User talk:Beagel/archive2013

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

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg

Have an enjoyable New Year!

Hello Beagel: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Sreesarmatvm^talk_contribs 13:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you! Beagel (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Braemar Power Station

Could you please do a check of Braemar Power Station and add an infobox? I recently expanded it and have, in the past, confused it with the Darling Downs Power Station. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BP structure suggestion

Hi Beagel, I hope you had a pleasant holiday season. On the BP Talk page, discussions have calmed down again and I have re-proposed my suggestion for a new structure for the "Environmental record" and "Accidents" sections of the BP article. As you had previously commented on this suggestion, I'd be interested to hear if you have had any further thoughts. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar subject im wondering if Deepwater Horizon Criminal Task Force would be worthy of a short article. Rich Farmbrough, 19:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I don't have any final views about this yet. It probably deserves its own article but it could be added also into the Investigations into the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article (another article which was split from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article without leaving any summary and which is a total mess). Beagel (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hàm Thuận – Đa Mi

Thanks for putting in that RM. Rather you than me ;). Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, could you help on a reply to Itsmejudith's question about whether "Stations" or "Complex" is preferable? From the Vietnamese article it appears that at the very least the watershed management between the two stations is integrated. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, it's been a month and the thing is still sitting there. Any chance of putting it to bed? All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:EnergyAustralia#Merge_proposal

It seems a non-controversial proposal to me. Is there any reason not to ask an admin to do the moves? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not sure if it would be better to merge these articles or make these moves. It seems that there was consensus for moves as uncontroversial, so I removed merger tags and started the moving process. Beagel (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ExxonMobil

Technically, your last 4 edits to ExxonMobil constitute a violation of WP:3RR, unless the edits you were reverting were (1) vandalis, (2) a WP:BLP violation, or (3) by socks of already-blocked editors. As I think (3) is the case, I'm not going to make this a formal notice, but adding a reason why your reverts are not to be counted against WP:3RR should be in your edit summary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being socks of blocked editor, it was clear vandalism and that was said in the edit summaries. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that meaning of 'rvv' is understandable. If not, I apology for this. Beagel (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing RM closure

Can you do me a favor and review what happened at Hamthuan-Dami Hydroelectric Power Station? It seems our closures crossed and I'm not sure what to do with the resulting mess? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 10:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems we closed simultaneously, which resulted in you moving the article to a target and me the talk page to another. So which close should be made effective? This is a bit of an unusual situation. I haven't seen your rational (since it saved mine) but I'm happy to defer to you if you believe your close to be more appropriate. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 10:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just writing my rationale. This was just the version supported for majority (the only oppose by one editor). Beagel (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you disagree with my close of the discussion feel free to revert/move to the target your close would endorse, or request MRV. I will agree neither option was backed by a strong consensus; I opted for the simpler solution. In any case, thanks for fixing things up quickly. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 10:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very concerning deletion of material from the BP oil spill page

Beagle, your deletion of about 15 good references detailing years of continued, confirmed leakage from MC282 is extremely concerning to me. In its place you left a BP "everything's fine" statement which referenced only one single source which actually supported the fact that everything is NOT fine. Please beware that since there is a very important court case on the 25th of February, edits made prior to that are going to be watched carefully, since BP has in the past used this article in their court case. You can add BP's statement to the recurring leakage section (which I have replaced since your deletion, and which was originally done by Popsup), but there is no reason for you to remove all the other references and information that I am aware of. I look forward to your explanation. petrarchan47 t c 21:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I answered at the article's talk page. If you look the diffs you see that nothing was deleted. If you would like to continue making false accusations I would kindly ask you do not to do this at my talk page. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving information to another page is indeed removing from the article. petrarchan47 t c 21:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you do not make false accusations at my talk page. Same applies to WP:LAWYERING, personal attacks and any kind of disruptive editing in the broad sense. I hope this is understandable. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also will stop WP:LAWYERING then? Wonderful, I will remind you when you forget, and I appreciate if you do the same for me. petrarchan47 t c 23:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my previous comment here. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deepwater Horizon investigation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Research Council (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) 10:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BP subsections

Thanks for your post.[1] I'm not really interested in the BP topic, so that a first strike against me spending time on the article. While the answer to moving the article forward is to restructure the subsections based on other FA and GA company articles, that would diminish the POV importance Wikipedia gives to BPs environmental record. Even though restructure the subsections would help put BPs environmental record in context in the overall topic of the main article (the BP company), there are other Wikipedia editors who would disagree with giving less prominence to BPs environmental record. (You may have seen this.) That's something I'm not interested in going up against (a second strike against me spending time on the article). Maybe the context of the main topic (BP) does not lend itself to the finer details mentioned in the deleting material sourced to 15 good references mentioned above. However, deleting material sourced to 15 good references will never work because it was not done with a view of the overall context of the topic. You cannot point to an overall context of the main topic because you do not yet have an agreed upon over all heading structure. Until you can, you are destine to year after year disputes over what should and should not be in the main BP article. The answer to your ongoing battle lies in the headings provided in the existing FA and GA company articles. Stop with the small skirmishes, focus on the overall structure, and then the finer details will take care of themselves. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. Beagel (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

I replied.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thopas

Hi, thanks for your welcome! But i certainly won´t do a lot of things in the English Wikipedia, i just added an information i even added in the German, and i saw that it was just missing in the English. And with this message you will see, my English is´nt the best. Kindly --Thopas (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Hi Beagel/archive2013. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! v/r - T P 21:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per talk page...

You may not realize this but your comments about why you removed that tag from the BP article is gone. I think it was an accident as Binksternet would surely have left an edit summary if there was some reason they had done so on purpose. I was going to add support for the removal but now there is nothing on the page to see to reply to.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I restored my comment and I believe that it was removed accidentally. Beagel (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deepwater Horizon article

Thanks for asking me to review the new version. I apologize for not having gotten around to it earlier. Everything looks OK to me. Are there any specific issues that you would like me to review? --Gautier lebon (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article went through extensive editing and therefore any fresh look is useful. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message that you left on my talk page. I've looked at the 'Legal aspects and settlements' section and corrected one minor inaccuracy. The rest looks OK to me, but I'm not familiar with all the topics covered. As you surely noticed, the section is pretty much a summary of various reports, but not does provide an overall synthesis. I guess that the overall synthesis will have to wait until a reliable source, such as a book or whatever, provides it.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar thanks

Thank you very much, even though I have had house repair work recently, not Wikipedia, but I will get back to WP soon.Hmains (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard Morningstar.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:Richard Morningstar.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puma Energy

Hi, just letting you know that Tiggerjay has reviewed the latest draft of the Puma Energy article and has posted on the COI notice board. He suggests transferring it to the article page and continuing work on it there. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to BP may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works may have broken the syntax by modifying 19 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Response and requested apology at BP talk. petrarchan47 t c 07:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I mentioned you here. I also noticed just at a glance that the article you mentioned should probably be upgraded to C class. CorporateM (Talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to BP may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Proposed Edits to Chevron Page

Hello there, Beagel. I noticed your comments on the Chevron Corporation talk page re: the Ecuador section. I've followed-up on the community's comments and feedback from earlier in the year and have posted proposed revisions to my Sandbox. User:Chevron_justinh/sandbox. When you have a moment, would you mind taking a look and, if they language contained in the revisions is agreeable, perhaps look to revise the currently outdated and inaccurate section? Talk:Chevron_Corporation

Many thanks, Chevron justinh (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Raspadskaya coal mine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

The mine is owned and operated by Raspadskaya OAO ({{lang-ru|ОАО Распадская}}, a Russian publicly-listed coal company. The mine was [[Privatization

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

energy
Thank you for renewing energy with energy - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 179th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. This is very kind and encouraging. Beagel (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BP RfC

Hi Beagel, now that the RfC drafts are in place, could I ask you not to change mine? I'd welcome suggestions and corrections, so please do let me know (either on the talk page or on my user talk), but I'd prefer to make the changes myself. For example, I don't like to offer all the conversions, because I think they get in the way of readability, and I'd like to keep the ref formats consistent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not a good idea to change drafts during the RfC but as you started making changes ([2]), I expected that your invitation ([3]) is still valid. I apology for misunderstanding your intentions. However, I disagree with your opinion about using convert templates for making conversions between local and SI units. Beagel (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: For keeping the ref formats consistent, it would be more preferable if the drafts follow the ref. style already dominantly used in the rest of the article. Beagel (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norris Production Solutions Tag

Hi, What page amendments can I make to get the tag removed? Thanks, Masooma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naqvi.masooma (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needs reliable third party references. Please see WP:RS and WP:V to learn what kind of references are needed for the Wikipeadia articles. Please be aware that Wikipeadia is not a tool for the corporate promotion. If you have in close link with the company, please be aware of WP:COI issue. Beagel (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puma Energy - DGG Edit

Hi Beagel - I'm getting in touch about the edits DGG made to the Puma Energy article on 10 June. His summary says 'Cleanup for less promotional style' - he's replaced 'Puma Energy' with 'the firm' in a number of places but he has also left some errors such as missing spaces, extra spaces and other mistakes, e.g. the penultimate sentence: 'In 201, the firm i joined forces...' It's nothing major but I'm not convinced it's much of an improvement. What are your thoughts? By the way CorporateM got in touch re your discussion on PR-written content on SlimVirgin's talk page last month - thanks for the positive words, much appreciated. HOgilvy (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

by all means fix my typos. I agree I did not do a major revision. What I said, more exactly, was "to decrease promotional style" I made a number of other changes, mostly editing for conciseness to replace the over-elaborate wording typical of press releases. As for company names, I think in the absence of ambiguity one per paragraph is about the maximum, though often "it" (or "they" if you're following UK style) is a better choice than "the firm". DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By my understanding that edit of 10 June is reasonable and I agree with arguments provided by DGG. Is there any specific issue you are concerned about? Concerning typos and minor layout things (e.g. spaces), please feel free to fix them. Beagel (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beagel and DGG, yes I agree there should be one company name per paragraph (per paragraph of more than one or two sentences that is) – usually the first mention, after which 'the firm' or 'it' can be used unless there's a case of ambiguity (which there may potentially be in the first two sentences of the Central America and the Caribbean section, with the mention of Puma Energy Caribe). Other than the typos, my only slight concern is that 'the firm' is now used quite heavily throughout some of the longer paragraphs – repetition that could perhaps be eased by using 'Puma Energy' at the start. Similarly, to avoid repetition of 'the firm', 'it' is often appropriate as you say, e.g. "In March 2012 the firm acquired ExxonMobil's downstream businesses in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and Belize, establishing the firm..." might be better as "...and Belize, establishing it...". These are just suggestions – thanks for the invitation to amend the typos myself but due to the COI I'd prefer it if someone else were to do it at some point. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made this change as you suggested. Please let me know if there is any other issue which you think needs correction. Beagel (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – that's great, thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salym Petroleum

Hello! What is wrong with my article on Salym Petroleum? What is the way I should rewrite it to make it visible? What is wrong with my article on Salym Petroleum? What is the way I should rewrite it to make it visible? I was aiming at almost the same article on Sakhalin Energy - our sister company. Thank you for answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetris Rus (talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Demetris Rus. I had not seen the Salym Petroleum Development article before, but after quick view I see several issues:

The article does not have any references while all information in Wikipedia should be verified by third party reliable source. Please see WP:V and WP:RS for more information how to use sources for references.
Significant part of that article is copy-pasted/closed paraphrased from the company website which is a violation of the company's copyrights. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:PARAPHRASE.
Significant part of the body text of this article is a bullet list. It s more appreciate to use prose instead. Please see WP:PROSE. I advice to see also WP:MOS for other guidelines about the style.
I advice to use the standard sections of the company article's like 'History', 'Operations' etc.
I understood from your comment that you have close relations with the company. Please be aware of the guidelines how to deal in case of a conflict of interest (WP:COI). You should declare your conflict of interest (preferably at your user page, article's talk page and the relevant notice board WP:COI/N).

Beagel (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BP sale of wind farms

Hi Beagel. A few weeks back you made an edit to the information on wind farms in the BP article based on my request on the BP talk subpage. I just added an additional request to that page to address BP's announcement yesterday that the wind farms are no longer for sale. I thought you might be interested in looking at this since you were the most recent editor to work on this section. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chevron Corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barrow Island (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) 11:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welspun Energy

Re this: nicely done. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I try to find more sources for this article. Beagel (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrapura Thermal Power Station

Hii! Pls look into Chandrapura Thermal Power Station thanks Perumalism Chat 14:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in your notice. Is there any specific issue I should look for? It is short stub but I dob't see anything wrong with it. It needs expansion, of course, and I will look if I am able to find any sources for this. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks Perumalism Chat 10:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

request concernig the article about Techsnabexport

Dear Beagel! My request is concerning the article with the information about Techsnabexport. It's my first experience on editing Wikipedia,sorry if I made some mistakes in editing this page.I just want to improve the quality of information about Techsnabexport in Wikipedia being the specialist of this company. Besides, I would like to justify that this information is not from our corporative website. So hope for your understanding if I edit the information about Techsnabexport once again. From my point of view it will be very useful for many-many readers of Wikipedia over the world.Please let me know if I'm wrong and not authorised for some reasons to upload this article . Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Ekaterina — Preceding unsigned comment added by EkaterinaKhlopkova (talk • contribs) 13:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Techsnabexport

Dear Beagel, I've just read your message on my talk page and would like to clarify some issues. First, my account is personal, not of my company. Moreover, creating of this account and editing the article about Techsnabexport is my own initiative, just to contribute to my favourite and respect Wikipedia project. As I've mentioned below, the uploaded information is not from our corporative website, it's just some kind of summary of Techsnabexport activities. Besides,the sphere of my company's activity is very specific, so it doesn't need any advertising of its products on the web resourses for a wide range of readers (like Wikipedia). Hope if you don't mind if I shorten in some way and upload a part of the summary about Techsnabexport's activities once again, in addition to your version. Please let me kindly know if I do somethig wrong because of lack of editing experience in Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Ekaterina — Preceding unsigned comment added by EkaterinaKhlopkova (talk • contribs) 13:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ekaterina. Thank you for your message. First, please let me clarify the conflict of interest. Notwithstanding if you are editing on behalf of your company (paid editing and paid advocacy) or your own initiative, as a employee of Tenex you have conflict of interest. This does not mean you can't edit Wikipedia but you have to follow the certain guidelines (please see WP:COI). The best way to handle the situation is to discuss your edits beforehand at the article's talk page. I is also preferable if you list the issues (factual corrections needed and additions to the article), attributed with the third party reliable sources, at the talk page and let other editors vetting and implementing these. As the Tenex article is not watch by many editors, I recommend to add your request also at the conflict of interest notice board. You may add your request also at the WikiProject Cooperation talk page.

It is important to bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia ant not the corporate website, business directory, social media network etc. That means that all articles should be encyclopaedic, written in neutral, non-promotional tone without corporate/bureaucratic jargon and following formatting rules. In this context it does not matter if the corporation needs advertising or not, the tone should always be non-promotional. For copyright reasons it is also very important not to copy-paste information from the sources. INformation may be used but copying or close paraphrasing is not allowed.

Concerning the transcription of the name in English, I see there are different possibilities. I started the official request at the article's talk page to move the article under the title Techsnabexport. To preserve the article's history, this is done by the special operation and copy-paste moves are not allowed. I hope this information will help you. Best regards. Beagel (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beagel, thank you for your explanations, I'll try to follow the rules of Wikipedia editing. If I understand correctly I can upgrade the information about Techsnabexport or other companies in Russian nucler sector (in the case, for example, of changing director or the score of activities)to keep the articles relevant and helpful for the readers. Best regards, Ekaterina — Preceding unsigned comment added by EkaterinaKhlopkova (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:COIU, there is no problem with non-controversial (mainly minor) edits. By my understanding correcting the name of the CEO or adding additional references is fine. However, in the light of some notable COI-editing cases in Wikipedia, some editors have more conservative view and think that COI editors should not edit the articles at all. Beagel (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beagel, thank you for your request concerning changing of the article's title. I would like to notice that transcription "Techsnabexport" is used not only by the company itself, but by all its partners in Russia and international organisations over the world as well as in the documents. This transcrition is considered to be legal name of the company along with TENEX. I believe that it's important to change the title of the company's page not to misinform the readers of Wikipedia. Best regards, Ekaterina — Preceding unsigned comment added by EkaterinaKhlopkova (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BP

Hi Beagel, I'm sorry to be so slow to respond to your request; I didn't mean to leave it so long.

It's hard to know how to move forward on that page. The only thing I can think of suggesting is formal mediation. If you get a good mediator who knows the policies and is willing to shape the direction of the discussion, it can work well.

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation if you want to consider it. All the active editors on the page would have to agree to it, but hopefully that wouldn't be a problem. If I were making such a request, I would focus only on the Deepwater Horizon section; mediation for the whole page would be a huge task. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome! Snam Page

Dear Beagel,

Thanks for getting in touch and for your precious guidance. My purpose is to support Wikipedia editors in editing Snam’s entries, proposing new content, updating data (quarterly and annual figures), adding references and providing verifiable information.

I was planning to update the market capitalization (now it refers to 2010), add the fact that four subsidiaries have been created in the company, add its main peers to help users understand what kind of company Snam is. I will propose new content in the Snam Talk page, so that all interested users can read it and comment/amend as they see fit. I will be happy if you will have a look at my drafts and propose any other additions.

Thanks again,

Claudio Urciuolo (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Beagel,

I have proposed new content in the Snam talk page. I will be happy if you will have a look at my drafts and propose any other additions.

Thanks again,

Claudio Urciuolo (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RWE Supply & Trading CZ

Hi Beagel, I'm an employee of RWE Supply & Trading and have noticed some inconsistencies on both the German and English language versions of the RWE Supply & Trading CZ entry.

On the German page, the website link to http://www.rwe.cz/en/index/ is incorrect as RWE CZ is a different company from RWE Supply & Trading CZ. Currently, the correct page is http://www.rwe.cz/cs/rwest/

Additionally on the English version, the title RWE Transgas followed by information about RWE Supply & Trading CZ is not quite correct. RWE Transgas no longer exists - the title of the entry should be changed to RWE Supply & Trading CZ. As with the DE version, the official website on this page should be changed to http://www.rwe.cz/cs/rwest/

Please note that other information such as revenue and number of employees is also outdated/incorrect - however no external reference can be provided at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMurphyRWE (talk • contribs) 11:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on older discussion on DWH oil spill

Hi Beagel. Back in July you commented on a discussion on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill talk page about BP's attempts to halt compensation payments until the issue of potential fraud was resolved. I know you had expressed interest in first updating the main oil spill trust article and then properly summarizing the events in this article, however I'm still a little concerned about the one-sidedness of the information in this article. I feel that the current section in the oil spill article relies too heavily on an opinion piece and that information of this nature should be sourced to news articles.

A few weeks ago I presented some alternate sources on the talk page which I felt could be used to properly summarize the July events. I tried reaching out on a few related WikiProjects to find editors who might be interested in reviewing this issue but have been unsuccessful. I wanted to reach out to you, and the other editors who participated in the discussion, to see if anyone was willing to come back and reassess the section and my possible sources with fresh eyes.

Here is the discussion and the section as it stands in the article currently. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear energy in Egypt

Hi Beagel, You have reversed with a comment here - 05:01, 23 August 2013‎ Beagel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,038 bytes) (+226)‎ . . (Undid revision 569771354 by Orehche (talk) -- the fact you don't like the source is not a valid reason to remove it)

I really do not like the source and I tried to discussed it as a not reliable source but nobody said a word to me and after 3 days they archived my discussions. Those guys for WNA are all over in Wikipedia, they place their adds everywhere and they deal with pure spam. I think the ref I deleted in the sentence "The Nuclear Power Plants Authority (NPPA) was established in 1976, and in 1983 the El Dabaa site on the Mediterranean coast was selected.[2]" is pure spam because there is no relation between the sentence and the ref. Or maybe I can not see something?

On the top of that you can read the source here for 5 min. It says that Italy where 95% of the people voted ref against the nuclear power and Portugal, Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Ireland, etc. where the public opinion is the same are in "45 Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries". Who wants to build new NPPs there? Isn't that ridiculous? I can give you more examples like that on their site and other examples of references in Wikipedia to their site which are obviously pure spam. --Orehche (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Energy portal selected pictures

Hi i nominated two pictures for selected picture if the images are eligible please add them to pool [4] Thankyou Perumalism Chat 15:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BP article RfC

I have started an RfC on the BP article and would welcome a response from you. I am sending this message to all users who have edited that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Petoleum in Yemen

Category:Petoleum in Yemen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or 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. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]