User talk:Beagel

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

Archives... 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Re: Happy New Year![edit]

Hi Beagel, Thanks! Really great to hear from you again! Hope all is well, and Happy New Year to you and family :) Best wishes, Rehman 16:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Snowflake 02.svg

Thanks, Beagel, and all the best to you and yours too! Novickas (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

oil shale in the US[edit]

As the leading editor of oil shale articles, what would you think about an article "History of the oil shale industry in the United States"? I'd be interested in starting one. US oil shale has always been a topic of great promise but repeated commercial frustration. Regards. Plazak (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Plazak, that's a great idea. I can't promise that I would spend a lot of time on that article as time that I could spend in Wikipedia is rather limited and my priority at the moment is getting Oil shale in Estonia to FA level. However, there is already some information in different article which could be used for this purpose. The main existing source is History of the oil shale industry, but I think that also Colony Shale Oil Project, Paraho process, Union process, TOSCO II process, and Nevada–Texas–Utah Retort may contain some useful information. Beagel (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I have posted a proto-article on my talk page (starting at item #147 on my table of contents), and would much appreciate any criticism or changes for which you find the time. It lacks figures and has too few references, both of which I plan to add. The biggest drawback I see is that it is too much my own overlong personal essay, but until other editors add to it, that's just the way it flowed off the keyboard. Regards, Plazak (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
For better or worse: History of the oil shale industry in the United States. Plazak (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I will take a look in coming days. Beagel (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


<Peaks from around a corner, waves shyly> I moved and I had an eye surgery. But it looks like I have settled. I am back, but I don't want to spend lots of time in front of computer. So, I promise, I will return to the article (loving the tables!) but give me a couple days. Renata (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Renata, I did not know. I hope that the surgery went well and everything is ok. And please keep your eyes, this article can wait. I myself need some break from it to be able to have a fresh look again. Beagel (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

review of a new article[edit]

Beagel, you kindly offered assistance last year and I've finally got around to creating a new article: Smoky Falls Generating Station. It's a fairly contained subject but I'd appreciate any suggestions that you have, as well as an assessment.

Thanks Walkabout14 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

western tasmania[edit]

Hi, I strongly object to merging dam and power station articles on western tasmania on the basis that the dam making process in western tasmania has been a politically and ecologically fraught issue - regardless of the 'neatness' for people who might not have the full background on the issues - I would support separate articles. cheers satusuro 23:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have a personal need to merge dam and power station articles - for consistency - you have a whole set of Tasmanian articles to consider - not just a few on the west coast of tasmania. editing on articles to do with tasmania - if you are waiting for comments by others, you could wait a year or 2 - one article i wanted other comment on I had to wait 3 years :) .

controversy and the linkages with tasmanian domestic politics are not necessarily picked up from the articles - most dam articles have been edited by people keen on 'energy' tags and that is it. Tasmanian electricity generation properly assessed should have a range of project interests - energy is but a small component, of the construction, and the politics of placement, and tasmanian political history - dams are not just dams anywhere in the world - the socio political constraints and objections to dams are hardly the sole domain of 'energy' - in most cases environmental issues always seem to be forgotten in relation to hydro 'power development schemes' as the hydro faithfully called them. Dont't let me start. cheers satusuro 07:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We meet again, thanks for providing appropriate formula for discussion - the problem with 'defunct' as opposed to 'former' - is in most cases they were simply absorbed into newer names or operations. But hey if anyone want to make an issue of the change, I'm fine with that. cheers JarrahTree 08:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Puma Energy[edit]

Hi Beagel, hope you're well. Puma Energy has made a couple of forays into new markets – namely UK and Colombia. See here on the talk page, if you could have look and let me know what you think that'd be great. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Beagel, just wondering if you've got a chance to take a look at this, thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick review[edit]

Hi Beagel, I've been doing paid editing on/for The Pictet Group, and I think an outside look is always good. The full description of edits is on the Talk page, and I would very much appreciate your input (if any).

Thanks a lot! Leo Fischer (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Good edit on your part[edit]

You clarified the issue. I was wrong, you were right. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction to the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Thanks. --Oil1236 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Peak Oil page Good Article nomination[edit]

Just writing for your assistance in improving the Peak Oil page. I noticed you have made some comments recently that the page does not currently meet the GA criteria. I have spent some time recently improving the prose, updating figures and references. Whilst any page is a work in progress, I think the page now seems to meet an acceptable standard. I will continue to work on the page to make it as current, accurate and neutral as possible. I believe you have made comments previously that it does not meet GA criteria 1b, 2b and possibly 4. I am writing to ask that you be more specific in your criticism of the page so that myself and others may be able to address any concerns. In particular, refer to specific sections and clearly identify the issue. There is apparently a long and controversial history associated with the page, so any assistance you can give would make editing easier. Thanks for any assistance. Blandx (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)