User talk:Gralo

This user may have left Wikipedia. Gralo has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking the assistance of this user on this page, you may need to approach someone else.

For old discussions see the archive

Hello, Gralo:

I note that you have very recently added a cute little Energy Portal icon (namely, a jigsaw piece with a keyhole in it) to the

Perhaps, you can help me understand what that adds to the knowledge or content of those articles. It is cute, it is eye-catching and it does no harm ... but how does it enhance those articles? Could you not have simply placed a Wiki link to Portal:Energy in the See also sections of those articles?

Please educate me. - mbeychok 23:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mbeychok. Re your question about the portal-icons, as it's both an interesting question and one that others might wonder about too, I've answered at some length...

It's suggested that appropriate articles are linked to their corresponding portal using these icons at 'step 4' of Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions. In fact, this page suggests using the icon {{portalpar}}, however on the portalpar talk page this is now depricated in favor of {{portal}}.

As to the positioning, I had a look at what others were doing before starting, and found that there was a wide variation. I've just taken a quick random look again through some of the links to some of the featured portals, and found:

• Some pages have the icons at the top:
  Ritualist movement, Church of Ireland, List of cricket topics, Scouting in Tennessee, Category:Restaurants_in_Scotland, Category:2006 Commonwealth Games, Category:Invasions
• These have only a link in the infobox (some a text link, some using icons):
  Modern evolutionary synthesis, Greater London Authority
• These are using text links at the head of the article: Greater London Authority, Downing Street, Googly
• The Biology and trains portals are keen on including them on their WikipProject boxes on talk pages: Talk:Augusto Pinochet, Talk:Adolf Hitler, Talk:Containerization, Talk:Pullman Strike
• And others are including them in the 'see also' section (some as icons, some as text links), particularly those linked to the 'tropical cyclone' portal:
  Hurricane Hunters

Since the idea behind portals is to 'showcase' the best of the subject matter and provide an easy way of finding other related content, (and links to the key portals are right at the top of the Wikipedia main page, though in text-only format) it seemed to me that locating the links in a reasonable prominent location was appropriate. So long, that is, as they aren't detracting from the content on the page. That's why, if there is an infobox or prominent photograph on a page, I've located the portal-icon below in a less conspicuous position – such as on Energy development and Hydroelectricity. However it's clear from the sample above that there are varied views on this.

I guess when portals become more common, this will become a bigger issue, since I don't think it would be a good idea to have a whole stack of portal links at the head of articles that fall within the scope of several portals. I've tried to anticipate this by not adding links to any energy-related biographies, nor on any 'national' energy pages (except on 'category' pages), since it seems to me that the biography portal and the future national portals ought to take precedence on these articles.

Gralo 01:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and you've done a good job of explaining the various options for locating links or icons leading to your portal. But you really haven't answered my primary question, namely what does the portal link add to the articles or how does the link enhance the content of the articles? Another way of putting it, what is the primary purpose of the link? - mbeychok 01:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I first came across Wikipedia searching for a small fact on the Holy Roman Empire. Instead of taking a few minutes, I spent several hours online. That was not because of the quality of the article (though even in 2003 it provided my answer), but because the page had links to other interesting articles. Since then the introduction of categories has made it easier to find information, and portals are now adding to this.

So, for me, a page in Wikipedia has 2 elements; the article containing the facts on the topic, and the user interface that links it to other appropriate pages. The article should provide high quality information. The interface should help the user find other things of interest. To answer your question directly, adding a portal-icon is an improvement because it enhances the user interface. It does this by adding a clearly labeled link to a portal, from where a user can navigate through the entire topic area. Gralo 13:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. At least I understand your perspective now. As for me, the Wiki links in the "See also" section of an article serves the same purpose as your portal ... and perhaps even better because those links are specifically chosen by the editors who wrote the article. In the more than 70 articles that I have written, I always try to include a comprehensive "See also" section. But to each his own! Regards, - mbeychok 16:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gralo, there has been a recent block on the energy superpower page by Administrator Perceval. Perceval and I are currently in bitter disagreement about much of the merits of the page, but in an attempt to salvage as much of your work as possible, as well as others on the page, I have compensated for the sudden editing-off of the status of "emerging energy superpower", and "potential energy superpower" (and the corresponding countries) by creating a new page, Great Energy Power, that describes those states that fall just under the category of "energy superpowers". I need your help in getting it up and running, and also we apparently need to be adding more "expert" commentary, so if you should find some, please put it as a source on the page where appropriate. Also, I would be most grateful if you could help me out in creating a category for the states that export moderate quantities of energy each year but have little influence on global energy prices/supply. I want to call them "energy powers" or "regional energy powers". Tell me what you think of those names, and which you find preferable. I'm leaning towards "regional energy power".

I need a few more experts backing these pages after their creation, and I currently don't trust Perceval to not squash my singular effort so far. Oh, and if you have the time, we're going to need to categorize these pages in the international power template. I think you'll agree with the merits of having this information out there. After all, there are many states that fall beneath the category of "energy superpower", and I want to correlate them to a degree with previously used Int. Relations jargon like "great power" or "regional power". I don't think "middle power" would correlate with anything well in energy, and it would only serve to divide up our work excessively. I've appreciated your many contributions on the energy superpower page. Regards, Drakeguy 03:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drakeguy. I've taken a look through the comments on the energy superpower page and the elements that were transferred to the temporary page. I've also edited the 'energy superpower' definition, including external links to contemporary usage of the term. This is a 'cutting edge' area, so I can understand that there might be some concerns about original research. If you are able to find some additional commentary, with references, to support the text in the 'emerging energy superpowers' section, I would think that much of this could be added back into the article relatively soon, if supported by further opinion.

For smaller energy powers, I would suggest the term 'regional energy power'; there are references on the Web to the use of this term in relation to Romania and Kazakhstan, for example.

In relation to the potential superpowers, these seem to me just to be those states with significant energy reserves - in which case it would probably be better to start on article on

World energy resources and consumption

By putting the above together, I think you can avoid the need for the separate 'Great Energy Power' article.

Incidentally, I've just doen a Web search on Canada as an energing superpower, and found the following, for example: [1] [2] [3] . From my quick scan through these it does seem that there is some doubt about whether Canada can actually make it to superpower status. I'd also doubt the position of the UK as a potential energy superpower - though it does have have large coal reserves.

Hope this gives you a few useful pointers...

Gralo 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about labeling Canada a "Potential Energy Superpower"? We can get rid of the contentious "emerging" part of the definition entirely, and transfer much of that definition to the "potential energy superpower" definition. I think it would solve many of our problems, plus we could still include Canada as a great energy power too. This would kill two birds with one stone, allowing us to show which powers may be capable of making the jump and where they are currently. And as for the UK, well, I wasn't responsible for that entry. I was just trying to get the page up and running with energy reserve & production figures for everything first before I really started clamping down. Perceval apparently thought many of the less merited contributions were mine-which is not true, and I told him as much. I'll go talk to him to see if he likes your idea and mine too. Drakeguy 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drakeguy. I appreciate that you are trying hard to get the information 'out there', which is a very worthwhile aim - my comments relate to the 'temporarily removed' section of the article in general, not anyone's specific contributions; your comments about the UK are noted! I should perhaps have prefaced my earlier comments by saying that I don't think it is necessary to obliterate the contents of the 'temporarily removed' section from Wikipedia, but that perhaps, in the light of further research, some of it might be better included in other articles, while there might be a good case for reinstating other portions where they were. What seems to be needed is further research to be able to make and justify the decision.

With that in mind, and in view of your suggestion above, I've been looking at Canada a little more closely and it is a very interesting case. I see that it is the largest oil supplier to the USA [4]. I also see that these exports are around 63% of Canadian oil production, however this only represented around 10% US crude oil requirements [5]. I also note, from the same source, that Canada imports 55% of its oil requirements from elsewhere. Overall, therefore, it seems that Canada only has net exports of 8% of its production. It seems that Canada also sells its oil at prices determined by the world market [6].

In contrast Russia seems to have no significant oil imports and exports around 54% of its production [7], generates 12% of the global oil production, has a 12% share in the global oil export markets [8], and is able and willing to influence world prices [9].

Canada's claim to be a potential energy superpower seems to rely on exploiting

oil sands, however as the WP note, the profit margins are not vast - and as extracting the oil is itself an energy intensive process, so as world energy prices rise, so does the cost of extraction. In addition, Canada is under pressure to do this without increasing carbon emissions [10] [11]. And how does this

fit into the picture?

Putting all this together, it would seem that Canada's current power over energy is limited, even within the region basis, as it is itself so dependant on imports. Is it an emerging regional energy power? To answer that, it would be necessary to see what the trends are. Is a potential energy superpower? In theory any country with large fossil fuel reserves has the potential to be an energy superpower. In the case of Canada where its reserves are in oil sands, the obstacles - financial and environmental - to achieving this are large, despite the political vision / spin.

Of course if natural gas and uranium are taken into account, perhaps the picture changes? Further research needed.

To add Canada as a potential energy superpower, I think that you need to include this kind of commentary. Since the Canadian government are claiming this status, it does deserve coverage on WP.

Gralo 11:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've got a partial entry on the energy superpower page for Potential energy superpowers. I need you to put those nicely sourced objections to Canada becoming an energy superpower on the page itself. Otherwise you'd be wasting your time doing such nice & thorough research on my behalf. I really think though that we ought to include the figures on uranium and natural gas on the page too. Otherwise it makes the page seem completely one-dimensional and lacking an overall picture of energy. Drakeguy 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the figures on Canadian energy production, go to the temporary page and pull the sources and put them on the main page. Let me see, Canada ranks according to this #1 in hydro electricity production, #1 in uranium production, #3 in natural gas production, and #7 in oil production according to that page. I think you might want to consider the fact that Canada's prime minister is not just backing up his claim entirely on oil sands, as by other measurements, Canada already is an energy superpower (particularly in Uranium production!). Drakeguy 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it occurred to me that perhaps we ought to take a look at WHICH state's and their leaders have laid claim to being or becoming energy superpowers. We really ought to include expert opinion on the reasons they believe they will become Energy superpowers versus experts against, or just find expert opinion in general on the claims. Seems to me that otherwise, if someone were to read about the claims of a world leader's country being an energy superpower, that this site would not be able to discuss that topic (or be used as a reference), which is clearly something this page ought to be able to discuss (and verify the arguments for and against) that leader's comments. I think a new section might be a good idea here, in order to address these concerns. Drakeguy 15:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've expressed the concept very well. In the case of Saudi Arabia and Russia there is ample evidence of their status by the way that they have exercised their power. For other countries I think such claims should be included if they are made by a significant figure or group (political leader, government, etc), with views for and against the proposition to maintain a neutral point of view. And, in addition, the facts should be analysed so it is possible to understand what it means in practice - i.e. what leverage do they have over other states in the region / the world markets in terms of market share, etc., or what is the potential in the future. Any well executed work along these lines gets my support. Good luck! Gralo 11:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gralo, I've added some new sections to the the energy superpower page. I need you to check them out, tell me what you think, and if possible, improve them. I think you'll find that they are right up your alley. But more importantly, since I know how much you like to research, could you please add some of your sources to the "Disputed Energy Superpowers" section? That'd be much appreciated, Drakeguy 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drakeguy; I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, but will come back to it... Gralo 23:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable. Just let me know when you look it over then. Drakeguy 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun I added your name here - the bot should give you some ideas when your back from your (well earned) wikibreak! Regards, sbandrews (t) 18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit, why did you remove so much? (comment by PriusDriver (Talk | contribs) at 23:57, 9 June 2000 moved here by Gralo)

Hi PriusDriver. I don't like removing content, because I know how much work it takes to write it, especially when it's as well referenced at this article. But to answer your question, my aim was to sharpen the focus of the article.

Some of the main things I edited out overlap with existing articles (you'll see I've added 'see also' links to these articles instead). In the case of geothermal content there was some good additional information that I moved to the geothermal energy article. If I were writing an essay or report then I'd want all the background information, but due to the hyperlinks duplication can be reduced (which also makes it easier to update things in the future).

Also, because I changed the structure to separate out the 'resources' from the 'energy use' into separate sub-sections, I felt that the information could be found without the need to repeat some of it.

If you think there is something vital that would be better added back (or added to another article), then do go ahead. I didn't cross-check every word on wind turbines with the existing articles on wind turbines, for example, so there may be some information that could be added to those articles. If you're unsure then feel free to discuss it on my talk page if you prefer. Either way, do keep contributing!

Incidentally, the following links may also be of some help, though you seem to be going well anyway:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Also, you can

sign your name

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Gralo 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you've not discovered it yet, I should have added that you can access the previous versions through the links on this page, should you want to do some cut and pasting... Gralo 12:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gralo, have been tapping away on the keyboard, but took a break to read this excellent article. Surprised to see that it didn't make featured article status. And I was wondering, have any renewables pages become featured articles? regards, Johnfos 11:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnfos, good to hear from you again! I think that it is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia on an interesting subject of global interest - which is partly why I did some work on it too! However the standard for featured articles is tough, so while I don't want to be discouraging I wasn't surprised that it didn't make it this time, as I would suggest that it's probably around B on the assessment scale.

As for your question, it's a good one, and I think the answer is zero. Globally there are only 1,447 on the whole of the English Wikipedia (up from 1,007 one year ago). You can find a list of them here. In fact, I can't see any 'pure' energy articles listed, just a few related to global warming. I suspect that few have been submitted for assessment, but also that there isn't yet a 'critical mass' of contributors to bring them up to standard. I'm sure that will change in time as the growth in energy-related content pulls in more contributors - which is another good reason to keep filling the gaps!

I should perhaps add that I know this can happen; among the 1,447 is one that I started some 3 years ago before I decided to devote my time to energy. But it took over 2 years and some dedicated work by others to get it to standard... Gralo 13:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related topic, I hope to put forward the energy portal for featured portal assessment later this month, so it will be interesting to see how that goes. You may even like to

watch

the talkpage so you can express your opinion when the time comes...

Regards Gralo 12:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've had a better look at the Energy Portal now, and think it is really spot on. Good work! Will look forward to the portal assessment process... Johnfos 07:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gralo, and many thanks for casting your eye over the Renewable energy commercialization article and making some changes to cats and See also. Would you be good enough to have a look at this one too please, when you get the chance... thanks again, Johnfos 07:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnfos, I can see that you've been working hard; it pulls together a number of articles together in a coherent way and reads well - a good piece of work! I've done a little copyediting, and I've also cut the categories. Category:Energy in the United States should be the top level category for US national articles (which also links through to Category:Economy of the United States and others). This article really falls under Category:Renewable energy in the United States, but I've left it in both for now...

If you have the time and enthusiasm, it would be good to add a little more on the follow two aspects:

• When did Bush state explain the need to diversify? What has he (or previous presidents) done about it - policies? programs? funding? Which aspects of commercialization have come about due to Federal policies, and which through private or state action? Can these aspects be linked through to Energy policy of the United States (which at present doesn't actually say very much about energy policy!). Incidentally, I took the reference to Bush out of the into because it could have been read as implying that he had been instrumental in the commercialization process.
• How does usage compare to the rest of the world? For example, in geothermal energy "the USA is the world leader in online capacity" is no doubt correct, and sounds impressive. But, at just 0.37% of national electricity supply, that is tiny compared to the percentage in Iceland (
  renewable energy in Iceland
  ), which is actually much more impressive.

My final thought is about the title of the article. Should it perhaps just be Renewable energy in the United States? That may depend on how you see the article developing in the future? Or whether there is scope for separate articles?

Regards Gralo 11:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gralo, really appreciate your input and suggestions, and questions! I will need to think about some of those a little more but at this stage just wanted to say thanks... regards, Johnfos 12:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gralo, I've been looking more closely at Category:Energy articles by quality and was pleased to see that Renewable energy in Scotland made grade A, as it seems very thorough and well-referenced. But I was a little surprised by the very upbeat and speculative tone of its opening para, about resource potential!

There are so many energy articles which seem to need assessment. Is article assessment something you are involved in? regards, Johnfos 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnfos. Renewable energy in Scotland is a great piece of work, thanks largely to Ben's work; I hadn't spotted that it had been rated A & achieved "good article" status, but I'm sure its deserved. Assessment has an important role to play in increasing quality, but I don't normally get involved in it because I choose to spend my time on other priorities. As with most things energy-related here, in time others with join in, and some of them will see a great opportunity to concentrate on assessments. Gralo 13:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the pages I proposed again, I would create a new topic for home energy rating, but would recommend just adding a section about the US on the 'global' White Certificates page in the pratical applications section. White certificates, white tags, and energy efficiency tags are all essentially the same thing, but called something differnet depending on where you live. I would recommend all searches being re-directed to the white certificates section. I could of course a brand new page, though, for energy efficiency certicates if you beleive it will be more accurate, and just have a link on the global white certificates page. There is no rush so let's of course continue to talk all of this over! Efficiency84 04:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly been thinking about it carefully, so do as you suggest. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it's always possible to change things later. Though that pre-thinking is a good process to go through first! Do drop by if you'd like to discuss further. Gralo 10:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a rough idea of what I plan to say under Practical Applications for White Certificates

Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Nevada have Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards and Energy Efficiency Credit (white certificates) trading. More states are expected to follow and national legislation is being proposed. There is also a voluntary market where large corporations are purchasing energy efficiency credits as a way of meeting their corporate commitments to reduce their carbon footprints.

Turned out to be pretty minimal, since there is already a page for white certificates! I think I'll create another page that copies and pastes this but calls it energy efficiency trading. Some of these new concepts are really confusing because there isn't a global standard term. I'll finish up my home energy rating article over the weekend. Efficiency84 16:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Just as well you checked that the subject was already started before writing too much. A couple of questions: Does that market have an official name that you could include? Is there a citation (i.e. a web link) you can include that mentions the proposed legislation? Gralo 17:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it has been awhile. I made my modifications to the white certificates page. Here is my draft for home energy rating.

Home energy ratings are a measurement of a home’s energy efficiency. Home energy ratings can be used by for both existing homes and new homes. A home energy rating of an existing home allows a homeowner to receive a report listing options for upgrading a home’s energy efficiency. The homeowners may then use the report to determine the most effective ways in which to upgrade the home’s energy efficiency. A home energy rating of a new home allows buyers to compare the energy efficiency of homes they are considering buying A home energy rating can be used to gauge the current energy efficiency of a home or estimate the efficiency of a home that is being constructed or improved. A home energy rating of a home prior to construction or improvement is called a “projected rating.” A home energy rating that is used to determine a home’s current efficiency is referred to as a “confirmed rating.” Ratings provides a relative energy use index called the HERS Index – a HERS Index of 100 represents the energy use of the “American Standard Building” and an Index of 0 (zero) indicates that the Proposed Building uses no net purchased energy (a Zero Energy Building).

for capitalizing a building’s energy performance in the mortgage loan, certification of “White Tags” for private financial investors, and by the federal government for verification of building energy performance for such programs as federal tax incentives, the Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR program and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America Program. Projected ratings give home owners and builders an estimate or what a home’s efficiency will be like after construction or improvements, so that they may determine the most cost-effective route to improve a building’s efficiency. A confirmed rating, which indicates the home’s current efficiency, requires an inspection of the home from an energy rater. The home energy rater reviews the home to identify its energy characteristics, such as insulation levels, window efficiency, wall-to-window ratios, the heating and cooling system efficiency, the solar orientation of the home, and the water heating system. Performance testing, such as a blower door test for air leakage and duct leakage, is usually part of the rating.

Efficiency84 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution re-structuring the Peak oil article. It's starting to take better shape now. However, the whole section dealing with "Unconventional" petroleum reserves which includes Heavy oils, tar sands, and oil shale seems to have been dropped. The naysayers to peak oil contend that there is a 400 year supply of oil left. I feel that removing that section may have removed some of the balancing information in the article. Somehow the article still needs to convey that although there are a lot of heavy oils, tar sands, and oil shale, these sources will never deliver the needed rate of oil production. I fully understand the problem is not a supply problem, but a rate problem.

I will spend some time to fill-in the last stub section on industrialization this morning. Kgrr 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - and thanks for the message! Just wanted to polish it a little before including it on the energy portal. As for the unconventional reserves, they may have an important role to play in mitigation, but since the article claims to be discussing "the date when the peak of the world's conventional petroleum (crude oil) production rate is reached" (to quote from the introduction), I moved unconventional sources to their own section in the mitigation article. Gralo 13:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably noticed that I've been working on it off and on for a week now. I had taken a couple of days to address another couple of articles. With your help, it's really taking shape. Ok... then I will make a section briefly pointing out that unconventional resources do exist but that they are difficult to extract. Unconventional sources definitely are part of the mitigation article. However, many naysayers point to the unconventional sources as part of their argument. Thus a reference to unconventional sources must be under the supply section or else the article becomes unbalanced.

As soon as it's nice and polished, I would like to submit it to GA status so that it will be likely to be included in the CD version of the Wikipedia.Kgrr 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is ready to be added to the Energy Portal selected articles. First time ever I have an ambition to get an article to the FA class, but still some more work needs to be done. I hope you could advice, what will be the best way to continue. To ask for peer review, or nominate for GA or even for FA? Is there something which could be done before nomination? Probably also some copyedit is needed. I appreciate if you could assist with advice or could help to improve this article. Thank you in advance. PS: I proposed some more articles for the Energy Portal. Beagel 18:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel. I'm planning to sign off shortly but will take a look at your progress next time I log on. I would definitely advise peer review as your next step - but be prepared for the extra work in addressing the issues that will get raised. Then go for GA first (unless you get lots of comments suggesting you go directly for FA), as FA is tough and rejection potentially disheartening. I'm sure it will be worth it, and I hope you get there! Gralo 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits. As you suggested I listed it for the peer review, but probably summer is not the best time to get responses. But will see. I agree that better to spend some more time and go for sure. Beagel 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You've obviously put in a lot of work and the result looks good! I've just added it the the selected articles on the portal, although I do have a question: in addition to Estonia, Brazil, China, Germany and Russia mentioned in the intro, you go on to mention its use in Israel & China. And I'm not sure if Canada and Turkey are current users or proposed users - though I'm sure I chould follow up the references to find out. Perhaps you could clarify this in the article?

Good luck with the peer review - I've had no response to the portal featured status request yet either...! Gralo 17:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Israel is controversial. By some sources they operates oil shale-fired pilot power plant, by other sources the power plant is closed currently. There is no oil production right now, the Hom Tov technology is not even in pilot stage yet (but certainly will be after several years). But I will ask at the talk page to clarify Israeli status. Same applies actually to Russia and Germany, both having small scale production. There is no oil shale industry in Turkey, but they have some considerations to use their reserves. I am quite sure there is no current oil shale industry in Canada, but it needs to be verified.Beagel 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed

Environmental effects of oil shale industry) for the peer review. Your comments and edits will be the most welcome.Beagel 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your assistance improving the

Hi Gralo. I nominated

Hi Jreferee. Thanks for your comments - but unfortunately I picked up your message beyond the deadline... Gralo 10:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gralo, I've surprised myself and have been expanding this article a bit lately. I find the "commercialization" perspective is a very interesting and extant area. It moves the reader beyond some of the more technical discussions about renewables (eg,

Hi Johnfos, another interesting contribution. You will find that REN21 are a very good source of information for expanding the article to meet your goal. Gralo 09:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. And I meant to ask: what was the article you started 3 years ago, that reached FA status? I'm curious! -- Johnfos 12:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gralo. You are off to such a great start on the article

You have reverted a perfectly good image for the energy portal with no discussion. Please explain your reasons on Portal talk:Energy. There are many other images that can be used. The one you put back is not even relevant in France. 199.125.109.64 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Gralo 00:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little help here. We have an out of control user who seems to insist that nuclear power is the only acceptable image for the energy portal etc. and yet refuses to discuss any alternatives. 199.125.109.105 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above anon user keeps pushing his oil rig image as the best one for the EnergyPortal. Please stop by and register your opinion. ^[1]——Skyemoor 11:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not keep pushing any particular image - see the discussion where the oil rig is my 1st choice, but a variety is my second choice, what I am doing is pointing out that any proposed collage is not workable. There is an RFC right now in the hopes of obtaining wider viewpoints (instead of just recruiting them). 199.125.109.126 13:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fils du Soleil. The extent of the reserves will have a major impact on the date of peak oil, and the difficulty in assessing the extent of the reserves significantly adds to the uncertainty over forecasting the date. However even a very significant change in the date of peak oil will not, of itself, prove or disprove the theory. That was the reason for the changed location. The title change was partly to cut the title length, and partly because the text implies that internal assessments are difficult too (e.g. for Shell), not just external ones. On your more general point, I would agree that mentioning the move on the talk page would have aided continuity, and I'm sorry if it took you a little time to locate your contribution (which, incidentally, is an important one). Regards Gralo 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Like I said, I see the logic in the changes you made. But specially in the somewhat confused context of the split, keeping track on the talk page of the whats and whys is even more important than usual. Best. - Fils du Soleil 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Don't know what I was thinking/looking at. Apologies, Smokizzy (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The beauty of Wikipedia is that everything is reversible! Regards Gralo 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thanks for your efforts in helping clean up the Peak oil article. Your edits have helped to improve the quality of the article to attain GA status. Kgrr 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me about this discussion. I reviewed the portal and found it a very good candidate for featured status. I commend you on your excellent work. Keep it up! :-) Best regards, Húsönd 01:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to comment - and for your encouragement! Regards Gralo 02:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on

Thanks! Just added some more. Seemed like a good idea to pull all the threads together before they get too numerous... Gralo 22:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work on the detail and references too, keep it up like that and it'll be featured in no time. :) —Nightstallion 22:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about Nuclear energy in (country) being used for all misselaneous items related to nuclear energy in a country, but the best of my knowledge, it just hasn't been used as such yet. If nuclear technology is meant to contain military related stuff instead, then that's fine, but so far, that's not the case - go check the categories.

When I was building articles centering around Nuclear power in Japan I was slapping the Category:Nuclear technology in Japan tags on the articles for companies, fuel cycle sites, government regulatory bodies, research institutes, and all sorts of others because that was the president. If we want to change that president, I would be happy to help reorganize, as long as everyone is co-operating and it's logical (which this change seems to be).

I also really don't care if something says nuclear power versus nuclear energy. That's just not worth our time to worry about. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gralo. Thanks for the barnstar - and congratulations on the portal's FA status. And thank you for your proposal. I think I will add this little shiny black box to may user page. Beagel 18:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		Congratulations
		Congratulations on FA status for the Energy portal. Anon 18:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gralo,

Thank you for releasing this image into the public domain. I am working on a documentary that touches upon global warming and plan to use the image. I'd like to credit you in the end credits. Would you like "Gralo" or your full name? Could you email me at [email protected]? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.116.54 (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested in doing the translation but saw in the Wikipedia:Translation/Renewable energy in Germany Request for Translation that Icehcky8 started to do the translation. However the status bar indicated '0'. I was wondering if Icehcky8 had completed it and relevant sections were shifted to other articles. If it has been finished, perhaps you could update that Request for Translation or you could drop me a note at my userpage. Otherwise I may assume it hasn't been finished and I may start to try to figure out what has already been done and go from there. However, a note either way would be very helpfull. Thank you. AnFu 01:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding your suggestion. I'm sorry that, because of a spelling mistake I had made, I did not find your suggestion, but now it is included and will appear every Wednesday. --Thw1309 12:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A

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) 10:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion of Energy price

A tag has been placed on Energy price, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

the page duplicates material located in several articles.

Under the

see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page

explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria

for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Archeopteryx (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oil phase-out in Sweden

What Wikipedia is not

").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

sign your comments

with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

articles for deletion

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

talk) 01:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination for deletion of Template:EnergyPortal

Template:EnergyPortal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations to a file

Hi Gralo,

you uploaded this file and I would like some explanations to it. Do you speak german? If you can, please participate in the discussion.

--MartinThoma (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Green energy certification schemes

renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Alphabetizing category pages

In case anyone stumbles on this arcane subject and traces it here, as I did, I've addressed it at User talk:Swliv#Gralo; alpha-sort problem within category pages. In short there seems to be a small but pretty widely embedded glitch which was in part at least distributed by Gralo (it may have been OK in '07, when the one I traced to Gralo was done, but it causes a problem now) and I've made a first try at addressing it. My initial string of edits on it is here, 9 June all. Swliv (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Gulf of Arabia

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page,

speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Persian Gulf - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page

.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit

article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. INeverCry 02:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of CEPHEUS

The article CEPHEUS has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ephemeral project. No independent sources, does not meet

WP:GNG

.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Energy resource facilities in the United States

Please see my proposal to upmerge Category: Energy resource facilities in the United States to Category: Energy infrastructure in the United States Hugo999 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power by country

Please see my proposal to upmerge Category:Nuclear power by country and subcategories (4) to Category:Nuclear energy by country Hugo999 (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quixotic plea

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of Energy security for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Energy security is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy security until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ツStacey (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Avoiding dangerous climate change

The article

Avoiding dangerous climate change has been proposed for deletion

because of the following concern:

The article title is

Action on climate change

, and quite possibly others.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your

the article's talk page

.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Avoiding dangerous climate change

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Avoiding dangerous climate change is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Energy Globe Award winners has been nominated for discussion

Category:Energy Globe Award winners, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:UKEnergyGraphic.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:UKEnergyGraphic.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geothermal power by country has been nominated for discussion

Category:Geothermal power by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon emissions listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Carbon emissions. Since you had some involvement with the Carbon emissions redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Global warming articles needing expert attention

A tag has been placed on

section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion

, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:EnergyGlobeLogo.png

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unilever Indonesia

The article

Unilever Indonesia has been proposed for deletion

because of the following concern:

No evidence this subsidiary passes

WP:NCOMPANY. Redirecting to parent company Unilever

is an option (also per SOFTDELETE/PRESERVE).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Catastriphic climate change" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Catastriphic climate change. Since you had some involvement with the Catastriphic climate change redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Catastriphic global warming" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Catastriphic global warming. Since you had some involvement with the Catastriphic global warming redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Avoiding Dangerous Global Warming" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Avoiding Dangerous Global Warming. Since you had some involvement with the Avoiding Dangerous Global Warming redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

"Avoiding dangerous global warming" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Avoiding dangerous global warming. Since you had some involvement with the Avoiding dangerous global warming redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

"Dangerous climate change" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dangerous climate change. Since you had some involvement with the Dangerous climate change redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Dangerous global warming" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dangerous global warming. Since you had some involvement with the Dangerous global warming redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Stabilisation of greenhouse gases" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Stabilisation of greenhouse gases. Since you had some involvement with the Stabilisation of greenhouse gases redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

"Stabilization of greenhouse gases" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Stabilization of greenhouse gases. Since you had some involvement with the Stabilization of greenhouse gases redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

"550 ppm" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

550 ppm. Since you had some involvement with the 550 ppm redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

"550ppm" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

550ppm. Since you had some involvement with the 550ppm redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

"Langage" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Langage. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 7#Langage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Energy/Energy news

sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Energy/Energy news during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ysangkok (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of File:WERCtemp1.png

The file File:WERCtemp1.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WpEnergyPortal

Template:WpEnergyPortal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Energy portal fact

Template:Energy portal fact has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aza24 (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Mitigation of peak oil

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Mitigation of peak oil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitigation of peak oil until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Chidgk1 (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of SolarPACES

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on SolarPACES 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, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:SolarPACESlogo.png

Thanks for uploading File:SolarPACESlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Energy#Image_selection