dablink notification message (see the FAQ) |
Someone not using his real name (talk | contribs) →A barnstar for you!: d'oh typo |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 08:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC) |
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 08:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
== A barnstar for you! == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png|100px]] |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For rebuilding an article practically from scratch using independent sources. [[User:Someone not using his real name|Someone not using his real name]] ([[User talk:Someone not using his real name|talk]]) 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 00:13, 5 February 2014
Archives... 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
Puma Energy: update to 'Ownership' section
Hi Beagel, hope you're well and a happy new year to you. I posted here on the talk page for Puma Energy on the 17th last year. Trafigura has reduced its stake in Puma with a sale of shares to existing minority shareholders as well as a further divestment to Sonangol, which now owns 30% of the company. If you could take a look at the proposed four-sentence paragraph, which I suggest adding to the end of the existing 'Ownership' section, that would be much appreciated. The Financial Times article referenced also states that Puma Energy employs 6,000 people – until now we've only had primary sources with that figure, so that could also be updated at the same time. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Sympathy
Sympathy | |
Sorry to hear you had a sad time. I can only offer virtual flowers, sympathy, copy editing when you'd like it, and appreciation for all you've done here. Best wishes. Novickas (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC) |
- Thank you, Novickas. It is pleased to feel being supported when it's needed. Beagel (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
NUM:MOS listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect NUM:MOS. Since you had some involvement with the NUM:MOS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 02:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mytilineos Holdings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EPC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wingas may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- | foundation = {{Start date|1993}})
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Beagel, I received your message about merging the article on pyrobitumen with one on bituminous shale. That, in turn, has a link to a short article on organic-rich sedimentary rocks that needs a lot of work. At the moment, I don't think that is a good idea, but I do agree that this area in general needs work. I should start with the assertion that bituminous shale is a terrible name for oil shale, as nearly all of the organic matter in oil shale is kerogen, not bitumen. So there is merit in renaming oil shale as kerogen shale or kerogenous shale in light of confusion caused by oil production from fine-grained source rocks, but there is a lot of history to overturn with that move. I resisted renaming tar sand as oil sands for years--it would have made much more sense to rename them bitumen sands. The logic for the change was twofold, I understand. One was an attempt to make them more politically acceptable, which I think is nonsense. Then I heard the justification that they should be called that in analogy to oil shale as a source of oil. The same logic applies to calling the grapes used to make wine as wine grapes, as Jerry Boak says frequently. I got quite a bit of input from Ken Peters and Joe Curiale, both very prominent petroleum geochemists, on the pyrobitumen article. Joe was particularly aghast that the online Encyclopedia Britannica still considers lignite coal as pyrobitumen. I see how the bituminous term could be stretched for higher rank coals, but some of the old nomenclature systems are not logical. An interesting question is whether Wikipedia could be a driving force on trying to straighten out nomenclature. Common terms such as clay, shale, and shale oil have multiple meanings in difference contexts, and scientists do not agree completely on their precise meaning. This spills over into confusion in the general public. For example, people talk about producing shale oil by hydraulic fracturing. Of course, if one claims that shale must be a fine-grained fissile rock with more than 50% clay minerals, most such formations are not shales, as hydraulic fracturing works best with higher carbonate content, I am told, because they are more brittle. If one realizes that clay also means fine particles less than 5 microns, these unconventional reservoirs are shales, even though scientists are moving to more consistently call them mudrocks, which does not imply mineralogy. It is worth continuing the dialog. AlanAkburnham (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Template:Infobox dam cleanup
Hi. You're receiving this message because you are a major contributor to {{Infobox dam}}. You opinion on this cleanup proposal is very much appreciated. Best regards, Rehman 14:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Accessdate
The is no need for accessdates in a reference when the source has a publication date, ( also applys when the content is archived with a clear archive date)
eg Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date Template:Citation
Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rentech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For rebuilding an article practically from scratch using independent sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |