User talk:Beagel/archive2012

Archives... 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Hi. When you recently edited Ionian Adriatic Pipeline, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split (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) 10:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess everyone has an opinion now about you and Johnphos and the others mentioned Lawrence Khoo and that fisher guy. No doubt there is good and bad in that http://www.archive.org/details/EssayInformationOnTechnocracyDesignAndHowItIsPortrayedOnWikipedia

Personally I think you are only doing your duty of defending the correct procedure and I do not think your part of an editing team. Beamer guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.41.61 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! I need advice on what to do now. I am new to the wiki and have a disagreement with an editor over an external link. He recently pruned the external links, leaving only advocacy and educational links. He is accusing me of "some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising." (disclosure, the site removed was mine so there may be a COI issue) First, the link was in the external links list for several years and traffic it generated was much less than 1% so it's not about advertising. I posted it because it offers a perspective that is either not possible or ignored on the wiki page. Please note that the site does not violate any of the WP:ELNO. Now the editor has shifted to using both WP:SPS and WP:EL to justify his actions. Sorry to spew on you, but I need to know how to proceed. I also hope you understand the need for anonymoity at this stage to prevent an escallation in passion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick36502 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TransCanada (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) 11:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, I wonder if you would care to comment at Talk:Renewable energy#RFC: Which navbox to use?. Johnfos (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!,

I have improved the article and added a section. Also note that recently, a news article relating to the organization has been published which I believe does establish notability. I would really appreciate if you could have a look at the article. I would request your feedback before I move it to the main page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mecheng761/Zishan_Engineers

The news link is reference number 20.

Mecheng761 (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beagel, any idea how long does it normally take for one to get the reviews on his/her article in AFC? Mecheng761 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why the article was not accepted on premises that the differences from the two Afd ones are minor. From my understanding, the initial article was deleted due to no secondary referencing to establish notability. Do three newspaper references not establish notability? From our discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mecheng761/Zishan_Engineers , I thought this did establish notability and should have an article. Could you please let me know. Mecheng761 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will just need a little bit more time to check due the history of being previously deleted. I am quite sure it will be submitted. Beagel (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

okay. as of now it says that there are only minor differences from the Afd ones and the review has been completed without accepting it. The review has been completed and article has been declined. Should I resubmit it so that it comes under review again? Thanks for the help with news citations. Mecheng761 (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I opened another merge discussion about

Hi. When you recently edited Kalamata–Pyrgos–Patras Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dimitra (Ilia), Greece (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) 10:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right

You did an amazing editing job on Hydraulic fracturing. Very precise!Smm201`0 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you explain what sort of format you would like to see on this article - my main problem is that the text is not currently written to make a clear distinction between "technical specifications" and "construction" as that would result in duplication of a lot of material. I also very much do not like short sections - ie ones that are only one or two sentences long - MOS tends to favour prose over heavy sectionalisation. Also the construction history overlaps the project ownership history too, which complicates things. Oranjblud (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just cleaning up the created mess. Still did not sorted out all the information. Lets use the standard headings and formating per

WP:MOS. Beagel (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I had no idea it was a mess - why have you split different aspects of the construction? ie cable laying is in history but substation construction isn't - are you going to sort that out.? Please let me know when you have finished.Oranjblud (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me but can you just bloody stop - you've added zero content since I expanded the article, and the other stuff you've done is minor. It's not helping. It's a known guideline to group multiple references under a single note to avoid "citation overkill"

Please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter and the links thanks. I see you are trying to help but there is no need for the edits you are making now. Thanks.Oranjblud (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid

WP:OWN. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ahem..

For what it's worth I see that the current two section structure is better than the single section I originally created. In future can you please discuss with me very briefly about what you want to do. This will be easier than "consensus through minor edit war".. I am likely to agree with what you say if you take the time to ask first. Thanks.Oranjblud (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, please avoid

diff my mistake - I didn't see your intermediate edit, when I saw that I had removed it I attempted to put it back in.Oranjblud (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before you move pages why don't you check facts eg http://www.thewindpower.net/windfarm_en_3042_viking.php there are two viking wind farms - also stop stalking my contributions if you can. You do that by not stalking my contributiuons. Thanks/Oranjblud (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop messing up my talk page with false warnings. I already asked this and I hope you respect my request. If you want discuss the article, please to this at the article's talk page. As for page move, there is no article about the other Viking project. If there will be , lets discuss then but right now per WP:TITLE there is no need for this (pls see my edit summary). As for stalking, please stop this nonsense as I am not stalking you. Energy search results are on my watch list and I am regularly checking new pages find by bot. Beagel (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel - Please could you confirm that you are now content with the way I have extracted the information from the profit & loss account on page 13. It is not easy to show nil revenue so I have changed it to "0". Further details are on my talk page. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing this move of yours at the help desk, here. Please consider adding your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added my comments there. Beagel (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article '

Dead: http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=12258438&PageNum=0

• You added this in August 2008.
• The bot tested this link on 15 March, 17 March, 19 March and today, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

Dead: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/industry/Belarus_nuclear_plant_gets_Russian_credit-120607.shtml

• You added this in August 2008.
• The bot tested this link on 15 March, 17 March, 19 March and today, but it never worked.
• This copy from the archives might be good.

These links are marked with {{

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the 3RR rule on the Hydraulic fracturing page.Smm201`0 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this nonsense. I am tired of you disruptive behavior and POV pushing. Please cooperate to bring this article in line with the Wikipedia quality standards and please stop giving false notices and calling names. Beagel (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, thanks a lot for your welcome message you left on my talk page.

I have a question regarding articles about solar power plants. As you are active in the Energy Project, you might be able to give me an answer: How much in-depth info is desired in articles about solar power plants? Only basic info, lets say capacity and used modules? Or any info I can get like inverter, racking system, any additional special feature?

I'm looking forward to your answer, maybe I can contribute to some more power plant articles. -- Consectatio (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There is no any unified requirements which information about solar plants should be included. Basic info for sure, but if there is information about more specific details such as inverters etc, it also belongs to the article. The most important thing is that this information should be supported by

reliable sources. I hope this answer is helpful and I hope to see you contributing also for other articles. Beagel (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. The article '

Dead: http://www.petronas.com.my/intranet/ascope/ascope.nsf/3b269571c10e71e5482568960033edc8/d9b2645688f00ced48256b05001451f1/$FILE/Myanmar.pdf

• You added this in January 2009.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the west australian project did in the past have a sort of interpreter or two of the labyrinthian if not byzantine pile of weird company changes in the energy sector - but it seems as though they no longer edit or no longer interested... both the gas and electricity ownership and shenanigans need careful unfolding like some rubrics cube needing interpretation - to get an easy explanation might require going piece by piece through online financial press records - which i am not sure how to do - sorry cannot help more... re alinta et al

Thanks for getting that figured out. INeverCry 19:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, thanks for correcting my mistake and removing the flags from the infoboxes, I had no idea (on the Italian wiki works the other way round) and will rememeber in future. Just one question: Why does it say that it starts in Malta and not Sicily? The interconnector will bring electricity from Ragusa's exsiting substation to Maghtab and the rest of the island. It's Sicily that has a overproduction of electricity and not Malta and I would have thought that the "main" flow of the current would have to be considered. Thnaks.--Sal73x (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The interconnector will work both ways, so both ends are correct. Putting Malta as a starting point is for the reason that the project is implemented by the electricity company of Malta. Beagel (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I get why the above and I understand that if the project exist is because Malta needs electricity and is Malta connecting to the Italian grid but all the Italian documents say Italia-Malta (example: here, here) and it is really unlikely that Malta will ever supply energy to Sicily. Are there rules like for for the roads where in wiki.it they generally get listed north-south? Just to have a future reference. I have tried to find some official documents from an external point of view (not Maltese nor Italian) but even the EU docs available on-line are saying Malta-Sicily, Italy-Malta, Sicily-Malta, Malta-Italy and don't help to clarify the order. And last, would it not be more correct to say Italy instead of Sicily? Thanks.--Sal73x (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no that kind of rule by my knowledge. However, as I said it is correct to say both ways, so if you feel that it would be better other way around, I have no objections. Beagel (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Beagel. It's only a detail and the substance doesn't change. I rather wait and see for the next developments of the project on find some official documents. Thanks again.--Sal73x (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your deletion, Rosie and I have moved it to Uranium mining in Namibia and removed most of the essay. Best solution would now be to delete the capital letter original title and close AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.

There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.

The new energy outlines are:

• Outline of solar energy
• Outline of wind energy

Please take a look at them, and....

if you spot missing topics, add them in.

if you can, improve the descriptions.

add missing descriptions.

show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).

fix errors.

For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.

Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.

Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...

As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking {{Main}} links, etc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: see also Outline of energy

Thanks for my welcome to wikipedia. The Template:Infobox dam is protected. Can you tell me, please, how to add new foreign language link cs:Šablona:Infobox přehrada to the english template? Thanks: Karel61 (talk) 08:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Karel. I added interwiki link in Czech language to this template. Just for your information that in case of templates, the interwiki links should not be added to the template, but the template documentation which is usually unprotected.

Many thanks. There is a little confusion of interwiki links in this template. For instance the Template:Infobox dam contains fifteen interwiki links but the adequate German template Vorlage:Infobox Stausee ten ones. I do not understand, why the template links are not updated automatically as in other parts of wikipedia. With best regards: Karel61 (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just thought I'll clarify why I do these bold redirects. There isn't an issue of merge here, since this all started with

I fully agree with you and at the moment your action seems to be the best solution. Beagel (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree. I find that an ounce of explanation saves a pound of edit warring so was just playing it safe. The editor was indef-blocked until they get to their senses (which I hope they'll do). --Muhandes (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply