JarrahTree (talk | contribs) →Greetings: thanks |
→Your FA: barnstar |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 253: | Line 253: | ||
Hey thanks for that - It might have been me - but it would be good to work things out - thanks for the response [[User:SatuSuro|Satu]][[User talk:SatuSuro|Suro]] 23:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC) |
Hey thanks for that - It might have been me - but it would be good to work things out - thanks for the response [[User:SatuSuro|Satu]][[User talk:SatuSuro|Suro]] 23:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Your FA == |
|||
{| 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;" | For working on an interesting topic that just hit the main page. I enjoyed the read. [[User:SGGH|SGGH]] <sup>[[User_talk:SGGH|speak!]]</sup> 10:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 10:39, 29 May 2008
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) |
Speedy deletion of LEO LT
A tag has been placed on LEO LT 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 a company or corporation, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 companies and corporations.
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 (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
LEO LT
Thank you for your notification. Actually the article was deleted even before I finished fixing typos and I didn't had a time to response. But I think that you were wrong about A7. It was explained in the article why this company is significant to have its own article. Maybe it needed better explanation, but really not the case of A7. Beagel (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Haha, your right, the administrators are really fast around here. This was one of those cases where it was questionable if it should, or should not be tagged. However, since i am merely tagging the article, i tend to be quite trigger happy when tagging, since its better to have a tag declined by an admin, then allowing a questionable page to pass trough. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Two articles
Hope you can give me a second opinion on two articles please. Domestic AC power plugs and sockets and Nuclear fusion are both A class but both are quite poorly referenced. I think they should be demoted to B class, but thought I would check with you first... Johnfos (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The main issue is a lack of references. I put some requests to fix this. Lets wait one week and if there is no progress to improve these articles, you may go forward with downgrading.Beagel (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Lithuanian Electricity Organization
--BorgQueen (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
High quality articles
- Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline
- Energy policy of Brazil
- Nord Stream
- Oil shale industry
- Renewable energy industry
Hi Beagel, These are among the best B class articles I could find in WP:Energy. I hope that the first five of these would eventually go to WP:GAN or WP:FAC. As for the last two, well, I think they are too list-like to succeed at GAN, and should be made A class articles. Your thoughts? Johnfos (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- In general, I agree with you. However, all these articles need some work to be done before nomination.
- BTC pipeline needs still some cleanup and copyediting. It also misses some references and the lead should be properly expanded.
- Energy policy of Brazil needs to be checked for updates. Also some subsections too short to follow the GAN criteria. Probably we should ask an assistance from the WP Brazil. From the energy policy by country series I would like to add also Energy policy of Russia, but it has similar problems.
- The main problem with the Nord Stream is that this is a ongoing project and highly controversial one. Therefore there may be significant changes in the future or even again editwaring, so there may be problems with stability of the article. It needs also appropriate lead.
- All articles spun-off from the main oil shale article last summer will hopefully be are GAs and FAs one day. Oil shale industry would be probably next GAN, but also the Oil shale geology after getting missing references. Unfortunately I am not able to find these and also requesting from the WP:Geology didn't help to solve this (although I get great assistance from these guys).
- Renewable energy industry looks quite good. Probably the lead should be expanded. I propose to list it for the peer review before the nomination.
- Nuclear energy policy should be split and the policies by country should be moved into separate article Nuclear energy policy by country. After that and some copyediting of the Nuclear energy policy it could be nominated for GAN (maybe also peer review would be good idea). The Nuclear energy policy by country should be dealt in the complex way together with the Nuclear power by country and the Nuclear power. I think that the Nuclear power by country should deal with the current nuclear facilities and capacities while Nuclear energy policy by country should take a care of the policy options and future plans of countries. All country specific information in the Nuclear power should be moved into these two articles.
- Wind power in Texas looks quite good. I don't think it is too list-like. However, maybe it is better to list for the peer review first.
- What you think, with nomination of which articles we should go forward? Beagel (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I can see that you are very methodical in your approach, which is good. But I have to admit I am a bit less so, and am certainly less inclined to use peer review. I've nominated Renewable energy industry at GAN and would suggest that you be bold and pick out one of the articles you've been working on and nominate it there too. Remember GA is all about decent articles, not perfect ones. And we could certainly do with some more GA articles for the Energy Portal... Johnfos (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Probably you are right about peer reviews. Usually you get better responses and more advices if you ask comments directly from other experienced editors. I will definitely go forward with some GANs when I have more time to be ready to make quick fixes if necessary during the GA procedure.Beagel (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Beagel - I did some quite minor copyedits to the article, it is really pretty good (I think) from that point of view. Feel free of course to change anything I did if it changes meaning. I will try to find a reference for that section you mentioned, but it probably won't be today. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello B. - Won't be able to do much on this soon (am recovering from flu) but a few feeble suggestions - employment stats? Industrial safety? Growth projections? Couldn't find any GAs under "x industry". Thx for asking. Important topic, article is pretty good already. Hope to contribute soon. Best, Novickas (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello B. This may seem like a radical re-org idea, but am wondering about organizing this article by country - this valuable ref does it that way [1]. I could put a preliminary version on my sandbox, so you and others could review it. For whatever reason, it seemed easier to digest that way. Let me know what you think. Novickas (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
News item
Hi Beagel, Thought of you when I saw this news report... [2] Johnfos (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Can't believe these nuclear plans are serious, but the information about oil shale sounds logical. Because of the EU climate policy, Estonia has to reduce its emissions, which means reducing oil shale combustion. At the same time they have oil shale related knew-how, so it's logical they try to use this knowledge in countries with lower emission targets. I will check if there something to be added into oil shale articles. Beagel (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you !!!
The Original Barnstar | ||
I award this barnstar to you for your tireless & dedicated work towards improving energy articles especially oil-shale and it's descendant articles. Keep up the good work !!! Gprince007 (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
Oil shale industry copyedit
I have completed the copyediting of Oil shale industry. However, i noticed on the talk page that u have not completed the LoCE request. Pls go to its talk page and copy the LoCE code and follow the procedure. After the procedure is complete, i'll sign in as copyed completed and only then the article will proceed for proofread. Pls complete the process at ur end....so that i can finish it and send it for proofreading. More info is available at WP:LOCE/R...As for the copyediting, it was hassle-free. I appreciate ur timely help and response in understanding the technical terms used in the article. As always, it was a pleasure workin with u !!!...some hidden notes have been left in the article....hope u will address those as well...thanx...Gprince007 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you and sorry for missing to complete my request. I hope it's ok right now. Will look for how to address your notes.Beagel (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Energy Portals
Beagel, great thanks for your invitation for Energy Portals of Wikipedia! Ricky@36 (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
JACOS
I looked at that story and thought you did a pretty good job with it. I made a few more changes, but I also revised the oilsands history to include a reference to it. I think we should argue very strongly that it should stay in. Thanks for bringing it to me attention. 16:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oil Shale Articles
I'll have a look at these articles for you. I seem to have had a lot of requests in the last short while though so to be fair I'm going through them in the order they asked. JMiall₰ 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oil shale
Hi. A little late, but I've dropped off peer review comments at the talk page for Oil Shale. I'l do Oil Shale extraction process next. Hope they're helpful. I'll keep an eye on the talk page for a bit, if you want to respond there. In return, is there any chance you could have a look at Saruman (peer review Wikipedia:Peer_review/Saruman/archive1)? Ta. 4u1e (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations
Congrats, Beagel, on Oil shale industry being passed as a GA: good work! Johnfos (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
{{bbl to t}}
I have upgraded {{bbl to t}}. One change I've made is to replace the precision-based rounding to a significant-figure based rounding. How does it look? Do you have any suggestions? JЇ
Ѧρ 08:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oil shale FAC
Hi B - that's a great ambition. I'm looking forward to helping as comments appear. You clearly have gotten support and help from some good editors, so its prospects are promising. Best, Novickas (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Beagal, thanks for the heads up about the FAC nomination, thats great news. not so busy these days so let me knwo if there is anything that needs doing or the like. Cheers Dexcel (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello B - maybe the remaining crude oil should be given as a range as well? Novickas (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is a little bit complicated issue. As you see, there are figures about oil shale resources (potential shale oil in place) and oil reserves. The figure of remained oil reserves is quite exact. Oil reserves and oil shale resources are compared only to give some imagination about the amount of oil shale, but you can't directly compare reserves and resources. Conventional oil as recovery ratio (reserves divided oil in place) usually around 30-35%. It is not clear, what the ratio could be for different oil shales. So generally, there is no figures about the exact oil shale reserves, because the oil shale industry is not widely developed and the feasibility of most of deposits is not clear. So, I am not able to propose better solution right now. Beagel (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! Novickas (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite, I hope I can contribute something to the extraction/processing article too. Unfortunately, the oil-and-gas expert at work, who could explain anything in 3 minutes using ordinary language and a piece of paper - he left us. The industry apparently made him an offer he could not refuse. So it will be a little while, because now I have to learn on my own. Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Also - maybe a separate article called "Shale oil"? - it has various specific properties and could easily be stubbed from what we have already. This would involve changing the current redirect, tho. Novickas (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here is a draft of shale oil: User:Novickas/sandbox, please feel free to edit it if you are inclined. Pour points, a complex issue. Novickas (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think this would be a useful addition to the extraction article - the diagram on page 24 (Figure 13)[3]? It's public domain US government - could be captured and uploaded. Novickas (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Beagel, saw that Oil shale will be on the front page of wiki soon!! just thought i would pass on my congradulations to you for pushing it all the way to the fantastic article it is today. job well done Dexcel (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thank spam
Request re Klaipėda Geothermal Demonstration Plant
Hello B - could you please take a quick look at this, to see if there are any obvious errors, and put an Energy Portal tag on its talk page? Novickas (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC) PS: tons are not wlinked yet because it's not easy to find out whhich metric the World Bank uses. Novickas (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Future dam
Template:Future dam 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. — Kildor (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why the names "North Transgas" and "North European Gas Pipeline" are described as "former names". These should be described as "Other names". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- North Transgas was predecessor of the Nord Stream project. Technically its the same project and the main partner (Gazprom is same). However, legally Nord Stream is not the same project and as of today, North Transgas project company was terminated. North European Gas Pipeline is the name, which is officially changed to Nord Stream (by the company). It is not officially in use anymore, however, in media it is used quite commonly.Beagel (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Southern Company Dispute
Beagel, given your long record of contributions to energy related articles, I would appreciate you reviewing and giving your opinion on the content discussion regarding campaign contributions on the Southern Company talk page. Thank you. 71.8.76.136 (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Greetings
I was just trying to get the hang of the tagging of the WP Energy project template when i found an oil fields of australia (about 10% done mind you) category and was stumped - not sure whether in the scheme of things how project management is done - here at the oz stralia project we have class=cat inside the template turns off the importance - and collects all the cat and non article pages - while in the Indonesian project we have all the non art pages at class=NA, would it be possible to let me know what i need to do to fix the few ones that i did to get em right - for some weird reason i havent sorted out what you folks do - cheers SatuSuro 08:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey thanks for that - It might have been me - but it would be good to work things out - thanks for the response SatuSuro 23:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Your FA
The Original Barnstar | ||
For working on an interesting topic that just hit the main page. I enjoyed the read. SGGH speak! 10:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |