thanks for the new info for this article. i think we need a source though for the sentence that says: "Some critics of nuclear power have suggested that one reason behind the review is to provide justification for the building of new nuclear power plants." let me know your thoughts. cheers Anlace 19:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies in advance for my unilateral selection of the 'selected articles' to start the 1st (October 2006) version of the Energy Portal. I've tried to select carefully, but hope that the portal generates enough interest for a consensus to form in future.

great work Gralo on the energy portal! ill try to weigh in from time to time, but right now im rather busy with water and biodiversity articles. Anlace 02:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great work on Energy World. If you have the info, an article on Homeworld 81 would be excellent if would write it, because it marked a significant gear shift for MK. --Concrete Cowboy 23:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comment - but unfortunately I've nothing on Home World, nor Future World, which is another that could do with coverage... Gralo 23:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Worth asking. (By the way, you probably haven't realised yet but is conventional to reply to someone on their talk page - that way they get a "new message" prompt. ) --Concrete Cowboy 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone has hacked to portal template intro section used by Portal:Energy - it now displays a corporate offering/solicitation of some sort. I do not know how to fix this (the problem is not in the article text, but I did isolate it to the intro section). Can you find someone to fix this (it may affect other articles). Please let me know how this was fixed. Thanks, Leonard G. 03:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi. i have left a comment on Category_talk:Passivhaus_images. i would like you to read at it. thanks, —Cacuija (my talk) 07:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So the it should be named Category_talk:Passivhaus. Having a category with "images" in it doesn't make sense. But in my opinion as there is only one article, it doesn't make sense to have a category for that article and those images that are all included in that article. Maybe with more articles you would do it. Also. you can move the images to commons and put a commons box in the article. that will suffice the category thing that you are trying to do. thanks, --Cacuija (my talk) 06:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I notice your background and interests. I am seeking to expand the membership of Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment to create a more informed vibrant environmental community on wikipedia. Would you be interested in joining? If so please put your name down on the project page --Alex 13:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My thanks on the energy categorization Gralo. Seeing as I'm only a IR Major and you're into energy more than I am, would you be interested in continuing to edit my Energy Superpower page? My editing skills are modest at best, so I'd really appreciate it. By the way, what do you think of the article? I haven't received as much as a word of feedback on a term I increasingly hear being used in international relations circles. Again, feel free to edit in sources or additions where you feel they are needed. Drakeguy 04:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's certainly an emerging concept so deserves attention and I think you've made a great start. If you can add a link to it from some other carefully selected energy pages then you should get a few more comments and contributions. You could also consider adding a few short mentions about how the countries are starting to use their power - in the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute for example... Gralo 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please check out the discussion on this article. I have requested it be seen to in Wikipedia:Peer review. It is a very interesting topic and I nomninated to be a featured but it has mostly been apposed, please see that too in the talk page. FrummerThanThou 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naturally I share your interest in the topic; it would be good to see it as a Featured Article one day. I've posted a couple of comments on the Peer Review page. Gralo 12:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gralo, I just started the article about the energy policy of Russia. Your assistance to improve this article is most welcome.Beagel 22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Beagle - you've made a great start! I've added a few links, a couple of minor additions (including the Kyoto Protocol), but you clearly have much more knowledge on the subject that I do... Gralo 12:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi gralo, posting here since you seem to be the primary author of the page :) The carbon emissions section contains the line 'Housing accounts for around 30% of all the UK's carbon dioxide emissions (up from 26.42% in 1990 [1]).' but I'm unclear how the 30% number is derived from the spreadsheet, maybe some clarification required, regards sbandrews 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SB, thanks for your input! I've made a couple of changes to the text to clarify the overall situation, but in relation to your specific question, 42mt domestic / 159mt total for 1990 x 100 = 26.42% (which I've added as a note to the 'edit' page). Regards Gralo 15:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

doh :) sbandrews 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please have a look at Energy: world resources and consumption. Is it good enough to be a featured article? If you think so please click the link at the top of the talk page and log your comments. Frank van Mierlo 02:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for editing the links. The article is quickly improving and I think at this point it is one of the more data rich articles in Wikipedia. Like you I think energy is important. I would like some help to get the message out. Could you support a renewed attempt to make this a featured article?Frank van Mierlo 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mierlo, I've made a few edits today - particularly to tame the graphics - but in particular see my comments on the talk page. Keep up the good work :-) Gralo 16:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your edits. If I do the two things you asked namely:

1. Expand the consumption by sector to the rest of the world.

2. Discuss Geothermal and add accurate figues for that potential source.

Will you then support this as a feature article ?

PS I do appreciate your edits and will comment on some of them on the talk page.
Frank van Mierlo 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Frank, I would suggest suggest that you get up to good article status, address the other issues that have been raised by others, and let the page 'mature' for a few weeks so others can fill in other gaps. Also, consider expanding the coal subhead a little, adding a subsection on natural gas, and have a look for other similar gaps. Then I'd be pleased to do so, and you may still get the record for fastest from newly written to featured (I've not even nominated any of my own yet)! Gralo 19:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are excellent suggestions, I will implement them. Thank you for being positive and encouraging. Frank van Mierlo 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gralo, I was reading the article on Peak Oil - which is excellent and followed the link to global warming and was very surprised that that article did not refer to peak oil at least in passing.

I've added a section with some basic facts effectively inviting readers of global warming to visit peak oil to find out more. I don't know why some of the global warming evangelists are being so upetty about it, but I'd welcome some support88.110.38.52 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you seem interested in this topic, so I invite you to take part in creating a general article about the Russian oil export, its structure etc. Now I am creating related stubs and collecting data, but surprisingy they are not widely available, so if you have something to say, you are welcome. Colchicum 14:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I regret that my knowledge in this area is limited, but good luck with your contributions. Gralo 14:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am trying to see if I can set up a portal with watch functions - can you test this out to see if it works for people other than me + do you know any portal template experts who could help with the unwatch functionality? regards sbandrews 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm just seeing a box with your text "This is just a test....." Gralo 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok, thanks - looks like only I can see it then :) sbandrews 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could try asking at WikiProject_Portals? Gralo 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I tried to put a watch function on the Portal:Energy intro box - does it work for you? sbandrews 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing immediately obvious, but perhaps I need to leave it until someone changes something?? Incidentally, this is interesting.... Gralo 23:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm, you should be seeing a 'watch' button now in the top right of every sub-box next to the 'edit' button - but oh well, at least I didn't break anything :) cool link btw - good to see Portal:Energy doing well, regards sbandrews 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, yes - I can see that! Sorry, I was looking in the box / for changes, not on the box title bars. A worthwhile modification :-) Keep up the good work! Gralo 23:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hooray :) sbandrews 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You also need to watch Portal:Energy/box-header & Template:EnergyPortalNavbar Gralo 02:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're still around, you might like to cast your eye over the main introduction on the portal, which I've just rewritten to try to make it, well, more interesting... Gralo 00:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message. I understand what you are saying and I shrunk the graphics from 450 to 350 after seeing your layout. It is a challenge to come up with a solution that works across the entire range of resolutions. My hope is that we can keep the graphics readable, they took so much time to produce :) By the way I thought it was realy cool that you selected this article for the energy portal. Mierlo 00:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mierlo. Your're right, it's not easy! I've produced the odd graphic myself - you perhaps spotted one on renewable energy proportions on the page - so I understand the concern. Also, people approach articles in different ways. Some will prefer looking at graphics first and then want some text to explain them, others prefer reading the text to understand the topic and will then study one or two graphics to understand what the text means. Others probably just find that the graphics make the article look more pleasant, or alternatively that they are a distraction. Since Wikipedia works by consensus, and since it has 1.6 million articles already written, your best guide on is to look at the pattern established on other pages. Incidentally, if you have a particular flair with graphics, I'm sure that there are many other articles where you input would be useful!

As for selection for the portal, well, if you hadn't started the article, it wouldn't be there...

Gralo 11:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a technical question. How did you make the PGN chart for World Energy? Is there some way to do that directly from Excell? At the moment I copy the chart from Excell and paste it into Adobe Photoshop which is a bit cumbersome. Frank van Mierlo 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Frank. I use a freeware screen-capture utility called Gadwin ScreenPrint (http://www.gadwin.com/). Set it to capture a 'rectangular area' and to save in png format. You should find it much easier :-) Gralo 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replied on my talk page User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Energy_portal_.26_future_selected_articles William M. Connolley 12:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC) - which said:Reply[reply]

GW is our best article. The ones that are more directly relevant to energy are not so good, though some are quite passable - and those are the ones I tend to be less interested in. The ones about future energy use should be most relevant - the SRES scenarios, for example. But that one is a bit thin. We had an "exciting" edit war about peak oil which would potentially be interesting but sadly that didn't lead to improvements in the article, the war being a bit premature William M. Connolley 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I'm thinking that it would be good to have Global Warming to coincide with Live Earth in July. Peak oil deserves to be there too at some point. Gralo 23:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I appreciate your quick news updates, one request tho. Please add either the wikinews link or the source where you obtained the info within the ending "More..." link. There must be a source for news, either wikinews or any external news source. Thanks Joe I 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I too have an interest in Energy issues and have noticed your name coming up. So I thought I would just like to say Hi!

My recent pages are BP Solar and Solar power in Spain if that is of any interest.

I gather you are a very experienced editor so I expect I will be wanting to ask questions of you sometimes, if that's OK. For example, I was thinking of doing an article on the Solar Tres project in Spain, but if I type in Solar Tres it I am redirected to the Solar One page. Is this easy to fix? I'm also interested in making the Wind Prospect look a bit less like an advertisement. Also, I would welcome some info on the "Energy Portal".

Anyway, as I say, just thought it would be good to make contact. regards, Johnfos 01:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Johnfos, welcome, and good to hear from you!

Energy is a major topic area and there are plenty of gaps in Wikipedia's coverage that need filling - so I am sure that you can make a valuable contribution.

Your 'Solar Tres problem' is easy to fix. As you say, when you type it in you get redirected to Solar One. Just underneath the page title it says '(Redirected from Solar Tres)', and if you click on this Solar Tres link it will take you to the page. Since there is presumably only one Solar Tres (and therefore you don't need to consider disambiguation), just go ahead and edit the page, replacing the redirect with your content.

If you're reasonably confident in your editing, go ahead with your improvements to Wind Prospect too. If not, you could always suggest your improvements on the talk page. If undecided, this page may help you decide.

As for the Energy Portal, it's there partly to showcase Wikipedia's energy-related content, and partly to help people navigate, discover or learn about the the topic areas. It's close to becoming a Featured portal, with the main thing holding it back being that the 'selected' article, biography and photo need to be changed more regularly, perhaps automatically.

A good way to start to contribute to the portal would be to join the debate on future 'selected' content (see, for example, nominations for selected article). Identifying enough articles is the first step to more regular updating, so feel free to make suggestions. Also, if you come across an energy related news story of international (or at least regional) interest, go ahead and add it to the energy news column (click on 'edit' to read the guidelines).

Hope this helps, and that you enjoy contributing.

Gralo 16:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Gralo! Since it has been a month since you nominated the Energy Portal for peer review, I hope you received good feedback on how the portal could be improved. If you would like, you could keep the portal listed at the portal peer review for more suggestions for improvement and ask the Wikipedians here for feedback. Also, if you think the portal is ready, you could nominate the portal for featured status. Either way, I hope you've received helpful reviews! Cheers, [sd] 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your help sd; have moved to archive page and will progress to featured nomination later in the year, all being well... Gralo 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gralo, and thanks for your thoughtful note sent a few weeks ago. I've been starting a few more pages and am particularly happy with Renewable energy commercialization, Solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, Solar power in Spain, and Renewable energy commercialization in Australia. Would welcome your comments and input if you have time. regards, Johnfos 06:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have participated in energy-related activities here, so I am asking you to please consider helping to improve the plug-in hybrid article. This is an ad hoc article improvement drive. BenB4 08:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ben. I've made some changes to the layout to improve navigation, but don't feel that I can add much in terms of content in the time I have available. Good luck. Gralo 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gralo, several redirects to portals have again been re-nominated for deletion. These redirects were part of the mass nomination on March 17 that you voted against. I'd really appreciate it if you'd share your opinion and vote on this proposal. --Melanochromis 05:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info. I've commented and also made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Redirect that you might like to comment on. Gralo 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for proposing it. I totally support it. --Melanochromis 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ogaden Basin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gralo. There is an active development of Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy. I have a feeling that probably better linkage between WP Energy and Energy Portal is needed. Would you care to take a look? Beagel 05:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Beagel - I've taken a look and will keep on eye on the page. I too would like to see more linkage between all 3 energy-related WikiProjects and the portal - which was one of the main reasons I posted the Energy portal & future selected articles on the discussion pages of everyone participating in them, and the ((EnergyCollaboration)) template onto the project pages. The portal must also have reasonably high visibility since there are now well over 1000 links to it from articles and category pages, as well as energy portal news tags and the like on talk pages. Despite this the level of input has not increased significantly so far, and is well below the participation rate for other portals! Perhaps the number of Wikipedians interested in energy-related topics has just not reached a critical mass yet. This may also be reflected in the low number of energy articles with 'good article' status. So any ideas you have for increasing linkage / participation are very welcome. In the meantime, thanks for your own continuing contributions! Incidentally, I'm not too sure about selecting Hydroelectricity for the portal yet as it could do with a little more work, but will come back and read it again before deciding as the same applies to other articles too... Gralo 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gralo and thanks for adding those new categories for some of the renewables pages. Looks good... -- Johnfos 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Johnfos - you're welcome. I know there's not much to go in them yet, but easier to get structure in place now rather than have to recategorize many more later... Keep up the good work! Gralo 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated a category you created, Category:Gralo, for deletion. You can contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 24. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gralo, Have created this new cat, but then realised it probably should have been a sub-category. Would be most grateful if you could look at this please and make any necessary changes. Many thanks. -- Johnfos 09:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Johnfos, I've added the categories for you. If you need to create similar categories for other countries there is a template that you can cut and paste to do the job. You can find it by following the link at Category:Solar power by country (in small text).

Actually though, the article in the category (Erlasee Solar Park in Germany) would be better off in Category:Solar power stations in Germany, so I've change the category over (compare Category:Solar power in Australia and Category:Solar power stations in Australia to see the difference between the categories)

Also, since there is only likely to be one Erlasee Solar Park in the world, it would be conventional to title it Erlasee Solar Park. Since there's already a redirect on that page though, you'd need to tag the page for a administrator to move it back (see requesting moves) - though due to the redirect it can still be found, so it's not a major problem!

Finally, do keep up the good work! Do drop me note if you have any other questions and I'll try help... Gralo 14:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Gralo... another late night on WP :) Thanks for the encouraging words and handy tips on cats etc. I'm getting the hang of energy categories better now. In terms of "other questions", would you happen to have some info (or a WP contact) on German wind farms, as there is remarkably little on the net (in English anyway). Plenty on PV, but not much on wind. Given that Germany is a world leader in wind, I thought some articles about particular German wind farms would be good... regards, Johnfos 11:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Johnfos - pleased to see you're keeping out of trouble in the evenings! More info on German wind farms would be interesting, but I think I'd be starting from the same point as you, so can't help much, other than encouraging you to see what you can find. I guess I'd probably start by seeing what is on the following sites:

• Directorate-General for Energy and Transport [2]
• European Wind Energy Association [3] (another hole to fill!)
• REN21 [4]

Good luck... Gralo 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

High again - I just uploaded a new article on "Passive House Schools". The one you introduce in the PH WP article is a quite convincing one (nice homepage, should be kept as a link), but it was not the first one. That was the Walldorf-school in Bremen, a very nice design, too. Unfortunatedly there is not much information about that one available in the internet. That was a private construction project, no funding at all, and the architects kept it at very low costs. See http://www.passivhaustagung.de/Passivhaus_D/passivhaus_schulen.html Kind regards - Wolfgang Feist 2007-05-28

Hi, and thanks for your correction; I really should have studied German much harder at school! I look forward to your continuing contributions, which are much valued. Kind regards Gralo 22:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah - you found a nice paper about the school - that one is quite new. Kind regrads Wolfgang Feist / PHI / 2007-05-31