User talk:Beagel/archive2007

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

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

Energy policy of Russia[edit]

Hi Beagle - you've made a great start on the Energy policy of Russia! I've added a few links, a couple of minor additions (including the Kyoto Protocol), but you clearly have much more knowledge on the subject that I do... Gralo 12:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beagle, I'd like to contribute to the Energy policy of Russia, but I really need some help regarding certain aspects of editing, referencing, and research. I would also like some guidance regarding what to edit and where.--Proletarskaya 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Energy: world resources and consumption[edit]

Thank you for your kind words about the Energy: world resources and consumption article. I appreciate the invitation to join the energy portal. Over the last year I have made many edits and created lots of articles, this is however definitely the article that I spend most energy :) on. Like you, I think this issue is important. Frank van Mierlo 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I just got done reading the EIA report that you suggested. Interesting and somewhat puzzling that their numbers are so different from the US EIA. If you believe the EIA numbers half the installed Hydro electricity plants are not working (807 GW installed and it has only 2% of the TPE supply. Anyway all that is probably in the noise. I will take your suggestion and incorporate this information in the article. I will concentrate on making the energy densities of the different economies in the world visible. Once I have done that, will you support a renewed attempt to make it a featured article??? Frank van Mierlo 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OECD Anti-Bribery Convention[edit]

Thanks for the note about the poorly timed reversion at OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. Looking at the logs, I think I had the spam edit on my screen, then stepped away for a while, and then did the revert. Usually it will give me an "edit conflict" message, but it looks like it simply overwrote your reversion and subsequent changes. I apologize stepping on your excellent work on that article, and will exercise more caution in the future! Kuru talk 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:EPlogo.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:EPlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy Superpower additions[edit]

I have to say I appreciate you adding Kazakhstan, Iran, and Iraq as well as cleaning up other parts of the energy superpower article. However, I do have one request should you make such additions on my article (I am after all the one who started it), and that request is that could you please add more details to those countries you added to the potential energy superpowers list? Just a few sentences would be fine, as you'll note that once someone starts a country section on the page, it usually is spartan (although not blank), and sources and refinements are added as we go along. I don't have all the time in the world to look after the article being an International Relations major, so it'd be much appreciated. I'll see what I can do to spruce up things before you go back to edit. Regards, Drakeguy 03:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian oil export[edit]

Hi, I invite you to take part in creating an article about the Russian oil export, as you seem interested in such topics. Now I am collecting data, but surprisingy they are not widely available, so if you have something to add, you are very welcome. Colchicum 14:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

New energy power pages[edit]

I saw you too were curious about the block that occurred on the energy superpower page. Needless to say, Perceval and I do not see eye to eye on the merits of what is being presented. I have however in the meantime compromised in the hopes of salvaging the situation and getting some of your edits (as well as mine & others) presented on other pages. I just created the Great Energy Power page, and I need a prodigious editor on energy, such as yourself, to help me out here. We have a great deal of meaningful information on the energy superpower page that is currently being put in stasis, and I was hoping you would help me see to it that some of it would make the jump over to the new page (with re-wording & additional sources added where absolutely needed) in order to kick-start this new page up to a higher standard. Also, if possible, see if you can get a start on or request a "regional energy power" or "energy power" page as well. Thanks for your continuing contributions, Drakeguy 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll just have to be careful that we add the right countries to each category then. I really appreciated the additional edits though. Drakeguy 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Coal-fired power stations by country[edit]

I wanted to let you know that some categories that you created (Category:Coal-fired power stations by country) is being discussed at Categories for Discussion. ~ BigrTex 21:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Power stations[edit]

I noticed your comments on CfD. You seem to be involved in this area and maybe you can finish some cleanup that I was not able to do since this is not my area of expertise. I was able to find the power source for most plants directly listed in Category:Power stations in the United_States. However the remaining ones present a challenge due to the fuel they use. Can you move those that remain to a better category or maybe create one for these other fuel sources? Thanks. Vegaswikian 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Energy portal & future selected articles[edit]

Hi! Over the past couple of months I've been spending much more time than I should developing the Energy portal, and intend asking for a portal peer review within the next day or so.

The portal provides a showcase for energy-related articles on Wikipedia. One of the most prominent ways is via a the selected article that is currently changed every 6 weeks or so. It would be good to increase this turnover, and with three Wikiprojects dedicated to energy-related topics and a good number of articles already written, I'd like to suggest that members of each Wikiproject might like to use the 'selected article' to feature some of their best work.

With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that your Wikiproject bypasses the normal selected article nomination page and decides collectively which articles are worth featuring - or these may be self-evident from previous discussions - and add short 'introduction' to the selected article at the appropriate place on page Portal:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, which includes further information. Your personal involvement would be welcome!

Please make any comments on your Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, or on Portal talk:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, as appropriate. Gralo 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for fixing the references in World Energy The Skeptical Optimist 15:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WP Banners[edit]

I reverted you in two articles.. That WP Banner template is not useful to Wikipedia nor the WikiProjects: the WP templates are not there just for a turf war, but to also recruit and entice newcomers and or casual readers into joining Wikipedia/WikiProjects. That WP Banner should be used only for established articles (like FAs) where there is no shortage of manpower - however you put the banner to the talk page of a small article who had only one WP Banner - that is really overdoing it. It is a problem because all the WP templates become hidden, and most casual readers wouldn't think of clicking on "show" (how many of us would, really? :)) Please be careful for other articles, and remember that those WP banners serve many purposes. Thanks.. Baristarim 19:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I am still not sure about the merits of the global banner for small articles however. I remember putting it into an article myself, but it was a big article and was a pretty developed one. I don't know, but I think that they any means that help Wikipedia, and especialy smaller articles, attract new editors is good - especially if they can see that there are special task forces and projects that deal with subjects and all - those "edit" or "show" walls are very hard to pass for many on their own :) Obviously if you had four-five, then it makes sense but for two WP banners in a short article? Many articles have more than one in any case. Cheers! Baristarim 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

New pipeline[edit]

Hi, You may be interested in this news article[1]. KazakhPol 21:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help improve Plug-in hybrid[edit]

You are listed as a participant in WikiProject Energy development, so I am asking you to please consider helping to improve the plug-in hybrid article. This is an ad hoc article improvement drive. BenB4 08:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy[edit]

Hi Gralo. There is an active development of Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy. I have a feeling that probably better linkage between WP Energy and Energy Portal is needed. Would you care to take a look? Beagel 05:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beagel - I've taken a look and will keep on eye on the page. I too would like to see more linkage between all 3 energy-related WikiProjects and the portal - which was one of the main reasons I posted the Energy portal & future selected articles on the discussion pages of everyone participating in them, and the {{EnergyCollaboration}} template onto the project pages. The portal must also have reasonably high visibility since there are now well over 1000 links to it from articles and category pages, as well as energy portal news tags and the like on talk pages. Despite this the level of input has not increased significantly so far, and is well below the participation rate for other portals! Perhaps the number of Wikipedians interested in energy-related topics has just not reached a critical mass yet. This may also be reflected in the low number of energy articles with 'good article' status. So any ideas you have for increasing linkage / participation are very welcome. In the meantime, thanks for your own continuing contributions! Incidentally, I'm not too sure about selecting Hydroelectricity for the portal yet as it could do with a little more work, but will come back and read it again before deciding as the same applies to other articles too... Gralo 15:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Caspian pipelines[edit]

Hi Beagel, no probs, will have a go at them this week, and see what i can contribute Philbentley 20:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Trans-Caspian Pipeline[edit]

I really have no problems with your version of the page. Pan Gerwazy does, so it's up to him to explain it, as he promised he would. I also can't find anything about the Prikaspisky (North Caspian?) pipeline, by which all Turkmen gas is currently transported to Europe. It'd be great to have at least a stub. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, here I am. POV does not necessarily mean partisan or enemical to one side in a "conflict", but could simply mean that you are looking at it from one side only. Let us look at this case. Obviously one reason only for this line: circumventing Russia beacuse of what happened during the Ukraine-Gazprom crisis. Yes, there was a problem between Russia and Ukraine, but claiming that this means bypassing Russia is the only answer for the future of energy in Europe is POV - Ukraine was not entirely blameless there. Unsurprisingly, a lot of the references you are giving are based on Vladimir Socor. You do realize that even the Turkish Weekly reference is based on him?
I add a few more points. No mention that the project is the brainchild of Haig, as I mentioned, and of the Burgas-Alexandropolis alternative for Eastern Europe (although it is mentioned in at least one reference). The Piebalgs reference may actually be only Andris Piebalgs, one EC commissioner, approving a plan of six private companies to finance a feasability study. By the way, you omitted to add to the article that in 2006 Kazakhstan was mentioning 2015 - while in 1999 deliveries were promised for 2002! Contrary to what the the article seems to suggest tacitly ("during the OSCE meetings"), I believe that there was no OSCE involvement there. Reference 5 is really about the OSCE and the conflicts and human rights situation in the Caucasus. Reference six is about three countries involved in the Caucasus part of the line using the occasion to sign a treaty and Turkmenistan associating itself with it. May be a question of language: whoever wrote this may not have understood the implication of the exact phrase. I doubt very much whether the OSCE could actually get involved in this. Russia happens to be a member. But combining OSCE and Piebalgs creates the impression of massive European interest in this line. May be the case in some East European countries, i.e. the Baltics, Rumania and Poland, but doubtful for the rest of Europe.
The critics section may perhaps also refer to the line isolating Armenia (is in one reference already), the fact that the more southerly lines are, the more exposed they are to the danger of Islamic terrorism, and of course that Russia may actually start to concentrate more on delivering to China and East Asia.--Pan Gerwazy 13:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Beagel, I have incorporated my ideas into the article. I am still looking for more sources on Haig, but I have deleted the POV flag. Since I also looked at the language (cannot promise that could not be improved), the other thing would mainly be about adjusting the structure to the new situation. That may involve chronological order, like a pargraph about 2006, one about 2007 and moving criticism up to a part after 1999. Agree? --Pan Gerwazy 13:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Oil Shale[edit]

Hi. I've read your request, but unfoutuneately, I wasn't able to improve anything major. However, per fart of your request on the talkpage, I've added a reference needed since march to the environmental part of the article. I hope that I or someone else will be able to improve the page further. If the article needs many major improvements, should it be put on to-do or a tag on the article? Are there any other things that need major improvement on? Usually, the best way I can create or improve an article is to search for info on a search engine, but the main reason why I came to wiki in the first place is because it was often much easier to find info here than via search engine. Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 17:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I think you might be interested in User:AlexNewArtBot/FossilFuelsSearchResult and User:AlexNewArtBot/NuclearEnergySearchResult. Colchicum 10:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, Pan Pacific Petroleum NL, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Thewinchester (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Info Box for oil fields[edit]

Hi Beagel, i have been toying with the idea for info boxes for oil fields and have put one up on the Bonga Field. would be interested to hear your thoughts on it, to much info? too technical? too basic?. Part of me wanted to have something to include physcial properties of the reservoir as well but think that would be a bit to much. Cheers Philbentley 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oil shale[edit]

I think this article is ready to be added to the Energy Portal selected articles. First time ever I have an ambition to get an article to the FA class, but still some more work needs to be done. I hope you could advice, what will be the best way to continue. To ask for peer review, or nominate for GA or even for FA? Is there something which could be done before nomination? Probably also some copyedit is needed. I appreciate if you could assist with advice or could help to improve this article. Thank you in advance. PS: I proposed some more articles for the Energy Portal. Beagel 18:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beagel. I'm planning to sign off shortly but will take a look at your progress next time I log on. I would definitely advise peer review as your next step - but be prepared for the extra work in addressing the issues that will get raised. Then go for GA first (unless you get lots of comments suggesting you go directly for FA), as FA is tough and rejection potentially disheartening. I'm sure it will be worth it, and I hope you get there! Gralo 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits. As you suggested I listed it for the peer review, but probably summer is not the best time to get responses. But will see. I agree that better to spend some more time and go for sure. Beagel 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. You've obviously put in a lot of work and the result looks good! I've just added it the the selected articles on the portal, although I do have a question: in addition to Estonia, Brazil, China, Germany and Russia mentioned in the intro, you go on to mention its use in Israel & China. And I'm not sure if Canada and Turkey are current users or proposed users - though I'm sure I chould follow up the references to find out. Perhaps you could clarify this in the article?
Good luck with the peer review - I've had no response to the portal featured status request yet either...! Gralo 17:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beagel. I'm have stab at the Oil Shale project, currently just adding in info about various companies in-situ projects. found a very good website which i think will be useful, so just in case you haven't come across it already [[2]]

Cheers Philbentley 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

sound like a good idea, Beagel about the GA and the FA target. probably makes sense about putting everything in and then dividing it up. I'll try to work on the geology side etc then in the next few days and see what more i can add there. cheers Philbentley 22:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beagel I've just been looking at the USGS's home page for shale oil and how much info there is. I was thinking we could really turn the wikipedia article into a great but possibly too long of a page with all the resources available. I was wondering if you had any sort of strategy in mind for it as i've seen you've put it up for peer review? Cheers Philbentley 17:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beagel, Great work on cleaning up the articles on oil shale!! Just been trying to work on the introductions, i figure they would be good starts as too what we can eventually put in the main article. Anywyas keep up the greta work you're doing. Philbentley 13:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beagel. Thanks for the invite to contribute to the oil shale articles. I looked at them, and they already look great. Good work! I'll see if I can find something to add.Plazak 02:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for that - like your user page - i trust you will indeed be self sufficient in time :) - only discovered the portal and project when looking at the list of oil refinery the other day - can see there is a lot to do - like everywhere else - cheers SatuSuro 09:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP Energy vs. WP Energy Development[edit]

I was wondering if you could explain what you see is the difference between these two projects? I thought it would be better for development related topics such as energy policy, infrastructure, power companies and distribution technologies and the like be included with the energy development project. This would leave the more raw, physics based topics to go under the parent WP Energy. - Shiftchange 20:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oil field infobox[edit]

Beagel, Phil's oil field box is indeed a good start. However, we should probably make a template that makes it much easier to enter all the data. If data is missing, the box won't look bad. Also, we should be consistent with other infoboxes throughout Wikipedia. Check out this category: Category:Geography_infobox_templates Let's make a new template for oil fields: Template:Infobox Oil field. Kgrr 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start:

caption to image
Country Saudi Arabia
Offshore/onshore onshore
Operators Aramco
Partners Shell
Field history
Discovery 1948
Start of production 1951
Abandonment 2012
Producing formations Jurassic Park

Kgrr 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge with Peak oil/Table of largest oil fields[edit]

Please see the discussion at Talk:List_of_oil_fieldsKgrr 15:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Template proliferation[edit]

Your template template:WikiProject Energy3 has been nominated for deletion. It is not appropriate to have multiple templates for the same project. Work out with members of the Energy project group (there is only one member at present so that should not be hard) what symbol to use, instead of creating a half dozen or more templates for the same project. 21:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the current template. I understood some users didn't find it suitable to use oil well image for all energy articles and therefore somebody created template with NPP image. Pro-renewable energy editors found this provocative and pro-nuclear. As one possible solution I made template with wind farm image, which is suitable for renewable energy articles. All three templates actually identical--the only differences are images. But as I said, it's ok for me if there will be only one (original) template.
By the way, you have made some great contributions to energy articles. Maybe you would like to create a profile and join both Energy Project and Energy Portal? Or maybe you just forgot to sign in? Beagel 05:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I copied your message here because I won't ever see it again otherwise. I have no interest in purchasing an account. I check back on articles I have edited and read the discussion pages so that is the best way to communicate with me. Anyone who does not like the oil well should either get over it or make a list of images on a talk page that they would accept and a consensus could be reached from there. Multiple templates is just silly. 05:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fine then. I personally have nothing against oil well image and I agree that it's better to have only one template. I hope you will continue edit energy articles actively.Beagel 05:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Mostly I just try to fix things that are horribly incorrect. 05:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How about deleting Template:Future energy infrastructure ? I don't see any reason for using it instead of Template:Future infrastructure. 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) It was created to decrease overload of Category:Future infrastructure (right now this is not a problem as there are enough subcategories under Category:Future infrastructure). Both templates categorise articles automatically. Beagel 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Stuart Oil Shale Project[edit]

Hi Beagel. You are off to such a great start on the article Stuart Oil Shale Project that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Typo in Stuart Oil Project[edit]

This sentence appears in the history section:

At the beginning of December 2003, due insolvency of SPP, receivers were to the company, and in February 2004, the Stuart Oil Shale Project was sold to the newly formed company Queensland Energy Resources.

I think there is perhaps a typo, or I do not understand what is meant by "receivers were to the company." Could you fix it? Rigadoun (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On July 25, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stuart Oil Shale Project, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done. Good to see more Australiana on DYK.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear energy (or power) in {country} category[edit]

I was noticing some recatigorization by you, which I think amounts to putting the "Nuclear power in {country}" articles into the "Nuclear power in {country}" categories. I was struggling with the logic of the entire structure myself but didn't really know where there was to ask. Anyway, isn't there too much overlap with the "Nuclear technology in {country}"? The "Nuclear energy in {country}" category only contains one article with a rare exception too. I really don't see how we could have a good distintion between nuclear technology and nuclear energy since 90% of country specific articles could go in either... I just don't know what to do with them. -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My head hurts[edit]

Thanks for your comments! Alas, I am continuing the quest for reason behind the categorization. I do agree that nuclear energy is very broad (it could even include nuclear weapons), but given that, I'm tempted to delete the "nuclear technology in {country}" category. I agree that it is good to have multiple ways to get to any given category, but my issue is this:

Say I'm making aritlcles about nuclear vendors, Uranium mines, utilities, and whatever in country X. Would "nuclear energy in X" or "nuclear technology in X" be the most approprate. What do you think? -Theanphibian (talkcontribs) 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi Beagel. The energy portal was upgraded to 'featured portal' today, and I wanted to thank you for your help in getting it there - news items, comments and keeping me on my toes. It really has been appreciated. Of course the work continues and I hope that you will be able to continue to contribute too. You may even like to pick up one of the shiny black portal maintainer user boxes - though it is, of course, entirely optional.

United States Naval reactors tagged[edit]

Hello. I noticed you assessed [3] the A2W reactor article today for WikiProject Energy. If you are feeling wild and crazy, you might want to cast your assessment eye at all of the members of Category:United States Naval reactors. While working on the WikiProject Ships assessment drive last month, I also tagged (but did not assess) all of these articles for both {{WPMILHIST}} and {{WikiProject Energy}}. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen importance[edit]

There is no way that hydrogen gets a high rating in energy. All the interest in hydrogen is just hype (The Hype about Hydrogen). Hydrogen is just a sham smokescreen to try to boost oil company profits by making people go to filling stations instead of just charging electric cars at home. Electric cars are three to four times as efficient as hydrogen cars. It is highly unlikely that a hydrogen economy will ever be deployed, because it is the "most expensive, and least efficient, replacement for gasoline". 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

World energy resources and consumption[edit]

The following sentence about coal, "would make it a popular candidate to meet the energy demand of the global community", is unfinished. Not only will I be adding global warming but also other pollution concerns. With a second reference. Just thought I would let you know. When the original sentence was put in it made it sound like coal was the solution to the earths demands for energy, which it is not. 01:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]


I wish to thank you for awarding me my very first barnstar....thanx mate...and i'll see if i can go thru the article requested by you...thanks again...Cheers !!! Gprince007 14:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say thank you as well for my first barnstar from you, throughly enjoyed working on oil shale with, apologies though that i haven't done much on it lately, just went and had a look and the article looks great now. Will try and contribute as i can on the next project. Always impressed with how much you bring to the energy topics here. cheersPhilbentley 19:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, I enjoyed it and it's a pleasure to work with you. Re getting oil shale to FA, do you know of any other energy topics that have been FAs? Novickas 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The only FA on energy is Renewable energy in Scotland.Beagel 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I took a quick look at it just now, closer reading later. Especially enjoyed the photo caption "Whisky distilleries have a role to play in keeping Scots warm." Novickas 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Good work on Oil shale. Keep it up. Sushant gupta 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Planned or proposed bridges[edit]

Template:Planned or proposed bridges 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. --- RockMFR 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article[edit]

This tag can be moved back down below the Wikiprojects after the review is successful. When you are reading the talk page, what is the most important item? When it is a GAC, it is the fact that it is a good article candidate, and so that tag goes first. After the review either fails or succeeds it can be moved back after the Wikiprojects, and before any other tags. GA just isn't as important as FA. 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for nice job on StatoilHydro --Profero 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I do not agree to the heading. --Profero 04:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to change the heading.Beagel 07:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge of coal mining and sub-surface mining[edit]

Hello! I know you are from the Energy WikiProject. I proposed almost two weeks ago a merge of two articles (actually an article and a section) that are covered by your WP. Could you give me an opinion on it? Also, if there's someone I should turn to that deals with mining, I'd appreciate any input. Thanks. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your info! I will try to contact other Wikipedians that might be interested. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 10:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Webgeek#Please replace references[edit]

While I disagree with some of your assessment (especially the vandalism part), I agree with the overall message -- we've got a big problem now with citation holes.

I have responded to your comments in greater detail on that page.

Somewhat off-topic: I'm really impressed by all your work on important stuff like Central Asia and energy. Some days it feels like all the "energy' around this project is going into pro wrestling, anime and manga articles. --A. B. (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello Beagel!

I stand corrected, nice sourcing for the article now. At the time I deleted the article I viewed it as either spam or newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. Apologies for my mistake, and happy editing to you. Keegantalk 09:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


Could we please not merge the articles? One is an organization, while the other is a specific proposed project from the organization. I think both are important enough to have their own articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you give an outsider's opinion?[edit]

Hi Beagel, thanks for the welcome. I actually may be able to use some help on one thing. Could you have a look at the last few edits of Environnement2100 at peak oil. Maybe you can help resolve what's going on there. Thanks again. NJGW (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you again, but this editor is getting more disruptive, placing non-sequitors and misusing references. I'm pretty sure they are mostly good faith edits (though some over the past week you could say are vandalism) that either disrupt the article or fail to accurately portray the source's information. There may also be a language issue, as the editor is a native French speaker. The reason I'm back is I've reached my 3rr limit with him/her on peak oil, and I would like an authoritative 3rd party to help us out. I do expect you though to enjoy the rest of your Sunday before you come by. NJGW (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)