Nuclear energy policy |
Barnstar |
||
Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
Hi Beagel, and thanks for your suggestion. Most of the nuclear phaseout material I've seen is quite fuzzy, and lacking in specifics. But I will keep my eyes open and, as things become clearer, hope to make some improvements where I can... [[User:Johnfos|Johnfos]] ([[User talk:Johnfos|talk]]) 01:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC) |
Hi Beagel, and thanks for your suggestion. Most of the nuclear phaseout material I've seen is quite fuzzy, and lacking in specifics. But I will keep my eyes open and, as things become clearer, hope to make some improvements where I can... [[User:Johnfos|Johnfos]] ([[User talk:Johnfos|talk]]) 01:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
==Barnstar== |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:SpecialBarnstar.png|100px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Special Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | An overdue token of appreciation for all the good work you do in maintaining WP:Energy and the Energy Portal. [[User:Johnfos|Johnfos]] ([[User talk:Johnfos|talk]]) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 00:17, 25 February 2008
Proposed Merge with Peak oil/Table of largest oil fields
Please see the discussion at Talk:List_of_oil_fieldsKgrr 15:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Template proliferation
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. 199.125.109.64 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. 199.125.109.64 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)
- 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. 199.125.109.64 05:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mostly I just try to fix things that are horribly incorrect. 199.125.109.64 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. 199.125.109.84 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
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
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)
Well done. Good to see more Australiana on DYK.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Nuclear energy (or power) in {country} category
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 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
My head hurts
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 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
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.
Hello. I noticed you assessed [1] 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
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". 199.125.109.42 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
World energy resources and consumption
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. 199.125.109.57 01:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
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)
Congrats!
Good work on Oil shale. Keep it up. Sushant gupta 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Planned or proposed bridges
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
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. 199.125.109.87 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
StatoilHydro
Thanks for nice job on StatoilHydro --Profero 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge of coal mining and sub-surface mining
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)
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)
Desertec
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)
Hi
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?
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)
Future Energy Worldwide energy consumption and production
you wrote in feb. 2007 "World Energy Outlook consists some forecasts of energy consumption up to 2030. Unfortunately this is not available via Internet and I don't have the printed book." I need energy forecast projections for citations in Kardashev scale. I've found some projections by International Energy; Agency[1] the only problem is that they measured it all in btu's.... sigh. So I was wondering if you found an alternative source for energy predictions.--Sparkygravity (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- So basically the "World Energy Outlook 2005" is under GFDL copyrights?--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well like you said the IEA makes documents free and publicly available after two years... so I know it's under a public license. But certain copyrights exclude users from the right to be copy material in any form. So I was wondering if you knew what copyright license it would most likely be under? I don't want future tables and figures deleted from Kardashev scale due to copyright infrigement--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, the last stipulation basically translates that any user who cites the IEA as publisher and respects copyright terms and conditions may use information by linking to article. So I think we're good... Thanks for the help.--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nord Stream logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nord Stream logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nordic Energy Link logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nordic Energy Link logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Atomenergoprom
I added source in Atomenergoprom, but i dont know how to put it right. can u improve it please? Secondly, A law adopted by the Russian parliament and signed by the Russian President transformed the status of Federal Atomic Energy Agency from Federal Agency to state owned company called Rosatom. Please change the Article's name to Rosatom. thanks Superzohar Talk 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Wind Farms
Hello Beagle
Why? do you keep removing catagoreys from some of the pages I have worked on when they are relevant to the subject in question. Please do not remove them again(Polite Request) Stavros1 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Three Gorges Dam
The article Three Gorges Dam you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Three Gorges Dam for things needed to be addressed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your help with this nomination! It's the first that I've done one, so I'm sure to get a few things wrong. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Promoted
The article has reached GA status, and I have added it to the GA list. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Better References
About The three gorges dam, there are tons of references in the article. Many of them are out of date or not telling the truth. Even they are from CNN or Ruters. I cannot guarantee that all the information released by the Chinese offical is unbiased,but I think they are reliable. I will try to find more reference for this, but maybe only restricted to something about power generation.Calvingao (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your hard work as always! You previously added a section to the article Coal power in China about a planned carbon capture and storage plant. I agonized about this for a bit, but it seems clear now that that's the same plant as the IGCC that I put some stuff in before.
My confusion steams from a few things. Firstly, IGCC does not directly imply CCS, right? Also, are there any CCS coal plants in existence? And I don't know, it just seems strange that they would make a CCS plant when they have thousands out there with age-old technology not even equipped with desulfurization. Anyway, I'm not 100% sure on any of this, so I wanted to run it by you first. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Your copyedit request
On 15 September 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Oil shale geology, Oil shale reserves, Oil shale industry, Oil shale economics, History of the oil shale industry, and Environmental effects of oil shale industry. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your requests in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your requests, these articles may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be good candidates for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit these articles, please review them article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your requests in our new system, where they should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability of SeWave
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on SeWave, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because SeWave seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting SeWave, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eesti Energia logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Eesti Energia logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eesti Põlevkivi logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Eesti Põlevkivi logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KazMunayGas logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:KazMunayGas logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yemen Liquified Natural Gas Project
I have proposed that Yemen LNG be merged into Economy of Yemen. Since this article has insufficient content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, I feel that it would be best in the interest of preserving what little content there is. Would you be willing to support or assist with this task? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Templates
Hi Beagel... I've added WikiProject Energy templates to some articles today, but have left the importance parameter free as I thought you may like to fill this in. Hope this is OK... Johnfos (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I made some assessments. However, you are free to re-assess any article if you disagree with current assessment.Beagel (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Beagel, I would like to invite you to take a quick look at the article for a quick read through. I have identified a few places that need to be improved in the to-do box. However, I'm looking for a few things that need to be cleaned up. Also, the article has been marked with an NPOV flag. Could you please point out the areas that need to be balanced in this article.Kgrr (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Beagel, thanks for your comments and advice. It gives me some other things to do to finish the project before I move on to doing another one. BTW, I need someone impartial to take a look at Nuclear power (with a little more clout than I have) It seems to be written in a complete pro-nuclear POV and needs some serious balancing.Kgrr (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Beagel, it's good to hear from you and thanks for your advice. I will give him a ring. BTW, your advice on peak uranium is working for me. It's helping shape the article and helping it flow. Kgrr (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Beagel, and thanks for your suggestion. Most of the nuclear phaseout material I've seen is quite fuzzy, and lacking in specifics. But I will keep my eyes open and, as things become clearer, hope to make some improvements where I can... Johnfos (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Special Barnstar | ||
An overdue token of appreciation for all the good work you do in maintaining WP:Energy and the Energy Portal. Johnfos (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC) |