Watti Renew (talk | contribs) →Eastlink: ''The European wind capacity installed at end 2010 will, in a normal wind year produce 181 TWh of electricity, representing 5.3% of the EU’s gross final consumption.'' |
Crosstemplejay (talk | contribs) m →Awesome work done!!! YOU DESERVE THIS: new section |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
:: ''The European wind capacity installed at end 2010 will, in a normal wind year <small>(I consider that the footnote refer to definition only)</small> produce 181 TWh of electricity, representing 5.3% of the EU’s gross final consumption.''<small>[http://ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/statistics/EWEA_Annual_Statistics_2010.pdf Wind in power 2010 European statistics] 2/2011 p.4, 11</small> <br> See also: [http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/reports/EWEA_EU_Energy_Policy_to_2050.pdf EU Energy Policy to 2050]3/2011: p. 7, 43. [[User:Watti Renew|Watti Renew]] ([[User talk:Watti Renew|talk]]) 18:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
:: ''The European wind capacity installed at end 2010 will, in a normal wind year <small>(I consider that the footnote refer to definition only)</small> produce 181 TWh of electricity, representing 5.3% of the EU’s gross final consumption.''<small>[http://ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/statistics/EWEA_Annual_Statistics_2010.pdf Wind in power 2010 European statistics] 2/2011 p.4, 11</small> <br> See also: [http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/reports/EWEA_EU_Energy_Policy_to_2050.pdf EU Energy Policy to 2050]3/2011: p. 7, 43. [[User:Watti Renew|Watti Renew]] ([[User talk:Watti Renew|talk]]) 18:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Awesome work done!!! YOU DESERVE THIS == |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[Image:Original Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[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;" | Wow, I couldn't believe how you had remodeled by article [[FPSO Kwame Nkrumah]]. Totally awesome. Thanks for the work you did on it. Hope we can work on other projects. A friend called[[User:Crosstemplejay|<span style="border:1px solid #000073;background:#4D4DA6;padding:2px;color:yellow;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"><font face="Georgia"> '''CrossTempleJay''' </font></span>]][[user talk:crosstemplejay| → talk]] 20:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 20:20, 15 June 2011
Archives... 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
sock
I noticed this and wondered if you started proper investigation. --Muhandes (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- No. Based on recreation of almost identical copy of deleted article on Zishan Engineers, it seems to be quite clear WP:DUCK. As there is no block or ban involved, I did not see any reason to start a formal procedure. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess my question is why is there no block involved? And what's the point of the sock suspicion tag if no block is involved? Please don't take this as criticism, this is just me learning the ropes. I thought when one editor tags another editor with sock suspicion this should be followed by investigation and block. --Muhandes (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there was misuse of multiple accounts by my understandings as there was no links provided between accounts. However, beside that there were no major violation such as block evasion or voting. In this case I prefer to believe in good faith that the person is just not aware of the WP:SOCK policy and the tag is sufficient to remind the editor not to use multiple accounts or to disclosure the link between accounts. Unfortunately it seems that this is not the case. Beagel (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I guess my question is why is there no block involved? And what's the point of the sock suspicion tag if no block is involved? Please don't take this as criticism, this is just me learning the ropes. I thought when one editor tags another editor with sock suspicion this should be followed by investigation and block. --Muhandes (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Mekong Dams
Regarding the de-proding, I explained myself here as to why. I am curious as to where you disagree. Somewhat similar to WP:NALBUM, I don't think we should have articles on planned dams unless they are an international controversy. Plenty of countries have larges dams planned and some go up, some don't and some are just on hold for decades. For those articles which it applies, I think if Wikipedia had an article for every planned dam International Rivers (or other similar groups) were against, we'd also end up with POV issues as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I am not de-proded all dams you tagged. However, for these I de-proded I explained my reasons at the edit summary. The fact that the dam is still in the project stage does not mean automatically that it is not notable. However, if necessary the broader consensus may be established through the WP:AfD procedure. Beagel (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I will reexamine those soon here and if needed bring em' to AfD. I tend to be an inclusionist but I don't think a bunch of proposed dams are necessarily notable enough for stand-alone articles. I agree with you that planned doesn't mean it isn't notable and I wouldn't have done the same with let's say the Belo Monte Dam which is internationally renowned through independent sources as controversial.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
BritNed
I wondered why you reverted the INTNED information as SPAM? It's technical information quite difficult to locate on the Elexon site(s) and useful for real-time stats as BritNed comes on-stream in April.
I don't wish to undo your undo and start some sort of edit war, but that is bona fide useful relevant spec.
79.135.97.81 (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The link may be suitable on the external links section, but added like this into the main text it qualifies as a promotion and spam. Beagel (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I hear what you say but I'd like to assure you that there's no commercial or other gain in it for me or anyone else (!) and I was unable to find a decent reference doc (nor indeed proper confirmation from Elexon).
I've had another go, ie linked to the PDF 'changes' doc: see if you feel that that is better...
79.135.97.81 (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 5, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 5, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Beagel, Congratulations again on Shale oil extraction, this time for having this Featured Article (of which you are the main author) shown on the English Wikipedia front page. H Padleckas (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wonderful! How're your nerves? It wasn't too bad this time, eh - the vandalbots help a lot. What's your next one? Novickas (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Novickas. As I said, without you this article unlikely achieved the FA status. In longer term, I have an ambition to have oil shale as WP:FT, but this needs a lot of work with a number of articles. Because of personal reasons I don't think that I will be able to start any serious work with any of these articles in this winter/spring, but will see. Maybe we could have a next target bringing your child Shale oil to GA level? Beagel (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- At the time, I remember feeling that I'd exhausted the shale oil resources, although there were of course some that treated specific oils in an extremely detailed and technical manner; it seemed hard to integrate those. If you have any organizational ideas and/or sources, pls let me know. Best, Novickas (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Novickas. As I said, without you this article unlikely achieved the FA status. In longer term, I have an ambition to have oil shale as WP:FT, but this needs a lot of work with a number of articles. Because of personal reasons I don't think that I will be able to start any serious work with any of these articles in this winter/spring, but will see. Maybe we could have a next target bringing your child Shale oil to GA level? Beagel (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Aras Dam
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Nice DYK, I was surprised. Regarding the Iran dam AFD, it closed as no consensus. I was thinking of redirected the articles to List of power stations in Iran. I thought an acceptable consensus was to at least redirect all but Azad and Aras Watershed Dams.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Beagel, thanks for your notice of my contribution in the energy project. Why did you delete Category:Electric power in the Netherlands from Category:Lists of windmills in the Netherlands [1]? In my opinion windmills were the early technology in the development of wind power and therefore, deserve a place here. Watti Renew (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Watti Renew. You have done a great job for creating all these Electric power in X categories. However, I don't see a relation between these categories. Theoretically, lists of windmills may belong to the electric power categories if listed windmills are/were used for power generation (which is not the case). However, even in this case they rather belong to the category of the relevant power stations and not directly to the electric power category. Also, I have mentioned that sometimes you have overcategorized some pages and categories. As a rule, each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. That mean to avoid a parent category if more specific category exists. For more information please see WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT. Beagel (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- If windmills do not produce electricity at place, it is unrelevant. I try to check the relevance better. Watti Renew (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- You have correct, not main info in the Category:Electric power by country. If you feel the work useful, please join the team: Energy and electricity by country. This is an open invitation for everybody since Wiki’s power is the teamwork. The main article in the category is like: Electricity sector in Finland, Electricity sector in Sweden, Electricity sector in Norway, Electricity sector in Denmark, Electricity sector in Iceland, Electricity sector in the Netherlands, Electricity sector in Germany, Electricity sector in Canada etc. You see, the teamwork is essential. The English Energy project has done greate job, thanks. My intentions you may check from my sandbox: User:Watti Renew/Sandbox. Thanks for your help. Please feel free to give comments also in the future. The notice of your massage was super! I have never seen it before. Watti Renew (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Pile of barnstars
I am so happy to see your calm, reasoned, and referenced contributions to energy related articles in these troubled times. Thank you! Novickas (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you could take a look at this template please. We've generally tried to take the IEA approach and follow IEA terminology, but a new editor has some other ideas. Johnfos (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Map of European countries gas supply cut.svg
Hey, I've recoloured the svg here. Anything I've missed? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Beagel, thank you for your contribution in the article Eastlink. This link supports the new article: Electricity sector in Estonia. You are wellcomed to supplement this, if you like. Watti Renew (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I will look it in coming days. However, some quick remarks:
- Estonia is a member of the OECD since December last year. At the same time I don't think that information about the OECD or Soviet Union is relevant in this article.
- Most of Estonia's electricity is produced by the oil shale-fired power plants. References may be found in Oil_shale_in_Estonia#Power_generation.
- There is some confusion between energy and electricity. Electricity production of Estonia is bigger than own consumption as the country is a net exporter of electricity.
- Data about wind energy share in electricity consumption is for 2008, not 2010 (figure 3.7, footnote 7).
- information about being part of IPS/UPS system etc would be relevant to be added.
- Beagel (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Beagel, this was Super! Thanks!
- * Since the OECD info is new and not clear for everyone, I find it relevant. This was quoted from IEA Key energy statistics. They found it relevant. As indicative numbers may be given for groups e.g. OECD and OECD may give country specific info, reference groups may have some relevance. I correct with no ref. As such, this is not a big issue for me. I do not mind changes.
- * Oil shale explains the high CO2-emissions per capita in Estonia. I have read that Estonia has nevertheless even plans of new oil shale plants. This was the reason I started the article, even if not describing the point yet. My contribution is also some restricted. Thanks. Watti Renew (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- The European wind capacity installed at end 2010 will, in a normal wind year (I consider that the footnote refer to definition only) produce 181 TWh of electricity, representing 5.3% of the EU’s gross final consumption.Wind in power 2010 European statistics 2/2011 p.4, 11
See also: EU Energy Policy to 20503/2011: p. 7, 43. Watti Renew (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- The European wind capacity installed at end 2010 will, in a normal wind year (I consider that the footnote refer to definition only) produce 181 TWh of electricity, representing 5.3% of the EU’s gross final consumption.Wind in power 2010 European statistics 2/2011 p.4, 11
Awesome work done!!! YOU DESERVE THIS
The Original Barnstar | ||
Wow, I couldn't believe how you had remodeled by article FPSO Kwame Nkrumah. Totally awesome. Thanks for the work you did on it. Hope we can work on other projects. A friend called CrossTempleJay → talk 20:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |