User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2007/December

Battle of Vimy Ridge

I've noticed that since the GA nomination failed, you've been putting a lot of work into this article. I really have to commend your effort on this. It's looking much better already, and the sources have really improved. Keep up the good work! MelicansMatkin 20:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think of it as one small repayment of a long-standing debt.LeadSongDog 20:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nutter Butter

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nutter Butter, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Altairisfar (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what you thought was vandalism.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, my mistake. -Altairisfar (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just wanted it on the record.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry and know that it's frustrating. The javascript that I'm using for vandalism should not have even scanned a registered user such as yourself. -Altairisfar (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First midair collision of airliners

Thanks for the comment, no problem LSD - sorry I butted in while you were still sorting it out. MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Battles of Arras (1917)

I have just seen your recent page move. This was no doubt done in good faith but it is normal practice to discuss moves of mature pages on their talk page prior to doing them. The literature–including the scource you edited (see Nicholson, Chapter 8, p 250) and the Canadian Veterans' Affairs fact sheet–unanimously calls it the "Battle of Arras". --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. [www.censol.ca/research/greatwar/nicholson/text/nicholson.htm This Nicholson] uses the collective term that spans late March and most of April. See also here here and here. I suppose I could have debated the question, it just seemed obviously the right thing to do. After all, it wasn't a single battle, but a set of them. I decided to be bold. Sorry if I stepped on toes.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Complicated, isn't it? The individual battles were the battles of Arras but the offensive overall is either called "Arras Offensive" or the "Battle of Arras". This is actually the title used in two of your links:"The Battle of Arras, 9 April to 15 May 1917" and "The Battle of Arras 1917 30th March to 26th April 1917". All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oil sands

I'm not sure where the info on environmental impact comes from because I was reading several books and articles on oils sands at the time (before I started to reference every fact...). The current version is a bit "gung-ho" pro-development, but there's not much that can be said when all the vegetation, soil and subsoil is carted off and replaced with mining residues. Someone added a couple of sentenced on why Alberta has not yet declared such land to be "restored," which seems correct. The CO2 emissions numbers come from the industry. And the description of the pre-mining vegetation is common knowledge. Cheers! Joseph B (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to retrace my sources about the ratio of water use to oil production, but only with partial success (see Tar sands talk page, where I posted a few sources). It would seem that a ratio of 2:1 would be more appropriate for the article. Currently, the article states that

2 to 4.5 volume units of water are used to produce each volume unit of synthetic crude oil.

But the question of water use pales in comparison to the question of the relative importance of the river flow diverted (i.e., water withdrawn and not put back in the river). At most, it would appear to be about 10 percent of river flow in winter, that is, at the time of the lowest natural river flow. Seems trivial. The impact of the ponds (and a rupture of the dams) on the local environment, however, would appear to be more important. This aspect, however, doesn't lead to a catchy phrase (x barrels of water for every barrel of bitumen produced). Joseph B (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to find an explanation why the ponds can't be fed to boilers for steam injection. Seems that would at least reduce the volume to be stored, concentrating the rest so it's more feasible to store or reprocess.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Wikiproject Airlines

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring to the point about whether or not these articles are suitable for Wikipedia. The previous AfDs are here and here. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hanriot HD.1 accident

Could we have a cite for this one? Just that while I'm sure with your background you'd know - this is surprising to say the least. The idea that the Japanese were still using what would have been by then a twenty year old WW1 fighter for training borders on the far-fetched - sure you got the type correct? Hanriot went on building (other) aeroplanes for a good while.Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)