→Copyediting of Shale oil extraction article: getting started |
Nanobear~enwiki (talk | contribs) →Barnstar: new section |
||
Line 422: | Line 422: | ||
There is a sense to add in {{Tl|Infobox Pipeline}} "capacity" and "Commons" parameters.--[[User:AndreyA|Andrey!]] 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC) |
There is a sense to add in {{Tl|Infobox Pipeline}} "capacity" and "Commons" parameters.--[[User:AndreyA|Andrey!]] 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Barnstar == |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Original_Barnstar.png|100px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Every time I come across a well-written article related to the Russian energy sector, your name features prominently in the list of contributors. [[Druzhba pipeline]] is just one example among many. Great work! [[User:Offliner|Offliner]] ([[User talk:Offliner|talk]]) 21:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 21:37, 24 September 2009
Archives... 2009 2008 2007 2006
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.
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:
- Currently the is no consensus about the merger;
- 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)
- 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)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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, Wikipedia:MOS#Images 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 [1] 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)
- 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)
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)
Uranium Mines in Canada
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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)
DYK for Lurgi-Ruhrgas process
Giants27 09:49, 4 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:
- 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. [1]
- 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.
Am I wrong (to high) in assessment, if yes please correct my assessment? Regards. --Kebeta (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
ITN for International Renewable Energy Agency
--BorgQueen (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
ITN for Abdullah Bin Hamad Al-Attiyah
--BorgQueen (talk) 14:05, 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)
ITN for Yukiya Amano
--BorgQueen (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
ITN for Trans–Saharan gas pipeline
--BorgQueen (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Re:IEA map
Done :). 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: {{underconstruction}}.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.
Is this station a part of the MEGAL pipeline? --BorgQueen (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
ITN for MEGAL pipeline
--BorgQueen (talk) 15:03, 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 Wikipedia: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 the discussion 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)
It has been signed today. Please update the article accordingly and I will post it. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
ITN for Nabucco pipeline
--BorgQueen (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Nevada–Texas–Utah Retort
Hello! Your submission of Nevada–Texas–Utah Retort at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Thanks. It's appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
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. Beagel 08:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Beagel, is this good for you ? It can be used for several gas pipelines.
- Sémhur 15:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Nevada–Texas–Utah Retort
BorgQueen (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Richard Morningstar
Wizardman 18:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Superior multimineral process
BorgQueen (talk) 12:08, 26 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.
- Is "mechanical engineering" the correct term for the industry sector "machine building"? i.e. is "machine building sector" = "mechanical engineering sector"?
- What kind of companies should be put in Category:Engineering companies of Russia? (I don't understand what this category means)
- What does "manufacturing company" actually mean? (if you know?) Is a machine building/mechanical engineering company also a manufacturing company?
- Should I create a new category Category:Mechanical engineering companies of Russia (where I would put machine building companies in)?
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)
- 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)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ITN for Sakhalin–Khabarovsk–Vladivostok pipeline
--BorgQueen (talk) 04:04, 1 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: [2] 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)
Re: Taggign_for_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Energy
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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)
DYK for Linc Energy
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:15, 15 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 Wikipedia: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)
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 {{hangon}}
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 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)
FYI, I listed this on AfD. You previously removed the {{prod}} 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)
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)
Old text | New text | Notes |
---|---|---|
The first stage… …The initialt capacity of BPS-2 will be 30 million tons of oil annually. Two will be constructed Oil-pumping station is #3 and # 7, is reconstructed Oil-pumping station is #1 Unecha, and # 5 Andreapol, constructed Pipe-end oil-pumping station "Ust-luga".
The second stage… …The initialt capacity of BPS-2 will be upgraded with 30 to 50 million tons of oil annually. The branch to Kirishi will be in addition constructed, the capacity of it will be 12 million tons of oil annually, the branch to Ust-Luga will be upgraded with 30 to 38 million tons of oil annually. Four will be constructed Oil-pumping station is # 2, # 4, # 6 and # 8, is reconstructed Oil-pumping station is #7 with tank battery in volume of 80 thousand cubic metre |
Refusal of numbers of stations and capacity on separate sites has led to an information illegibility. And it besides now separately from stages |
Introduce logic in this section of article can to make the table?--Andrey! 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Characteristics | Plan | Fact | Plan | Fact |
---|---|---|---|---|
First stage | Second stage | |||
Start of work | 10 June 2009 | no info | ||
Сompletion of work | September 2012 | the first quarter 2012 | December 2013 | no info |
S t r u c t u r e s | ||||
Oil-pumping stations constructed (reconstructed) | (1), 3, (5) 7 | 2, 4, 6, (7), 8 | ||
Pipe-end Oil-pumping stations | (1), 3, (5) 7 | 2, 4, 6, (7), 8 | ||
Tubes long | 998 kilometres (620 mi) | 172 kilometres (107 mi) | ||
Tubes capasity, million tons per year | ||||
Unecha-Menusha | 30 | 50 | ||
Menusha-Ust-Luga | 30 | 38 | ||
Menusha-Kirishi | 0 | 12 |
There is a sense to add in {{Infobox Pipeline}} "capacity" and "Commons" parameters.--Andrey! 15:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar | ||
Every time I come across a well-written article related to the Russian energy sector, your name features prominently in the list of contributors. Druzhba pipeline is just one example among many. Great work! Offliner (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC) |