User talk:Beagel/archive2018

 

Thanks for uploading File:Eurelectric logo.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) 18:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Beagel , could you please explain why did you delete my last edit to BP article. There are also alternative articles like this. I think it can be possible to create such as subheading about any country's economy inside of its main article and can also be written as a seperate article. I do not think there is any problem here. Ordlock (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The reason is that if the more specific article exists, details should go there and only most important facts should be summarized on the top article. In the case of a global company with more than 100 years history, WP:DUE is relevant. Beagel (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

A proposal has been made to delete Portal:Energy, which you have made significant contributions to, as well as all other portals on English Wikipedia. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion if you'd like, which is located at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Beagel. How are you doing? As a separate note: If the RFC passes to decommission all portals, maybe we could move it to a subpage of WP:Energy, and transclude it as a section on the project page? It would make the project page look nicer, and would also (probably) channel more attention on the project page. (which by the way, seems to need some serious redesigning). Cheers, Rehman 09:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi North America and Rehman. Thank you very much for your notification. My initial reaction was that I am chocked. But after some consideration I can see the issue with different portals. I was invited by Gralo to contribute to the Energy portal some eleven years ago. After all, it was his child, he was the editor who made that a featured portal. After Gralo became suddenly inactive more than ten years ago, I felt an obligation to keep maintain the portal. But I am not so active any more and I have a feeling this portal is going out of the date. I will not participate in the voting/discussion but I hope that even portals are discontinued, they will be archived as historical pages. Too much work had been put in these portals just to be deleted. I fully agree with the proposal to integrate useful elements of the project with the WP:Energy to make the project page better. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating this stub article - please continue to help it grow. Thanks Edaham (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure to which stub you refer to but thanks anyway. Beagel (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do you agree with the last changes made yesterday in OECD about new members? I think the changes are wrong. HOTmag (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@HOTmag: You are absolutely right. Colombia and Lithuania signed the accession agreement but they still have to ratify it and they become members only after the deposition of the ratification document. It needs some time. I remember the same issue with Israel, Latvia and all these accessions over last decade when there was confusion about the time when a country becomes a member. I made corrections to the article and left an explanation at th talk page. Probably will be re-added anyway notwithstanding the explanation. Beagel (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zhonghe mine 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/Zhonghe mine 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. Scott Davis ^Talk 04:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:People associated with oil shale, 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply