User talk:24.51.248.130

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2017[edit]

Please read WP:RS. You cannot use the company's own site to back up your claim the pipeline was for crude oil, and not bitumen, especially in such a contentious case as this. Also, please discuss here further before reverting again; if you don't discuss here, I'll apply to have the editing of that page locked from IP editors, and that will be that. Your choice. Rockypedia (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can absolutely use the company's website to back up my claim that the pipe carries crude and not bitumen - because that claim isn't based on interpretation, it's literally what the statement says.

"Project Overview Energy East is a 4,500-kilometre pipeline that will transport approximately 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the refineries of Eastern Canada and a marine terminal in New Brunswick"

From WP:RS:

"Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."

This is a specific fact. The "secondary sources" you keep mentioning do not understand the difference between bitumen and syncrude (http://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/technical/product-streams).

I'll allow the change from bitumen to dilbit, but stating that the pipeline is to carry bitumen is demonstrably incorrect according to TransCanada themselves. You can ask for secondary sources all you like, but any interpretation of TransCanada's statements that include the claim of transporting bitumen are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.248.130 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) Rockypedia is correct. You can claim what ever you want, but here at Wikipedia, we have rules and guidelines and using the article's subject to support one of their claims is never a good way to do it. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
okay, calm down. First off, you said "I can absolutely use the company's website to back up my claim" - that is in direct contradiction to Wikipedia policy. I'm begging you, for like the 4th time, to read WP:WPNOTRS; specifically, the paragraph that talks about primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. TransCanada themselves is a primary source. I'm not disputing what TransCanada says; you're 100% right about what they say. What you need to understand is why you can't use that on Wikipedia when there are good secondary sources available. In this case, there are good secondary sources. This policy is especially important in this case because a primary source like TransCanada has a vested interest in polishing their image when it comes to what they're transporting in a proposed pipeline. It's kind of the entire reason the policy exists. Rockypedia (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite calm. "that is in direct contradiction to Wikipedia policy" - No it is not. Maybe you should take a look at WP:RS, because I've read the section on primary, secondary and tertiary sources about four times now. At worst it says "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The "claim" that the pipeline does not carry bitumen is none of these things, and is based entirely on the fact (not interpretation) that bitumen cannot be transported through a pipeline, as it is nearly solid at room temperature. You'd think that a technical fact such as that would be accepted from the company themselves but I guess anything a controversial company has to say can't be taken literally and should be up to the interpretation of others. Anyway, you want secondary sources, so here you go:

"Bitumen is too thick to be pumped from the ground or through pipelines." https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120626/dilbit-primer-diluted-bitumen-conventional-oil-tar-sands-alberta-kalamazoo-keystone-xl-enbridge

"Bitumen is too thick to flow in a pipeline" https://www.cepa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CEPA_Diluted-Bitumen3.pdf

"That is because the bitumen that makes up Canada’s oil sands is too viscous or thick to be pumped through a pipeline." https://www.fool.ca/2013/11/28/oil-sands-105-what-is-diluent-and-why-is-it-important/

Three sources that contradict the claim that the pipeline (or any pipeline, actually) carries bitumen. I'd be happy to provide more if the need arises, but whether or not the pipeline carries bitumen is not up for debate. Any source that claims the pipeline carries bitumen is wrong.

I think you need to seriously re-evaluate your handling of things like this. Technicalities such as what the pipeline is designed to carry is not contentious at all, requires no interpretation and does nothing to "polish the image" of the company.

Okay, so it's "diluted bitumen." So what? That's still not what you were attempting to change the lead sentence to. Care to explain that? Rockypedia (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The definition of crude oil is unrefined petroleum, which is exactly what both synthetic crude and dilbit are. Since it's unclear whether the pipeline was designed to carry dilbit or syncrude (which make up a 60/40 split of oil sands production), it would be far more correct to refer to the pipeline as carrying "crude oil" than it would "bitumen".

That's clearly original research on your part (see WP:OR). Obviously a pipeline carrying "diluted bitumen" carries a more negative connotation than one carrying "crude oil", so I can see why the company would want that term (crude oil) used. Regardless, it's whitewashing at its finest - the pipeline was proposed to carry oil derived from oil sands. The fact that it would have been diluted with a bunch of chemicals doesn't somehow magically make the substance the same as what's carried in pipelines that deliver more conventionally-obtained "crude oil." The more I learn about this topic, the more convinced I am that calling it "crude oil" is decidedly POV, so if you want this change made, you're going to have to ask for a third opinion or go to an RfC. It's clear-cut to me. Rockypedia (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of helpful links in your quest to get that sentence changed: WP:THIRD, and WP:RFC. I think I'm done here. Rockypedia (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? That the definition of a word counts as "original research" is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to avoid the point. While you're correct that the diluents don't make it the same as light crude, diluted heavy crude is significantly more comparable to light crude than it is to extra-heavy crude, or bitumen. You can complain about "whitewashing" all you want - whether or not the term crude oil makes the company look better or not makes absolutely no difference as to whether or not the term is more correct (which it is).

Your insistence on using the term that you yourself say has a more negative connotation is proof that you're attempting to make the company look bad instead of stating the truth about the pipeline - that it was designed to carry unrefined petroleum derived from oil sands, also known as crude oil. Call it whatever you want, but calling the substance that flows through pipelines "bitumen" is entirely incorrect according to the sources I provided you. Diluted bitumen, synthetic crude, crude oil - all three of those terms are significantly more accurate than "bitumen" in this case.

Grab a third opinion, be my guest. You've demonstrated a complete lack of willingness to cooperate in a matter that is indeed clear-cut: bitumen is not the correct term to use here, and you completely refuse any alternatives because you don't feel comfortable using a term that has less of a "negative connotation" for fear of accidentally NOT making the company look bad.

Please sign your posts[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dani Daniels. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk)

October 2021[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Nail (anatomy) have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ty Dellandrea have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Scugog, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.51.248.130&oldid=1081388378"