User talk:Jerkface03

I didn't remove valid content I moved redundant (and inconsistent - first it says 7th and then 6th) content into the pollution section where it belonged. The part on ducks shouldn't even be there in my opinion, but I think saying it was Greenpeace and making clear "hollow" was a direct quote is appropriate. Also note that "hollow" appears in quotation marks in the original source as well. But thank you for the English lesson regardless. Your dictionary skills are truly marvelous. TastyCakes (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And if I gather correctly from your history, you have a boner for, well, porn stars, which I suppose I can't hold against you. I'm not an unreasonable person, despite what you think, and I really don't care if there are quotes around the hollow. Perhaps you should ask yourself why CBC thought they deserved to be there, however. In any case, in a couple of months I suspect the duck business will be forgotten and it will be removed from the article entirely. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone that, from my perspective, appears to be an aggressive little prick. If you want to be useful to Wikipedia, you should try cooperation rather than confrontation. Take care, TastyCakes (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take a second to sit back and think about this. Syncrude is a huge strip mining operation taking away hundreds of square miles of overburden, pumping out huge amounts of possibly toxic tailings into massive ponds, using huge amounts of natural gas to produce huge amounts of CO2, has had numerous worker deaths over the years and has been the environmental whipping boy of Canadian industry. At the same time it is a huge employer, producer of crude oil and engine for Alberta's economy. But you think that some duck deaths is the most notable controversy? Can you please justify that? I have asked others for their opinion on the Syncrude page if you want to add your "input". TastyCakes (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)