Lwnf360
Welcome!
edit
|
FA
editI see that you review Featured Article Candidates, can you pre-review SummerSlam (2003). I plan on nominating it for FAC in the future. Thanks.--SRX 15:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I hope it has a chance, thanks for you input and I will compare it to the criteria. Alos, the images have appropriate tags. --SRX 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Halo (series) peer review
editHello, I noticed that you left some helpful comments on Halo (series)'s last attempt to become a featured article, which unfortunately did not suceed. If you have the time, I would appreciate it if you could leave comments on its current peer review page about any aspect that you can. Thank you! Blackngold29 03:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [1]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise talk 23:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Request for tagging WP:Energy categories
editHi. As a participant of the WP:Energy, I would like to ask you to comment the request for tagging WP:Energy articles by bot. The list of potential categories for tagging is located here and the discussion about which categories should be excluded from this list, is going on at the WP:Energy talkpage here. Your comments are welcome. Beagel (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Ichthus: January 2012
editICHTHUS |
January 2012 |
In this issue...
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
Request for help concerning energy...
editHi,
I noticed you listed yourself as a participant of the Energy WikiProject.
There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.
The new energy outlines are:
Please take a look at them, and....
- if you spot missing topics, add them in.
- if you can, improve the descriptions.
- add missing descriptions.
- show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).
- fix errors.
For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.
Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.
Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...
As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking {{Main}} links, etc.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.
Thank you.
Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: see also Outline of energy
Upon trawling the Generation III reactor talk page I noticed you happened to mention you worked in the nuclear sector, I was just wondering, what is the breeding ratio of the AP1000? I understand it's naturally below 1, but how much higher is it than Gen II reactors? Specifically I'm wondering about how much more efficient it is when compared to Gen II reactors. As I added the line on the EPR using uranium 17% more efficiently than older Gen II reactors, on the Gen III page and would like to also add similar data on the AP1000, ESBWR and ABWR too if it were easily available data.
I would appreciate you respond on my talk page if thats cool with you?
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely Boundarylayer (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Some simple help maybe needed on the new papabili list
editIf you have the time and the possibility the new List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave WP article could need some help. You could start by taking a look at the talk page. Thanks Pgarret (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion
editI have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.
You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:AP600PassiveContainment.jpg
editThank you for uploading File:AP600PassiveContainment.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)