User talk:Beagel/archive2015

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

Re: Happy New Year!

Hi Beagel, Thanks! Really great to hear from you again! Hope all is well, and Happy New Year to you and family :) Best wishes, Reh man 16:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Beagel, and all the best to you and yours too! Novickas (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oil shale in the US

As the leading editor of oil shale articles, what would you think about an article "History of the oil shale industry in the United States"? I'd be interested in starting one. US oil shale has always been a topic of great promise but repeated commercial frustration. Regards. Plazak (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plazak, that's a great idea. I can't promise that I would spend a lot of time on that article as time that I could spend in Wikipedia is rather limited and my priority at the moment is getting Oil shale in Estonia to FA level. However, there is already some information in different article which could be used for this purpose. The main existing source is History of the oil shale industry, but I think that also Colony Shale Oil Project, Paraho process, Union process, TOSCO II process, and Nevada–Texas–Utah Retort may contain some useful information. Beagel (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a proto-article on my talk page (starting at item #147 on my table of contents), and would much appreciate any criticism or changes for which you find the time. It lacks figures and has too few references, both of which I plan to add. The biggest drawback I see is that it is too much my own overlong personal essay, but until other editors add to it, that's just the way it flowed off the keyboard. Regards, Plazak (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse: History of the oil shale industry in the United States. Plazak (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look in coming days. Beagel (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

<Peaks from around a corner, waves shyly> I moved and I had an eye surgery. But it looks like I have settled. I am back, but I don't want to spend lots of time in front of computer. So, I promise, I will return to the article (loving the tables!) but give me a couple days. Renata (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renata, I did not know. I hope that the surgery went well and everything is ok. And please keep your eyes, this article can wait. I myself need some break from it to be able to have a fresh look again. Beagel (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 1 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Oil shale in Estonia page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

review of a new article

Beagel, you kindly offered assistance last year and I've finally got around to creating a new article: Smoky Falls Generating Station. It's a fairly contained subject but I'd appreciate any suggestions that you have, as well as an assessment.

Thanks Walkabout14 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

western tasmania

Hi, I strongly object to merging dam and power station articles on western tasmania on the basis that the dam making process in western tasmania has been a politically and ecologically fraught issue - regardless of the 'neatness' for people who might not have the full background on the issues - I would support separate articles. cheers satusuro 23:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a personal need to merge dam and power station articles - for consistency - you have a whole set of Tasmanian articles to consider - not just a few on the west coast of tasmania. editing on articles to do with tasmania - if you are waiting for comments by others, you could wait a year or 2 - one article i wanted other comment on I had to wait 3 years :) .

controversy and the linkages with tasmanian domestic politics are not necessarily picked up from the articles - most dam articles have been edited by people keen on 'energy' tags and that is it. Tasmanian electricity generation properly assessed should have a range of project interests - energy is but a small component, of the construction, and the politics of placement, and tasmanian political history - dams are not just dams anywhere in the world - the socio political constraints and objections to dams are hardly the sole domain of 'energy' - in most cases environmental issues always seem to be forgotten in relation to hydro 'power development schemes' as the hydro faithfully called them. Dont't let me start. cheers satusuro 07:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again, thanks for providing appropriate formula for discussion - the problem with 'defunct' as opposed to 'former' - is in most cases they were simply absorbed into newer names or operations. But hey if anyone want to make an issue of the change, I'm fine with that. cheers JarrahTree 08:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puma Energy

Hi Beagel, hope you're well. Puma Energy has made a couple of forays into new markets – namely UK and Colombia. See here on the talk page, if you could have look and let me know what you think that'd be great. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel, just wondering if you've got a chance to take a look at this, thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick review

Hi Beagel, I've been doing paid editing on/for The Pictet Group, and I think an outside look is always good. The full description of edits is on the Talk page, and I would very much appreciate your input (if any).

Thanks a lot! Leo Fischer (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit on your part

You clarified the issue. I was wrong, you were right. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction to the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Thanks. --Oil1236 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peak Oil page Good Article nomination

Just writing for your assistance in improving the Peak Oil page. I noticed you have made some comments recently that the page does not currently meet the GA criteria. I have spent some time recently improving the prose, updating figures and references. Whilst any page is a work in progress, I think the page now seems to meet an acceptable standard. I will continue to work on the page to make it as current, accurate and neutral as possible. I believe you have made comments previously that it does not meet GA criteria 1b, 2b and possibly 4. I am writing to ask that you be more specific in your criticism of the page so that myself and others may be able to address any concerns. In particular, refer to specific sections and clearly identify the issue. There is apparently a long and controversial history associated with the page, so any assistance you can give would make editing easier. Thanks for any assistance. Blandx (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of OKBM Afrikantov

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

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 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Atomenergomash

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

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 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Krasnoleninsky Refinery, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a section in Dana Energy entry

First of all, my apologies for undoing your revision. I would highly appreciate if you could tell me what disqualifies that "Business Segments" section in "Dana Energy" article to be there and makes you remove it?

@Majeddangar: First of all, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a tool for a business promotion. Second, sections in the format of list are discouraged. Therefore, three-bullets short section is not in line with the guidelines. It could be added just as one sentence but not as a alone-standing section. It seems also that you have conflict of interest regarding Dana Energy, so please be aware of the relevant policy before editing.Beagel (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Əmircanlı nəsli kitabı

That link doesn't lead to an Azeribaijani article for me - it seems to be a redlink there with no deletion notice. Peridon (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Energy

Hello, Beagel -- Just out of curiosity I looked at your recent edit to Dana Energy. While reading the article, I made a few copy-edits. I asked User:Vsmith to help me find out what "EPD" stood for, and he added a clarifying phrase to the the article. I also asked him about the phrase at the end of the article, "long period of transition". We both thought it probably referred to the several years of delay in attempting to finalize the deal, which never did become finalized, but we're just guessing. That phrase is not particularly clear, since no transition was mentioned earlier in the article. Do you think you could re-phrase the sentence so that it is clearer? Corinne (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Corinne. It's so nice to hear about you. I think that your guess is correct as it seems that the deal was cancelled three years after it was announced. Unfortunately I am not very familiar with this issue. That sentence was added by user:Cyprianio, so maybe they could give more details. I think that maybe we should re-phrase the whole paragraph. Beagel (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Messer Group

Hi, I'm Officialjjones. Beagel, thanks for creating Messer Group!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The article is missing references and is uncategorised.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Officialjjones (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Officialjjones:. Thank you for your notice. However, if you look the article's history carefully, you can see that this article is not created by me, but was created by Coronium (talk · contribs) on 26 November 2015. I recommend that you notify them. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gunashli oilfield on ITN

The article is nominated at WP:ITNC. If you have something against the nomination, say it there. --George Ho (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against the nomination. Please learn the issue before making that kind of conclusions. Beagel (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the issue is other than "duplications", which I do not see in pages. The Azeri oilfield has a 2008 leak, making the merger less likely. The Chirag oilfield page has information not suitable for merger. Both don't have similar info by looking at it. --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is not a merger of two article, its is merger of four. Second, it is hard to see which information which belongs to Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli does not belong at the same time any of these three oil fields articles. Even if the texts of these articles are different, it creates potential WP:POVFORK. And I do not understand why the current fire makes the merger less likely because this information may be presented also in Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli article. If these four articles would be merged, each oil field should have its field-specific section, of course. Beagel (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create Draft:Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli or User:Beagel/Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli ~~to avoid conflicts~~? --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of conflicts? Beagel (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Edit warring and content disputes. George Ho (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

What you mean by edit warring and content disputes? When exactly these happened? Why do you think that there will be any that kind of conflict? Beagel (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I can't foresee the potential. Anyways, can you create a draft? George Ho (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Take a look at the article about Hilda Nilsson. Any Help is appreciated. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my field of expertise and therefore I am not sure if I can be in help. However, I will take a look later and will see if I may have some idea. Beagel (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, Beagel. Many thanks for helping us with our article "Hrazdan Thermal Power Plant". However, I still need your help, especially with the issue of "close paraphrasing". Regards, Gags98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gags98. Thank you for you notice. The article still has a large amount of information which was copy-pasted from the company's website, and although slightly changed, some parts are still violating Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Please read that essay to learn what is the problem. Beagel (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that I did looked at all cases when "close citation" was mentioned, we corrected more than 60%, but the rest simply can't be changed. They are mainly phrases of two-three words. Also, there are some cases when "similarities" are mentioned, but in fact they are in totally different sentences. Gags98 (talk 18:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gags98: I still have some doubts but I will not restore the tag at the moment. I asked opinion of user:Moonriddengirl who is an expert in the field of copyright issues. And thank you for cooperating and discussing. Beagel (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Beagel, you helped us a lot, and we highly appreciate it. Happy upcoming New Year. Gags98 (talk 19:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gags98: You are welcome! It was actually good work what you did and you created an article about important power plant which was missing in the English wiki. I hope you will continue editing also after your student assignment. I also try to find (probably not immediately) some additional references to this article as its sourcing needs to be improved. Beagel (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why are you deleting and spoiling our group work? Please, let us finish it, and then do your editting, so we can sum up and understand how will look our final version, and start doing what you say.

Thanks in advance,

Best Regards Arman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanilogin (talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 December 2015‎ (UTC)

@Eduard Muradyan and Armanilogin: This is not how Wikipedia works. You have been asked several times to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Student assignments and other important rules. You have had also special lecture about this. So, please learn the rules and please cooperate. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete our job until we finish it. We cannot work when you are deleting all the job and we have to start it again. Give us 1.5 day. Regards, Head of department of Yerevan thermal power plant.

P. S. You do not cooperate with us, you just delete all any time we edit, and do not let us finish the job. It is at least not professional. Let us finish the job and do what you wish. Write what is wrong, instead of deleting, and contact us so we can discuss your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanilogin (talk • contribs) 11:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Armanilogin: Did you read the policies you had asked to read? Also, please do not blank my user page and talk page. In addition, if you are working for this power plant as you said, you the have conflict of interest, and you should avoid editing the article without discussing your edits first. Please read carefully WP:COI. Beagel (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Baegal, I fully understand your point of view, but we need some time to understand all the rules, and how things work, thus, I ask you to wait a little, so we can get the two edges together and complete all you have orders. We just ask some time.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanilogin (talk • contribs) 14:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not "you had asked to read", but "you have asked to read". You tell about rules, but write sentences without checking their grammar :)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanilogin (talk • contribs) 15:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Armanilogin: What you are calling deleting is actually cleaning up the article. Reason for this is that it was largely copy-pasted from the external source, and therefore violating Wikipedia:Copyright violations|copyrights policy which is one of the core policies. Changing just few words is not enough as it still is close paraphrasing. Not only me, but also user:User:Moonriddengirl who is one of the leading copyrights experts in Wikipedia, helped to clean it up. Restoring the copyvio version by you and by user:Eduard Muradyan is a clearf violation of Wikipedia policies. Second, the text was full of technical jargon not suitable for Wikipedia. The readability of articles is important thing. Third, there were a lot of formattings of the text which you just removed. So, if you look my and Moonriddengirl's edits, you can see tghsat we are trying yo help you by improving the article. Also, blanking the user pages and talk pages are not allowed and it is considered to be disruptive editing. Also removing maintenance tags without fixing the problem or at least explaining your reasons for removal, is also considered to be disruptive editing. In addition, potentially controversial edits (and reverting somebody is controversial) at the article's talk page or by the edit summaries. You have not discussed at the article talk page or provided any edit summaries. Last thing,everybody may edit any article in Wikipedia if doing it in line with the rules and if there is no special restrictions. If you want that no other persons edit your contribution, you should keep it on your personal draft space, and not move it to the article space. As your personal remark about the grammar, I agree that it was incorrect. However, you were still able to understand it. You should avoid that kind of personal remarks and to assume a good faith. On my side I assume that writing my user name incorrectly was not your intention. Beagel (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not intentionally, I just don't know what it means, so misspelled it. Of course you can edit the article, we just want a little time not to disrupt each other. Besides, nothing is copy pasted from the sources, as we know, to write the article we need to read all the sources and start our own work, without looking at the sources. Regards, Arman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanilogin (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this at the article's talk page. Beagel (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Baedel, You did not explain anything so far. Stop speaking with me like with your friend. You speak in an offensive and rude tone, while I speak respectfuly to you. As I understood you are full of currupcy, and just want to put this article under your name. Stealing others' job is one of the worst things to do. Change yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanilogin (talk • contribs) 19:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Armanilogin: Please stop making personal attacks. And one more time, please read the core policies of Wikipedia. Your comment shows that you still don't understand how Wikipedia works. Beagel (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings!

Hello Beagel: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

North America, thank you very much! Beagel (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy winter holidays, Beagel!

	Happy winter holidays, Beagel!
	Winter is sometimes beautiful. Always glad to see you around. Best wishes for 2016 Novickas (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Novickas. I wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2015. Beagel (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Hi Beagel, You've been doing some wonderful editing work again this year... well done, and have an enjoyable festive season... best wishes... Johnfos (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John. It is nice to hear about you. I wish you nice holidays and all the best for 2016. Beagel (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yerevan Thermal Power Plant

Just wanted to say great job tidying up and improving the Yerevan Thermal Power Plant article! Have a great Christmas. Sam Walton (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! That plant deserves its own article and it was pity that some students decided to have "easier way" by copy-pasting a large part of information instead their own efforts. Merry Christmas also to you! Beagel (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]