User talk:MGTom

Welcome!

Hello, MGTom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Etimbo | Talk 02:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

International Association for Energy Economics[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the International Association for Energy Economics article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing!Amalas =^_^= 03:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power as a renewable energy source[edit]

Have you been following Talk:Renewable energy? I don't have time to keep up this fight against the people who want to remove all mention of it from the article. See my post on the Village pump. — Omegatron 21:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small contribution to firmly establish the Nuclear power issue in the Renewable_energy article, according to the outcome of the previous Great Nuclear Debate: Renewable, as a term, was coined to exclude nuclear power. I find this "final argument" most appropriate to conclude the debate at this location. Merits and demerits of each type of energy source may be discussed elsewhere. MGTom 12:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, but you have to say who coined it. It seems to me that there really isn't a generally-agreed upon definition, and we need to explain this, and the various arguments for different definitions.

(Some say that "renewable" means "from a naturally-occurring cycle", others claim it just means "inexhaustible on human terms", since things powered by the Sun will not last forever. Others say that being environmentally friendly is a prerequisite for being "renewable". There's also the difference between "renewable" and "sustainable". All of these need to be explained in the article.)

In any case, a mention of the nuclear debate is necessary, though we should obviously say that only a few people are fighting for it to be considered renewable, relatively speaking. But it's really irritating when every well-meaning newcomer who swings by says "that should be deleted!" I can't keep fighting this by myself forever.

Can you comment on Talk:Renewable_energy#Nuclear_energy_debate? — Omegatron 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Development of renewable energy[edit]

Aloha MGTom. Thanks for your input on the renewables stuff. There is progress! I took the liberty of adding a couple of references to the above titled page - I hope you like them. I really would like to see more of this material in the main Renewable Energy Article, although I understand and appreciate the need to keep the detailed economic arguments separate. What do you think about putting the general History and Renewable Energy Development Today stuff into the main article?--Huggsy 08:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong templates[edit]

Can you please add {{db-author}} to Template:Country IOC alias SVN and Template:Country flag IOC alias SVN? These are wrong. The IOC country code for Slovenia is SLO, not SVN. The correct templates already exist at Template:Country IOC alias SLO and Template:Country flag IOC alias SLO. Thanks, Andrwsc 00:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response!! Andrwsc 00:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Sabatini16.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Sabatini16.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamal pipeline[edit]

Hi, MGTom. You added information about the Bovanenkovo-Ukhta pipeline (a part of the Yamal project) into the Yamal–Europe pipeline article. Actually, this is not a part of the Yamal–Europe pipeline. Although some gas from the Bovanenkovo-Ukhta pipeline will be delivered to the Yamal–Europe pipeline, it will supply also other export pipelines running through Ukhta. Maybe you are interested to start a separate article about the Yamal project and move this information about the Bovanenkovo-Ukhta pipeline into this article? Beagel (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Slovenian naval jack[edit]

Pozdravljen! Naval jack ni isto kot pomorska zastava, temveč je pomorski vojaški prapor (slovenske veksikološke terminologie žal ne obvladam najbolje; menda se temu po naše reče "zastava na premcu"). Seveda je zelo malo primerov, kjer bi se ta zastava lahko res rabila, a to je v bistvu irelevantno. Nekaj virov: [1]; [2]. Morda je v zadnjih 4-ih letih prišlo do spremembe; zanjo sicer nisem slišal, a tudi če je, mislim, da bi morali omenjeni prapor pustiti v članku o sl. zastavi. Lp., Viator slovenicus (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omenjena zastava (ali kakorkili se že "naval jack" reče po slovensko) je definitivno obstajala (in mislim, da še vedno). Tega ne pokriva zakon, ki ga omenjaš, temveč se kot vojaški simbol šteje v pristojnost ministrstva za obrambo in se ureja z internimi akti. Vem, da sem o uvedbi te zastave prvič bral v eni veksikoliški knjigi, ki je izšla pred slabimi osmimi leti (naslova in avtorja se žal ne spomnim). Sicer pa preberi dokument, ki sem ti ga poslal v html obliki ([3]): v njem je referenca na odločbo ministra Jelka Kacina sredi devetdesetih let. Lp., Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of National Energy Act[edit]

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 National Energy Act requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Haruth (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming the article to US National Energy Act of 1978. The PURPA reference was deleted since I initiated the article in January 2005. I was hoping that somebody (anybody) would expand the contents .... MGTom (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Proposed deletion of Volte-face[edit]

The article Volte-face has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A dictionary definition. Already has a wiktionary entry, per WP:NAD does not need an article.

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. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary energy merge?[edit]

I created Worldwide energy supply. It has been suggested to merge this article to Primary energy. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide energy supply and comment. Rwbest (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, MGTom. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, MGTom. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]