oil shale processing plant.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Stuart oil shale processing plant.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

  • state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
  • add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kollision (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Coal gasification[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Coal gasification, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from , and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Coal gasification saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Wuerzele (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice, Wurzele. However, if you would look the edit summary of my first edit at that article (it says: "spin-off from the coal article"), as also the template at the top of the Coal gasification talk page (the template says: "Material included in the associated project or article page was split from Coal on 14 June 2009. The page history of that page now serves as the attribution history for the contents of the associated project or article page."), you would see that I am not the author of that text. Therefore, using that kind of notice template at my talk page as you used is not justified. About content, it would be useful if you could explain at the article's talk page what text exactly and from which source is copyvio. Thank you very much. Beagel (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Beagel it appears you didnt look at the Coal gasification page before writing this. Please read it.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You marked that article with {{Copyvio}}. To investigate potential copyright issues you have to compare the text with sources. That template requires that sources are included (there is a specific parameter 'url=' for this purposes). This was not done. There is also no explanation at the talk page. I checked the lead and find a number of websites containing the same text. However, all these websites were derivatives of wiki or sites mirroring this article and not vice versa. Without providing sources of copyvio I do not intend to spend more time with this issue. My second question was if this template applies to the whole article (as it does now) or any specific section. Right now there are 32 references and I don't think that all of them are violation of copyrights. Unfortunately you did not answered these questions.
I also advice to spot the person who originally added that text which you think is copyvio (as I don't know what you think I can't do it myself) to Coal from which article it was split, and notify them. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to correct myself. It seems that the problematic part (if I assume correctly what the editor who tagged that article means) is originating from Coal gas. It may originate even from Town gas which was merged into Coal gas in 2007. Beagel (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank to the post at the article's talk by other user page I find out what the problem is. Unfortunately this link was never mentioned at my talk page or originally at the article's page. I would help if this has been provided instead of newcomer's welcome messages. As of content, it would be better to be discussed at the article's talk page. Beagel (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Beagel, for someone who screwed up so big by copying heaps of completely unreferenced material -and so many times on the WP articles that you appear to chief edit- these are enough accusations, "advice" and other negative comments. You ignore absolutely basic netiquette: addressing users by name (so it lands in their message box). You are being addressed, but dont appear to return the favor of using the template. It also keeps discussions clearer, when someone else answers in between, but this seems none of your concern.
  • the coal gasification page tag contains all the info you needed to comprehend and work productively on the issues. You also didnt carefully read my remark on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_August_6
  • the process of tagging for copyvio PRESCRIBES to put this template ("courtesy" message) on the user's page that one finds having introduced potential copyvio material to the article page. I didnt choose a "welcome message" so dont complain.
  • the place, where discussions should take place per the copyvio flag, is not up to you, or on your private talk page, but a special neutral space as indicated on the flag Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_August_6 (for good reasons, also protected from blanking whenever a user likes to).
  • The accusation of not filling in as "the template requires that sources are included (there is a specific parameter 'url=' for this purposes)-it is at the proper page..." is incorrect, and you did realize it, since you posted on "the "proper" page (above)already but you didnt admit the error or apologize for your accusation.
  • As far as "I do not intend to spend more time with this issue" (which is rather arrogant): you wont have a choice.
  • As far as glossing-over-the-problem remark above "That issue has been discussed and explained" you will have to get down and humbly discuss the issues (plural, not singular)) I brought up. The issue of copyvio may have been mechanicallyexplained as backward copy by Novickas, thanks (whom you finally saw a chance to answer) but lets see what others at the copyvio page think - you dont judge about yourself and its not in your power to call it quits ; But the issue of introducing completely unsourced material hasn't been discussed at all. You of all people (bringing pages to GA status ?) should know better plus take the responsibility for your actions. instead you chastize me. you cant expect for someone to go back to Adam and Eve to find the original author of this. I see you tried, but only after the fact of advising me to find the "proper author".
I'd appreciate if you stop kneejerk accusations, fault finding, erroneous advice and instead apologize, admit your errors and be productive. I am especially troubled to have frequently seen you judge harshly, but obviously use a double standard, when it comes to yourself. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
These are very harsh accusations targeted against me as an editor and not discussing the potential copyvio issue what was the starting point of this thread. I try to answer point-by-oint.
  • for someone who screwed up so big by copying heaps of completely unreferenced material -and so many times on the WP articles that you appear to chief edit- these are enough accusations, "advice" and other negative comments.
Could you please provide exact examples of by copying heaps of completely unreferenced material -and so many times on the WP articles What articles you exactly means? As I already explained about coal gasification, this was technical split of existing material which was not introduced by me. There are certainly articles where I have added some unsourced text back my starting years here when I was still newcomer and not aware of all policies, but it is not a case anymore and it is inappropriate to make that kind of accusations now. Also, could you please explain which my comment you consider as negative? I definitely not intended to make any negative comment and, if so, I apology for any comment you may consider as negative. At the same time I feel your comments being not in line with Wikipedia:Etiquette, using insulting tone and making personal attacks.
  • You ignore absolutely basic netiquette: addressing users by name (so it lands in their message box). You are being addressed, but dont appear to return the favor of using the template. It also keeps discussions clearer, when someone else answers in between, but this seems none of your concern.
I am sorry but I don't understand to what case you are referring. You posted a notice on my talk page and as it was posted on my talk page I answered here and notified you about my answer at your talk page. After your answer at my talk page I assume that you are aware that the discussion is going on here. The discussion has been between you and me and no third party has been involved in this thread at my talk page so far. As for my comments at Talk:Coal_gasification#Copyright_problem:_Coal_gasification and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 August 6, they were comments about topic and not about you. At the same time, this post addresses me directly but the name was never linked so I became aware of it only several days later (instead of automatic notification).
Unfortunately it is not so clear to understand from the template where exactly the concerns were described. Probably it is my fault but I find it out only after Novickas posted the direct link here. Before that I asked to clarify the issue. Instead of doing this or giving direct link, you just replied: it appears you didnt look at the Coal gasification page before writing this. Please read it. Again, this did not help me as at that point I still did not understand what is the exact problem. Providing direct link would be helpful and avoid further misunderstandings. Another possibility to avoid this misunderstang would be if you have linked my name when you filed here. In that case I would received a notification that my name was mentioned there and have had an opportunity to answer there instead of asking clarification at my talk page.
  • the process of tagging for copyvio PRESCRIBES to put this template ("courtesy" message) on the user's page that one finds having introduced potential copyvio material to the article page. I didnt choose a "welcome message" so dont complain.
First of all, I am not the editor who introduced this text into Wikipedia. As I am desribed above, I made a split from Coal and Coal gas articles which is a technical action (one could even say housekeeping). The text was moved (and not copied) from these articles. This does not make me an author of this and therefore placing that notification tag at my talk page was inappropriate. Second, notwithstanding the obligatory of this notice tag, it is specifically designed to welcome newcomers. It as said several times in different discussion boards that using that kind on notices are not suitable in the case of long-time editors (and being active editor for eight years is quite a long time). It probably needs some discussion at the template's talk page how to make its text more appropriate.
  • the place, where discussions should take place per the copyvio flag, is not up to you, or on your private talk page, but a special neutral space as indicated on the flag Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_August_6 (for good reasons, also protected from blanking whenever a user likes to).
I am fully agree but at the same time providing link to the discussion instead of harsh comments would be the simple courtesy appreciated by Wikiquette. As far I found out where the discussion is going on, I posted my comment there. It is also always suitable to use the article's talk page to discuss issues related to the improvement of the article (versus discussing other editors).
  • The accusation of not filling in as "the template requires that sources are included (there is a specific parameter 'url=' for this purposes)-it is at the proper page..." is incorrect, and you did realize it, since you posted on "the "proper" page (above)already but you didnt admit the error or apologize for your accusation.
Actually the documentation of that template says following: If a text page is a likely copyright violation, replace the text with the following: {{subst:copyvio|url=source(s)}}. However, the url parameter was never filled when put on that page. Again, proving this url would avoid a lot of misunderstandings. And again, I found the proper discussion only after another user provided the direct link. So, if you think that I should apology for referring the proper use of template and what its documentation says, I will apology.
  • As far as "I do not intend to spend more time with this issue" (which is rather arrogant): you wont have a choice.
Unfortunately you took my words out of the context. My full sentence was: Without providing sources of copyvio I do not intend to spend more time with this issue. Again, it was written before finding out where the source was provided. So I don't think it was arrogant (at least it was not meant to be). If the direct link to discussion has been provided after my request, that kind of misunderstanding would be avoided. Also, if you look the notice at the top of mu talk page, you see that I am at the moment without a permanent Internet connection and in course of a limited access to Internet, I have to focus topics to deal with.
  • As far as glossing-over-the-problem remark above "That issue has been discussed and explained" you will have to get down and humbly discuss the issues (plural, not singular)) I brought up. The issue of copyvio may have been mechanicallyexplained as backward copy by Novickas, thanks (whom you finally saw a chance to answer) but lets see what others at the copyvio page think - you dont judge about yourself and its not in your power to call it quits ; But the issue of introducing completely unsourced material hasn't been discussed at all. You of all people (bringing pages to GA status ?) should know better plus take the responsibility for your actions. instead you chastize me. you cant expect for someone to go back to Adam and Eve to find the original author of this. I see you tried, but only after the fact of advising me to find the "proper author".
I am not accusing you not recognizing backwardcopy. I am also taking responsibility of all my actions here in Wikipedia. However, I am not tolerating false accusations and personal attacks. As for "the issue of introducing completely unsourced material" I would like to repeat one more time that I am fully aware of the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material; however I did not added or restored this material. What I did was a split of information about coal gasification from existing articles Coal and Coal gas. This does not make me an author of it. Also, one could see that during the split I specifically marked the new article with {{refimprove}} and {{cleanup}}. However, dealing with unsourced material is not a part of copyvio investigation.
I'd appreciate if you stop kneejerk accusations, fault finding, erroneous advice and instead apologize, admit your errors and be productive. I am especially troubled to have frequently seen you judge harshly, but obviously use a double standard, when it comes to yourself.
Could you please clarify what you mean by Kneejerk accusations, fault finding, erroneous advice'? Could you please provide exact examples? I apology if any of my actions could be described as Kneejerk accusations, fault finding, erroneous advice but I really don't understand this accusation. It also seems to contradict WP:AGF.
All in all, I propose to end these pointless accusations and to assume good faith. I apology for all my comment which me be interpreted as arrogant, kneejerk accusations, fault finding, or erroneous advice. They are not meant to be. Appologies from your said for you comment are not expected; however, they are highly appreciated. Lets have a fruitful cooperation in improving Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Petroleum industry[edit]

Sorry, but I think I have expressed an opinion in this area before so I really can not close that discussion. If I made a comment today, I would likely oppose the change. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)