Welcome!

Hello, RockyMtnGuy, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, 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!  Flowerparty☀ 07:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been active at Domestic AC power plugs and sockets, which is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. If you can help us address the issues raised on the FAR, perhaps the article's featured status can be retained. Regards, Sandy 13:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rocky. The page lost status today and I thought I'd stop by and say that it wasn't for lack of trying on your part. The review had been up six weeks and there wasn't a whole lot happening on the page, so I felt it was time to close it one way or another. The last comments had tilted it toward remove. It still remains a damn comprehensive page on the topic—perhaps consider trying for Featured list as was suggested in the review. The nature of the topic may be more given to a list.

Hope all is well in the Rockies; wish I were home for the Canadian autumn. Marskell 10:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a few points you made in the notes to your edits on the light rail in North America page:

1. (cur) (last) 02:09, 18 October 2006 RockyMtnGuy (Talk | contribs) (→Criticisms of light rail in the U.S. - You can design an LRV to go 160 km per hour. You can go 160 km/hr in your car, too, but some policeman will stop you (except in Germany).)

• Light rail's being too slow to compete with the automobile is based on 1) time to get to and from nearest light rail stations at each end and 2) travel times owing to many stops made. I know driving is far faster than my commute to work on Boston's Green line, but then again it has to wait for lights. Additional point, most light rail systems have max speeds of around 50-60mph since the small distance between stops limits the system from getting up to higher speeds.

1. (cur) (last) 02:06, 18 October 2006 RockyMtnGuy (Talk | contribs) (→Criticisms of light rail in the U.S. - And why would the US, with 300 million people, 80% of whom are within 50 miles of the coast, be more spatially disadvantaged than Germany? Provide details.)

• This argument refers to the sprawling low-density layout of America cities. Or more specifically, its suburbs. No matter where you run a rail in suburbia, you won't be walking distance from a large population.

1. (cur) (last) 01:34, 18 October 2006 RockyMtnGuy (Talk | contribs) (→Travel time - Three points. Is it the US second busiest LRT line, does it carry 70,000 passengers/day (sounds low), and in Hotel California you can check out but you can never leave?)

• For information on this, see: List of United States Light Rail systems by ridership

1. (cur) (last) 01:20, 18 October 2006 RockyMtnGuy (Talk | contribs) (→Travel time - First sentence sounds dubuious. Cars in major U.S. cities average about 12 mph during rush hour. LRT running at half that rate sounds like a major design screwup.)

• LRT makes many stops, and if it runs in the street, still must wait in traffic, though, if on its own right of way, I'd expect better speeds during congested highway jams.

--Loodog 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To conspiracy nuts or just those that avoid some possible facts: Please look at substance & stop bringing up ad hominem fallacies & source of bread. If there really is truth in the streetcar conspiracy, mention those points, not just GM. If you really want to look at ideology: http://www.aynrand.org/ http://www.petersoninstitute.org/ http://www.ti.org/ http://www.pacificresearch.org/

"This guy can't say anything valid because he... or some of his money comes from..." Get real. Get an open mind. And don't be a socialist. By the way, do you buy any of the types of products that are offered by the companies that are slandered? 68.180.38.31 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time believing that you are educated. When you quote sourcewatch & exxonsecrets.

I get paid by _________. Does that mean that anything I say is false & supported by that company. I really pity your thought process. 68.180.38.31 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rocky. You seems to knew a lot about non-conventional oil resources. Maybe you would like to check the article about oil shale, particularly the information related to Canada. Thank you in advance. Beagel 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed Oil shale for the new peer review and related spin-off articles (Oil shale extraction, Oil shale geology, Oil shale industry, History of the oil shale industry, Oil shale reserves, Oil shale economics, and Environmental effects of oil shale industry) for the peer review. Your comments and edits will be most welcome. The intention is to have these articles ready for the GA and FA nominations.Beagel 17:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed some statistics that I added to the Tar Sands page yesterday. You're clearly much more qualified to write about Tar Sands oil extraction than most, but I saw your comment when you deleted the stats and I was wondering where you verified that the information was faulty, just out of general curiousity and for future reference. Thanks Jcrav2k6 (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked the article that was cited and found the journalist who wrote it had not a clue what he was talking about. Since was completely off-topic, I decided that deleting it was easier than fixing it. By the way, you used an anonymous ID to edit it rather than the one you're using now.

The author of the article seems to be based in London and apparently has never been to Canada, never mind the oil sands. In fact, I know a lot more about what is going on than he does. Unbeknownst to him, the project he was writing about is a new technique called steam assisted gravity drainage, which involves no mining and only about 0.2 m3 of water consumption per m3 of oil production rather than the 5 cited (which would be for a mining operation circa 1960).

I added some information to the article, including a citation of a government paper which is somewhat more relevant. The reality is quite different from what is in the popular media. It's not really "pristine wilderness" and there are reasons why there weren't many people living there. The forest has almost completely been destroyed by forest fires, it's unbelievably cold in winter, there's little soil fertility, the lakes are almost devoid of fish, and the rivers are contaminated by oil because the oil sands have been leaking into them for thousands of years.

In fact, the government doesn't really want companies to restore the natural environment, it wants them to improve on it, which is not hard. They turn it into grazing land, put some buffalo on it, set up a few picnic tables, and make it look lovely. Something like someone from London would consider pristine wilderness. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and a Happy New Year. There is a new article about Scotford Upgrader. Maybe you would like to take a look and expand it. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year. I clarified the operation somewhat (the Upgrader takes bitumen from the Muskeg River Mine and sends syncrude to the Scotford Refinery), and added a bit more on the process. Of course, this means we need articles on the Muskeg River Mine and Scotford Refinery, as well... Cheers, RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Arthur Oliver Wheeler.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to reuse on Wikipedia has been granted by the Alpine Club of Canada. However, under Canadian copyright law it is in the public domain because it was taken prior to 1949-01-01, and thus nobody requires permission to use it. American copyright law is very annoying, and an infringement on the rights of Canadians. We in Canada are lobbying to pass legislation of a completely different nature, which would benefit academic researchers, unlike American copyright law which benefits only giant multinational corporations. So far, we have shot down a couple of attempts by different governments to pass American-like legislation, and we have a fairly major on-line revolt in progress. For more information, see http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rocky. There is a new article about Japan Canada Oil Sands Limited (JACOS). This article is quite messy and currently nominated for deletion. However, I think this article is worth to be improved. I hope you could help as you have more knowledge about the subject.Beagel (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rocky, I've just looked in on the Petroleum article and found out that the silly mis-statement on its composition has been changed, and a little research has led me to your edit on the 12 Jan. Congrats.
I've been in fact contemplating for some time to make this change, but I was going to add a few words on Caracterisation Factors and crude types as well.
Searching Google on Petroleum Classification gave me the reference of the notes of Weidong Gu on the lectures of Dr.Semih Eser, Associate professor of Energy and Geo-Environmental Engineering and Mr. A.J. Brandt, Teaching assistant,http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/y/wyg100/fsc432/lecture%203.htmalteration (Notes last updated in 2001) but the hypertext contact http://www.eme.psu.edu/~eser/CHE432/ is unattainable. so I could not ask for permission to present his triangle diagram and data. I am not even certain if such permission is needed. If not, the diagram could be usefully included. If my memory serves me right The Science of Petroleum (bible) of several volumes also contains the info (I don't have access to it). User:H Padleckas has made an even nicer diagram, but it has not been uploaded onto the Commons for fear of licence probs. What do you think? LouisBB (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, people cannot copyright facts, nor can they copyright raw data as such. They can only copyright the representation of such data, and the representation must have some artistic merit to be copyrightable. This means, for instance, that the telephone company can copyright the telephone directory, but it cannot copyright the names and numbers in it since there is no artistic merit in simple tables. So, someone else can issue their own telephone directory using the telephone company's data, as long as they make it look somewhat different. So, IMHO, an "even nicer diagram" would be a completely different work and subject to its own copyright. It's all about art, not data. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, people like to use stuff from the US Government because the US Government is prevented - by Statute - from copyrighting any of its work product. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rocky. There is going on a discussion about conversion of oil units. I think that your opinion would be valuable.Beagel (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have to agree with your complaint about the quality of the net Nannies you find here. My experiences parallel your in that a lot of people here spend more time looking for things to complain about than to get their hands dirty helping to do some writing and research. I work in the transit industry, so I can help from time to time. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, just a note of appreciation for your recent work - barrel, Athabasca Oil Sands, & Oil reserves. Thanks! Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, someone asked a question here which I tried to answer, but you may know more about the topic (especially the Canadian side). Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent changes in Oil Reserves helped to strengthen the article considerably. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, an anon IP brought up an interesting Ref at Talk:Peak oil. It seems last night some billionare oil man T. Boone Pickens claimed on the radio that production is at 85mb/d while demand is at 87mb/d (no word on whether or not he was just referring to sweet crude or what). If you have some insight, could you please comment on that talk page? Thanks, NJGW (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i read the aritcle you write in the discussion page about flat(boxer)-6 engine configuration. I'm really courius about the engine smoothness, can you give me an explanation about what configuration that has the best balance or at least can you give a refence (from a site in the internet) to my e-mail [email protected]. Sorry to bother you. Thanks WreTch (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the light rail in North America article, you cite boarding figures and transit use figures for several cities and Canada and have only APTA listed as a cite, but I cannot seem to find any Canadian transit agency statistics (at least not current agency-specific statistics) for any Canadian cities in APTA's data. Can you clarify your sources? --Arturoramos (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APTA changed its web site and broke the link to Canadian data. I think I've found it again so I'll change the reference to match. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of your hard work in improving the Energy policy of Canada. Well done. – 17:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your comments at MOSNUM. Since your username and your user page suggests that you are a hiker, I think you are a great person to respond to the issues raised by Marcia. Have you considered using my handy tabs for adding metric units in just one click? If you would like to use them, simply go to your User:RockyMtnGuy/monobook.js and paste in:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

Press 'Save'. Then clear your cache according to the instructions. Go to a page like Sacatar Trail Wilderness and press the 'edit this page' tab (as you usually do). Then you will see some new tabs appear beside the usual 'history' and other tabs. Press the one called 'units'. This will add metric units. Marcia previously reverted the addition of units in that article, so perhaps the three of us can negotiate the manual metrication or she might accept the template. Anyway, you might find that the tabs are very handy for all sorts of articles. Regards, Lightmouse (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for a temporary change of mountains. I'm leaving my beloved Rockies to trek in the Alps and the Himalayas for the next three months (September through November, 2008). While there are internet connections in Switzerland, Nepal and Bhutan, I doubt I'll be doing much editing from there. I'll be walking 10-20 km per day instead.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun! I'm extremely jealous... the tallest mountain around here is 1800 ft. NJGW (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer a little more altitude. My house is at about 1,400 m (4,600 ft) and the mountain just behind it is about 3,000 m (9,800 ft). However, later this week I'm going to be walking past Mont Blanc which is 4,810 m (15,780 ft), and next month, Mount Everest which is 8,848 m (29,029 ft). But I think I'll stick to the lower routes. Although, come to think of it, some of the Inca trails I trekked in Peru were higher than the top of Mount Blanc...RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from the Alps, having hiked 150 kilometres horizontally, 10.5 kilometres vertically upward, and 8.9 kilometres vertically downward (we took some cable cars down a few of the mountains to save wear on the knees) from Chamonix, France to Zermatt, Switzerland. I've done my laundry, repacked my bags, and tomorrow I'm off to the Himalayas to get in some really BIG mountains.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I'm back in Kathmandu after completing the Jomolhari Trek in Bhutan. Next, the Annapurna Circuit in Nepal. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now, I'm in Pokhara Nepal, after walking the 300 kilometres (190 mi) of the Annapurna Circuit. Next, the Langtang Trek.It just goes on and on.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I'm back in Canada after having trekked about 500-600 km through some of the biggest mountains of the world over the last three months. Fortunately, I missed the global financial meltdown due to the poor media availability in the high Himalayas. You begin to envy the residents of Bhutan, many of whom didn't hear about the Great Depression or World War II until long after they were over because nobody came by to mention it to them. Even now, they were more excited about the coronation of their new king and trying to get used to the newfangled concept of democracy introduced by the previous king before he stepped down. However, for me it's back to to the realities of western politics and finance, such as they are. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you get a chance, could you have a look at Peak gas? There's a question over why US NG reserves and production jumped in 1976 and are now at record levels. I couldn't find a source which addressed this directly (in my quick search), so anything you can post on the talk page would be helpful to fleshing out the article. Thanks, NJGW (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent deprecation of date autoformatting, "raw" dates are becoming increasingly visible on Wikipedia. Strong views are being expressed, and even some edit-warring here and there. A poll has been initiated to gauge community support to help us develop wording in the Manual of Style that reflects a workable consensus. As you have recently commented on date formats, your input would be helpful in getting this right. Four options have been put forward, summarised as:

1. Use whatever format matches the variety of English used in the article
2. For English-speaking countries, use the format used in the country, for non-English-speaking countries, use the format chosen by the first editor that added a date to the article
3. Use International format, except for U.S.-related articles
4. Use the format used in the country

The poll may be found here, as a table where you may indicate your level of support for each option above. --Pete (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the data for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Price_of_West_Texas_Intermediate_1999_to_June_2008.PNG ?   Thanks!, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from the U.S. Energy Information Administration oil price site at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm RockyMtnGuy (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be interested that there is a discussion about renaming the Category:Tar sands. Beagel (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your efforts to quash the use of "Tar Sands" in publications that are to be of a neutral point of view. Television and print media here in Alberta are still using the disparaging term. Kelly Johnston[[email protected]], Director of News and Public Affairs of CTV in Calgary asserts that both TAR and OIL are technically correct. I wish I had a more accredited proponent on my side. CBC is a lost cause as they use the Tar term most often. Again - Thank you and best wishes.Twhanna (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just back from a three-week tour of the coasts of Washington and Oregon. Nice beaches. However, since I have a degree in chemistry, I like to point out that tars are man-made substances, produced by the destructive distillation of organic matter. What the "oil" sands contain is bitumen, a semi-solid form of crude oil which has been there for millions of years. The two are not the same. However, media people tend to be scientific illiterates (it's part of the job description - cf. CP Snow's Two Cultures), so you can't expect them to appreciate the difference. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RockyMtnGuy. I started an article about the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority and you are most welcome to expand and improve it. Also, there is a need for the Alberta Energy Research Institute article. Beagel (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

At wt:mosnum, you wrote: The United States is the only country which still recognizes the yard as an official unit of measurement.. That is not true. UK traffic signs must contain yards according to The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). It mandates:

• "distances of less than ½ mile being expressed in yards to the nearest 10 yards other than on the signs shown in diagrams 7012 and 7015,"

You can see an example of yards being used in the UK on a bridge ahead sign.

You will hear traffic nerds talking about the TSRGD in the UK and the MUTCD in the US as equivalents.

I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess the British have converted to metric, except where they haven't. It's just not British to be completely consistent. It's a bit peculiar, because the Americans don't use yards on their traffic signs. Here in the colonies we always use metres. However, from what I read, the British traffic authorities now measure the distances in metres, but put the number on the sign in yards, because it's close enough. It's like ordering a pint of beer in a Canadian pub. They might give you an American pint, they might give you a British pint, but most likely they'll give you half a litre.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, UK traffic engineering is done in metres. Yards are mandatory for the labels on road signs. Some signing errors are interesting. For example, values on signs should be rounded to the nearest 10 yds but some say '109 yds' indicating the metric origin. Short term road work signs are sometimes in metres and that is a legal error on the part of the contractor. Accident analysis is all done in metres. If you look at 'Signs giving orders' in The Highway Code (a reference for British drivers), you will see that height and width restriction signs include metric (these are taking time to roll out). For some strange reason, the length restriction sign doesn't include metric.

You are right that British drivers see yards and American drivers see feet. Many people aren't aware of just how incompatible Britain and America are when it comes to units. Lightmouse (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across Oil_megaprojects#Application_to_oil_supply_forecasting. Seems it's actually being used by off-wiki websites! I'm going to try to improve it's poor/total-lack-of sourcing but was wondering if you would have a look when you get a chance. NJGW (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with both your recent changes, but it's not too important to me.

All the Canadian companies (remember Dome?) were overpaying for assets, encouraged by the NEP but justifying their actions by saying oil prices would go up and up forever -- an assumption of the NEP.

I think the reference to vestiges is correct, also. SU is effectively getting around the remnants of PCA legislation (no one can own more than 20% of PCA)in a sneaky way -- and that is the last vestige.

Again, it's not too important to me, but I think you should reverse both changes. Pmbcomm (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Dome very well because I worked for the giant multinational that took them over after they ran out of cash. We paid almost nothing for them, and it was way too much. The company was worth less than nothing and we should have let them go bankrupt. Nobody else was paying that much for oil assets, and if they were, they're not around any more. Petrocan is only around because the taxpayers (a.k.a. gasoline buyers) covered their losses.

The NEP price assumptions were right out there in deep space. When it was announced we ran the economics on four of the biggest mainframes IBM sold - parallel multiprocessing using two floors of computers - and they puked all over it because it made no sense. "That does not compute" would be the bottom line.

Suncor is getting around the PCA legislation because the combined company meets all the requirements. It is a Canadian company because both companies were Canadian companies. No shareholder has more than 20% because it was structured as an all-stock deal - Suncor shareholders get 60% of the shares, Petrocan shareholders get 40% of the shares, and none of their shareholders have more than 20%. (If the government had objected, they could have structured it as a reverse takeover with Petrocan taking over Suncor). It is headquartered in Calgary, because both companies were headquartered in Calgary. The PCA legislation is still in effect, but now applies to the combined enterprise. Nothing has changed, it has just become bigger. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping this short message from my little village in the Alps to congratulate you on your contributions to the Passive Smoking article. Good job! --Dessources (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's a wonderful part of the world you live in. I walked the Haute Route from Chamonix, France to Zermatt, Switzerland last autumn, and it was absolutely lovely.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadian Oil Production 1960 to 2020.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Canadian Oil Production 1960 to 2020.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Canadian Oil Production 1960 to 2020.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk-page: Template_talk:Convert#Smart_conversion_templates_for_special_subjects

31-Oct-09: As you suggested, I created new Template:Convert/calibre, which simply displays (from a manually-created list) whatever you think are the appropriate results for each calibre. Feel free to edit that subtemplate, and if you decide that multiple results should be listed, in some cases, that's fine. All you guys have really good ideas, so things are happening much faster now. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the following tag to the oil reserves talk page: {{maintained| [[User talk:Work permit|Work permit]], [[User talk:RockyMtnGuy|RockyMtnGuy]], [[User talk:TastyCakes|TastyCakes]]}} Hope that's ok with you. Of course, if it is not feel free to take your name off the list or fix as you see appropriate.--Work permit (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please chime in here when you get a chance. Thanks 69.127.18.249 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...that this was the producer? "Parabola" and "Loaded"? At least they're honest about something! LeadSongDog come howl! 17:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Loaded Pictures, full of loaded words, indeed! However, ParabolaFilms should have been named HyperbolaFilms because the exaggeration was past the parabolic stage and well into an Earth escape trajectory. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rocky. Quick question: I was reading the NEP page to kick-start some research I'm doing. You mentioned on the talk page (in 2008) that you added a reference to a study of economic losses to Alberta due to NEP, but I don't see it on the page. Has it been removed? It should be at citation #24. I skimmed all of the cited sources, but didn't find it. Suradasa (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation leads directly to a web page [1] in the Alberta Online Encyclopedia (http://www.albertasource.ca/aoe/ui/index.aspx) published by the Alberta Community Foundation (http://www.heritagecommunityfdn.org/). The Alberta Community Foundation is now defunct, but the University of Alberta (http://www.ualberta.ca/) is still maintaining the encyclopedia. However, the original link is still live and still works for me, although maybe it should be updated. The original data was from a study done by the Alberta government some decades ago, which has been updated several times since then. The Alberta government still does these kinds of studies from time to time, mostly to annoy the federal government.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that, but even that page doesn't actually cite any studies; it just says the same thing you wrote, which is not very helpful. Do you know of any specific studies? For future reference, you shouldn't write "It is estimated by various scholars..." without a citation to studies to that effect (or a review with citations, etc.). I'm sure that studies exist, but the reader needs to be able to look them up. Especially on policy issues, where there's lot of non-peer-reviewed stuff out there. Thanks! (P.S. Sorry for the late reply; I didn't click "Watch this page" last time; I'm pretty new to this) Suradasa (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but since the available references don't explicitly cite any of the original studies, you might have to go to the University of Alberta and University of Calgary libraries, and/or the Government of Alberta archives and look them up. That could be quite a lot of work, much like has to be done for any serious academic paper. Personally, I can remember the interviews with the authors of the studies that the media did at the time, but I don't remember any of their names, just the general results of the studies. I didn't add the text, "It is estimated by various scholars...". That dates back to 2007 and was inserted by other authors who didn't provide citations. Some mentioned the University of Calgary - from where came the $100 billion estimates. Other authors, who also did not provide citations, found other sources that estimated it at $50 billion. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found a citation (Mansell) and added it to the article. I'm sure there are other scholars out there that disagree with him about the exact amount.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take a look. Suradasa (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rocky, I wanted to avoid to-ing and fro-ing by opening a discussion first. On the Oil Barrels page you changed a paragraph to read as follows:

However, a "standard" oil barrel and a "standard" cubic metre are simply measures of volume and the conversion between them would be very straightforward and defined precisely, if there was not a difference in the "standard" temperature at which they are measured. Assuming no change in temperature:

The words of the original paragraph were chosen very carefully and were correct. The paragraph above is not. You are confusing a "standard oil barrel" with a "stock tank barrel"(stb). A "standard oil barrel"(bbl) is not defined as being measured at any particular temperature. For example, "barrels at tank temperature" is a common stat in the oil industry and relies on a "standard barrel" just meaning a certain volume. If I want to convert bbls at tank temp to m³ at tank temp, the conversion is utterly straightforward.

The caveat about conversion between stb and standard m³ is valid, but the point is made in the preceeding paragraph and it is not relevant to conversions between bbl and m³.

In summary, "stock tank barrel" and "standard m³" are measures of mass and cannot easily be converted. "standard oil barrel" and "m³" are measures of volume and there is no difficulty.

If you have no objection, I will revert the paragraph above to the original form?HighsideUK (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs a bit more work.

stock tank barrel (stb) - a unit of volume used in the oil industry. A stock tank barrel is the same as the petroleum barrel, that is, 42 U.S. gallons or about 158.987 liters, but the oil is required to be at a temperature of 60 °F (15.556 °C). The corresponding metric unit is the standard cubic meter (scm) with the oil at 15 °C.

A stock tank barrel is not a measure of mass, nor is a standard cubic metre. They are both temperature and pressure adjusted measures of volume. When oil men talk of a "barrel", they normally mean a stock tank barrel because they have corrected the tank volumes to a temperature of 60°F, and when they talk of a "cubic metre" they normally mean a standard cubic metre because they have corrected the tank volumes to a temperature of 15°C, in both cases using standard correction tables.

My intention was to make clear to readers that it is not valid within the oil industry to convert one directly to the other without adjusting for the differing temperature bases. It's all very well and good to give readers a theoretical conversion factor, but in the real world, they might have to use temperature correction tables to correct the volumes to the right system. I have an advanced certificate in petroleum production accounting, so I can be somewhat picky about this kind of thing. It's not as simple as it appears.

I see what you mean about stb and standard m³ not being a measure of mass. I was thinking the same last night before going to sleep. But the original paragraph I posted under "Oil Barrels" did not make this mistake.

I still fear you have missed the point. Do you realise I am conceeding that converting a stb to "standard m³" is hard? I understand how to do this, I have written programs that use ASTM lookup tables to do it and understand the physics (if not the chemistry!) thouroughly.

But why do you think that converting a standard oil barrel(bbl) to m³ is also hard? This is a completely different problem. I have just noticed that the Wikipedia units converter template actually has a bbls conversion. It is a simple multiplication factor. A bbl and a m³ are not volumes at a particular temperature. I think you are mixing up your stbs and bbls.

What, precisely, is incorrect in this, the original paragraph?

However, a "standard oil barrel" and a "cubic metre" are simply measures of volume and the conversion between these is very straightforward and defined precisely.

A stb is not a bbl and a "standard m³" is not a m³. HighsideUK (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the word "standard". A standard cubic foot of gas is corrected to 60°F, a standard cubic metre of oil is corrected to 15°C. By analogy, a standard oil barrel might be a stock tank barrel - the word "standard" normally means something is measured under standard conditions. If you leave the word "standard" off or substitute "uncorrected", then it is valid.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I see what you mean. The problem was that on the very first line the original article used "standard" to mean "a standard as defined by a standards body". It said "standard oil barrel", meaning simply an oil barrel. I did not write this, but continued with the same nomenclature to aviod controversy (I thought!). I agree this is confusing when "standard" is, as you say, so commonly used to mean "corrected to standard P&T". I suggest that the article would be better if all mention of "standard" were removed (including from that first line), unless it was being used to mean "corrected to standard P&T". So how about this:

===Conversion to metric units===

Care must be taken when converting an oil barrel (bbl) to any other unit of volume, especially cubic metres (m³), for the following reason:

A given mass of oil will change volume according to its pressure and temperature. In order to precisely quantify an amount(a mass) of oil, it is not sufficient to give a volume. We must also give a pressure and temperature. Because of this, the oil undustry has adopted the convention that when it talks about "a barrel", it usually means "a barrel of oil at standard atmospheric pressure and 60F". Thus, while a barrel is, strictly, a unit of volume, the term is often used to mean slightly more than that.

The equivalent unit to a barrel in the metric system is a cubic metre. The industry convention with cubic metres is to mean "a cubic metre at standard atmospheric pressure and 15C".

Unfortunately, 60F and 15C are not quite the same temperature, and the difference this makes to the amount(mass) of oil in the specified volumes depends on the composition of the oil. There is therefore no simple and precise conversion between a "a barrel of oil at standard atmospheric pressure and 60F" and a "a cubic metre at standard atmospheric pressure and 15C". Empirically derived lookup tables must be used for this.

However, if all that is needed is to convert a volume expressed in barrels to a volume expressed in cubic meters then this is very straightforward and defined precisely.

• A barrel of oil (bbl) is defined as exactly 42 US liquid gallons.
• A US liquid gallon is defined as exactly 231 cubic inches.
• An inch is defined as exactly 0.0254 metres.
• So therefore 1 bbl = (42 x 231 x 0.0254³)m³ = 0.158987294928m³ precisely

What do you think? HighsideUK (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darn. The bits that mention "mass" are still not quite right. It's harder to explain this stuff than I expected! HighsideUK (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the word "mass" is not correct. It is not a measure of mass. It is quite difficult to explain, so I may have to take another look at it tomorrow when I have more time. (Today was a busy day). RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try again, but I'll sit on it for a day or two before posting here, to make sure I have thought it through properly. Which is what I should have done in the first place. HighsideUK (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've sat on it for a day and it still looks OK. How about this:

===Conversion to metric units===

Care must be taken when converting an oil barrel (bbl) to any other unit of volume, especially cubic metres (m³), for the following reason:

Changes in pressure and temperature make oil expand and contract. Therefore, when using volume to precisely specify an amount of oil, the pressure and temperature of the volume are often required. Because of this, the oil industry has adopted the convention that when it talks about "a barrel", it usually means "a barrel at standard atmospheric pressure and 60F". Thus while a barrel is, strictly, a unit of volume, the term is often used to imply more than that.

In the metric system, the equivalent unit to a barrel is a cubic metre, and the equivalent industry convention is "a cubic metre at standard atmospheric pressure and 15C". 15C is 59F. Sometimes 20C(68F) is used.

The difference this change in temperature makes to the volume of the oil depends on the oil's composition. In warming from 15C to 60F, a heavy oil with API gravity of 20 increases in volume by 0.039%. A light oil with API gravity of 35 increases in volume by 0.047%. So ignoring the temperature variation altogether introduces an error of around 0.05%. Using the same expansion factor for both oils would only reduce this error to around 0.01% in the worst case.

If the temperatures are 20C and 60F then ignoring it leads to an error of around 0.4% and using a common expansion factor only reduces it to around 0.1%.

There is therefore no simple and precise conversion between "a barrel at standard atmospheric pressure and 60F" and a "a cubic metre at standard atmospheric pressure and 15C"(or 20C). More information is needed about the nature of the oil and even then empirically derived lookup tables must be used.

However, this complication does not arise if the unit really is being used as a simple measure of volume. In this case the conversion is straightforward and precise.

• A barrel of oil (bbl) is defined as exactly 42 US liquid gallons.
• A US liquid gallon is defined as exactly 231 cubic inches.
• An inch is defined as exactly 0.0254 metres.
• So therefore 1 bbl = (42 x 231 x 0.0254³)m³ = 0.158987294928m³ precisely

But beware that this simple conversion will only be accurate if no change in temperature or pressure is implied by the context of the figures.

How's that? HighsideUK (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but needs to be tightened up and focused a bit more. Try this

===Conversion to metric units===

Care must be taken when converting an oil barrel (bbl) to other units of volume, such as cubic metres (m³). Because oil changes in volume depending on its pressure and temperature, and the standard temperatures differ slightly between the American conventional and international metric systems, the volume must be corrected to standard conditions for temperature and pressure to do an extremely accurate conversion.

Standards bodies such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) have adopted the convention that if oil is measured in oil barrels it will be at 15.696 psi and 60°C, whereas if it is measured in cubic metres it will be at 101.325 kPa and 15°C (or in some cases 20°C). The pressures are the same but the temperatures are different — 60°C is 15.56°C, 15°C is 59°F, and 20°C is 68°F. Ignoring the temperature variation may introduce an error of around 0.05%.

The difference in the volume of the oil depends on the oil's composition, indicated by its density or API gravity. In warming from 15°C to 60°F, a heavy oil with API gravity of 20 (932 kg/m³) will increase in volume by 0.039%. A light oil with API gravity of 35 (848 kg/m³) will increase in volume by 0.047%. Empirically derived lookup tables must be used to do very accurate conversions.

However, if all that is needed is to convert a volume in barrels to a volume in cubic meters without compensating for temperature differences then this is very straightforward.

• 1 barrel of oil (bbl) is defined as exactly 42 US liquid gallons.
• 1 US liquid gallon is defined as exactly 231 cubic inches.
• 1 inch is defined as exactly 0.0254 metres.

Therefore 1 bbl = (42 x 231 x 0.02543)msup>3 = 0.158987294928m³ exactly.

It still needs a few references (I added one to standard conditions for temperature and pressure and American Petroleum Institute, and a few citations to the appropriate standards documents (API and ISO). It could also get into such things as the difference between Gross Observed Volume (GOV) and Gross Standard Volume (GSV), which is what it is really talking about, but that might be going too far for a non-technical article.

I'm packing now for a multi-week sea kayaking trip off the west coast of British Columbia, so I don't have much more time to devote to this subject.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for work on the hut. I just started article on Putnam. Better you should be paddling. Hope you've got a nice British boat. Let me know if you run into George Dyson. I dunno if he's a nut or what, but his father is called a genius. I peeked into his kayak shop a few times in Bellingham, Wash.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:FayHutFallWiki.jpg, which you've sourced to http://alpineclubofcanada.ca/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fay Hut burned down AGAIN. Torch the picture in commemoration of the incendiary event. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your graph: file:Theoretical Multiple Oil Field Production Curve.png, could you add to the description what theory is represented here? I assume that this is a Hubbert curve, but this is not specified. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a lot of theory behind this curve. It is just what happens when you stack the production from multiple oil fields. It is similar to the Hubbert curve in that he did not have a lot of theory behind his curve, either. It was just what would happen if he stacked production curves from all the oil fields in the US. He knew what it should look like, and so do I. You could argue it is some kind of Gaussian curve, or the first derivative of the logistics curve. There are arguments either way, or possibly a third kind of bell-shaped curve. The bottom line is that it is some kind of bell-shaped curve. Under the Wikipedia "no original research" criterion, I can't create the theory behind it. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fiat money may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | title=A History of the Canadian Dollar)
• | title=Playing Card Money Set)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duly debracketed. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you restore that hoax map again, we will be at AN/I. That is all. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Rat control in Alberta requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex3441. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Kudos for your great clean-up of the Oil Sands article. Many of us knew that the clean-up needed to happen, but it just seemed like too much. You moved sections to other articles that never belonged in this and provided many edits. Thank you very much! Rpclod (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information you added regarding the WCS benchmark, but might it be better under Athabasca Oil Sands? It seems to be focused on that rather that oil sands in general.--Rpclod (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the bitumen and synthetic crude oil blended into WCS originates in the Cold Lake oil sands and the Wabasca oil sands, plus possibly other oil sands, so I thought it fit better in the generic oil sands article. They take whatever they have available and blend it together with condensate, light oil, medium oil and heavy oil from numerous other sources to get the product with the chemical analysis they want. However, it was just extracted from the rather long Western Canadian Select article, so feel free to summarize and link to it in the Athabasca oil sands article as well.--RockyMtnGuy (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion there about the meaning of a graph you created. Any insight you could offer would be appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I started a discussion in the Oil sands article's talk page about the revision you made to a revision I made in the article: Oil sands#Externalized_costs. Please discuss it there, thanks. DocRuby (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peak oil, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Beagel (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, as a senile old programmer myself, I resent that! TJRC (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, resemble that remark, as my wife keeps reminding me.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RockyMtnGuy. I wanted to thank you again for responding to my question on the BP talk page, your response was very informative.

I just left another message there asking editors if we can come to a consensus, and at minimum, changing 'tar sands' throughout the article to a more acceptable term or at least agree to change the heading of the "Canadian tar sands" section. Unfortunately, since we began this discussion, another editor has made edits in the opposite direction, without commenting on the discussion page.

When you feel comfortable doing so, I hope you would be willing to make any changes needed to the BP article on this matter. I never edit the BP article myself. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pint may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |publisher = [[National Post]])

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note -- a surprising fact, since taxes here are very high, and oil production an unpopular, shrinking industry. They must have a well-organized, influential lobby in Sacramento. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC), a recent immigrant. PS: our local library network is "Black Gold", so some positive attitudes remain. Until someone proposes drilling a wildcat well, or (God forbid) frakking same....[reply]

Re: your note at my page. Thanks for that. My impression is that the county govts are the barrier here -- for instance, a local producer in the Santa Maria area has been trying to get a county permit to steam-stimulate some wells on their property, for 18 mos or more. Not exactly a controversial technique, but local enviros (Santa Barb County) filed an objection for the excess CO2 emissions from heating up the steam! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, there is currently an Arbitration Committee case starting up relating to GMOs and pesticides at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. We're currently in the evidence gathering phase. If you have concerns about user behavior or the state of the article due to concrete examples, that would be a place to bring concerns as we really do need people who have been uninvolved to comment, especially at the workshop phase on existing evidence. The article is currently under discretionary sanctions and a one revert limit though[2], so please be mindful of that.

I'm a science editor that is concerned that editor point of view, especially political ideals, are leading to some of the things you mentioned on the talk page that result in cherrypicking of things to villify companies/pesticides and less focus on the overall science. That's more of a real-world problem that can filter its way into Wikipedia though. There are legitimate concerns when it comes to pesticides, but it is very hard to get nuanced content worked in with the state a lot of these articles are in. I do welcome you to start off suggestions for the article like you said, but just be aware it can be a very stressful editing environment as far as controversial topics go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of your more recent comments, please remember to focus on content on article talk pages and avoid things like WP:NOTFORUM. It's best not to engage drama there commenting on things like this. It's tough working in controversial topics like this even just focusing on content. It's tempting to comment further than that sometimes, but it usually doesn't help things along at the article much, but things like that can sometimes come up at noticboards like WP:FTN.Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. In your first revert you referred to it as "irrelevant detail".--Wuerzele (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. In your second revert you wrote "The EPA reference was a dead link, so I replaced it with the current EPA assessment and a current link. See talk" This is misleading, because you did not just replace a dead link, but you altered the content and removed sourced information.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is incorrect. One has to wait for such a procedure instead of putting it on Visa because (for one) the provincial and federal governments have chosen to reduce funding on medical care since the 1990 - 1992 recession, thus waitlists have gotten longer. Also, people who approve waitlist order do not work for governments.

("There was a pronounced change in public-sector expenditure trends following the 1990-to-1992 recession. During this period, governments introduced fiscal restraint measures, which affected spending for health and social programs. Private-sector growth rates were considerably higher than the public-sector rates during this period and, as a result, the private-sector share of total health expenditure increased to 29.9% by 1997; it has remained stable since then. The private-sector share is estimated to be 29.5% in 2014 (Figure 11)." Page 33, National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975 to 2014, https://www.cihi.ca/en/nhex_2014_report_en.pdf)

("The 1990s - Governments cut healthcare funding"

"In 1992, Canada spent 10.2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health, more than any country other than the United States. In the mid-1990's, troubled by their large budget deficits, the federal government made huge cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, and provincial governments ended the practice of substantial yearly increases in healthcare funding. Yearly increases in health spending averaged 11.1% from 1975 to 1991, but dropped to increases of 2.5% annually in the late 1980s and early 1990s."

"As a result, increases in health spending failed to keep pace with economic growth, and health spending dropped to 9.2% of the GDP, an extraordinary decrease that did not occur in any other industrialized country. Even after the catch-up spending of the last few years, described shortly, Canadian health spending as a percentage of GDP approximates that of 1992. In the same period, all other OECD countries had increases in health spending of 1.5% to over 2% of the GDP." http://www.canadiandoctorsformedicare.ca/Who-We-Are/the-case-for-medicare.html)

("In December 2011, the Harper government announced a major cut to the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) of $36 billion over 10 years beginning in 2017. In addition, the equalization portion of the CHT was eliminated in 2014, which effectively reduce transfers by another $16.5 billion over the next five years. We have an aging population and an increasing demand for health care services at present. Unless federal funding is stable and adequate, our cherished public health care system is in danger."

"Further elements of the Harper government’s plan to dismantle national Medicare include the abandonment of the National Pharmaceutical Strategy from the 2004 Accord. According to the Health Council of Canada, the pharmaceutical strategy was integral to the renewal and sustainability of the entire health care system. Instead of insisting on value for money for prescription drugs, the Harper government agreed to extend patent protection for brand-name drugs and increase drug costs to Canadians by between $850 million and $1.6 billion a year." http://healthcoalition.ca/what-is-the-health-accord/)

Many Canadians believe that wealth alone shouldn't be a reason to bypass a waitlist when many on a waitlist are in more urgent medical or other need for a medical procedure. Many of us feel a more equitable society is a better society - statistics from many different nations show that more equitable societies are healthier - even the wealthy in societies with radically differing levels of inequality (as exists now in nations like the United States and Canada) live shorter lives (wealth buys better health care and outcomes) than people in equitable societies like those in Norway, Sweden, Finland, or Denmark (https://www.google.ca/search?q=more+equitable+societies+are+healthier).

If you are unhappy with waitlists, press the provincial and federal governments to increase taxes and healthcare funding - nothing comes for free. Making factually incorrect statements is not the way to get what you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcerickson (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyed reading it. Mine wouldn't be too different -- except I still have (almost) all of my original body parts. Did have to get the prostate reamed out AWB.

Keep up the good work here! Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC), another Old Fart[reply]

PS: about two weeks after writing this, I broke my ankle, stupidly walking into the late afternoon sun and not seeing a washout hole. Doh. Gee, it takes a LOT longer for bones to heal at age 70.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RockyMtnGuy. There is a question concerning the American Petroleum Institute. Maybe you can help. Best regards, Beagel (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment copied here from a page reserved for article improvement. -Xeno) You're lucky in that I have better things to do and tomorrow I am going off-line sailing the west coast of British Columbia for ten days. Otherwise I would start stalking you and pointing out all the logical flaws in all your arguments with everybody. In this case, see the Wikipedia article on question dodging for my opinion. For observers, this is a multiple choice question: Identify all the forms of question dodging Xenophrenic used in his response.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one going sailing, yet *I* am the lucky one? I think you meant "envious", and you would be correct. If you have complaints about editor behavior, you really should raise that at the appropriate noticeboard, and be sure to include substantiating evidence. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of luck, it's a matter of talent. If you want to go sailing, just go and do it. If all else fails, find someone who is too old and doesn't know enough to sail their own boat, but has enough money to buy one, and sail their boat for them. I addressed my complaints to you because you are the only person I wanted to annoy.17:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I have the ability covered (but I'm sure I'm a bit rusty); it's the boat and time that I lack. As for your desire to annoy a fellow Wikipedia editor, that's between you and you, and I can't speak to that, other than to say it is regrettable. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Off-topic comments copied here from a page reserved for article improvement. -Xeno)

Yes, Xenophrenic, you did delete my comments from here and move them to my talk page, where I responded by being even more snarky to you. Did you miss that class in kindergarten where they talked about playing nicely with the other children, Xenophrenic? You are routinely deleting other editors comments which might reflect badly on your arguments or your behavior. That's contrary to Wikipedia policy - see WP:Talk page guidelines for the rules you are ignoring.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Naw, I just moved them, per WP:TPO, and once I did that, they were no longer there for me to delete. As for the snark, have at it - I can appreciate a bit of snark. I don't ignore rules, by the way, unless I am ignoring all rules. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun on the water! And don't drown.... Your OLD pal, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't drown, but it did get a little sporty out there and my wife had an anxiety attack due to her drowning fears. Then it started to pour rain so we left the boat at the dock and went home until the rain is over. I have canned a lot of salsa because the tomato plants got out of control, and my wife has been preparing the pergola for painting. I had never heard of a pergola before I built it, but the neighbors asked what it was, so I looked it up on Wikipedia, and put a label on it, and said it over and over until I remembered the name. And I am putting a link to pergola here in case the label falls off.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you already gave your opinion in the edit summary, but it seems it's needed more clear!y in the post. You don't even need to comment on the syphilis part at this point as it's about my Amherst edit. You could state your opinion either at the article's talk or at my talk at the bottom, thanks. Etsybetsy (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please see my proposal at talk:light rail?

Thanks if so, 97.117.19.208 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC) for now.[reply]

The file File:WTI Crude Oil Price 1998-2007.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused duplicate of File:WTI Crude Oil Price 1998-2007.png.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Elizabeth Parker hut, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.kamloopstrails.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/EParkerHut.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Elizabeth Parker hut and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Elizabeth Parker hut, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Elizabeth Parker hut. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Elizabeth Parker hut with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Elizabeth Parker hut saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of 17:07, 20 March 2016 of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid included {{cite web |last1= Waterer |first1=D | last2=Roy |first2=D | last3=Szaroz |first3=P |title=Potential to use Plant Growth Regulators to Enhance the Appearance of Red-Skinned Potatoes |publisher = University of Saskatchewan|year=2009|accessdate=2016-03-20}}, which has an accessdate and is missing a URL. Later, this citation was changed to {{cite journal}} and it still lacks a URL. You introduced this citation, so where does it really come from? Is it from a book, a scientific journal, or what? —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]