there are many ESCOS, among them, who works together with your existing utilities company to bring you the best energy solution Hello Czajko. Step response to the various points of your message. As you can see in there WikipediaCategoriaFusionar contained some fifteen hundred articles in such conditions. On the other hand, comes as natural gas Wikipedia-Fusion records in the last three months running the fusion of more gas than three hundred articles. I believe that there is no doubt that maintenance is backward and try to remedy it. The criterion is that I have followed the articles on which to take after a reasonable time after the return of merging (placed by other Wikipedians) there had been no opposition in the green energy respective discussion page. In the articles about solar energy had spent four and a half months without observation. As to whether the merger, which will try to do is keep all the information before cooking gas the two pages, including references, of course, categories, etc.. I think I did well in the cases in question and that if there are more references in the articles is that neither would have merged, but of course I could have inadvertently omitted any, in which case I apologize now. electricity ESCO Obviously, the rules indicate that the name of household the page disappears becomes a funnel so you can reach the new site by either name (that I do not, but the librarian at the time gas of the merger records). It is possible that in some energy costs cases the approach taken as acceptance of the fusion silence during a reasonable period of heating time can not be right, but I believe that given the number of pending mergers would be a huge task in each case explicitly refer to all taxpayers . As you can see in my discussion page in the 300 mergers energy were only two points (a mistake as to my destination information and an error combined with regard to the library version to merge. searched everywhere for the best quality electricity, and I found one of the top private energy companies The two errors are corrected immediately in . In short, it would not speak of particular interest in the articlebut because they had no comments on the merger plan in a reasonable period of development and because they had two items and the proximity of the issues I did not see (with lego approach, of course) that would inconvenience the merger. The choice of name under which the article is without doubt your approach is the right partner because of the character in it. I ask that you understand my explanation and accept my apologies for errors I may have committed in the case. – Hector Calvo Guido 18:05 30 November 2007 (CET) Czajko Hello. Thank you for your words. all right. I hope by broadening your article which, incidentally, is a subject that I found very interesting and useful. you soon .– Hector Calvo Guido 15:35 2 December 2007 (CET)