This is an archive of past discussions with User:Callitropsis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hallo, in this edit you forgot to use a colon in talking about Category:Stubs (ie you need to type [[:Category:Stubs]]). It makes quite a difference, as the category didn't appear in the text but the talk page was categorised as a stub! I've fixed it. PamD08:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry about that. I already knew about that feature, and hopefully It'll be kind of like remembering to sign talk page posts. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S21:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Image Lake and Glacier Peak.jpg
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Image Lake and Glacier Peak.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Image Lake and Glacier Peak.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
I am Jeff Hoad lead singer and founder of Kings of the Sun - I am extremely unhappy with what has been written on the Kings of the Sun WIKI page - so much of it is unfactual as well as unauthorized. People seem to be citing facebook as reference material which is madness.
You might find the conflict of interest noticeboard helpful, which is where editors that have a problem with something in the article that they are connected to can get help. However, please be specific about what you want to be changed, and be sure to sign you talk page posts with four tildes, like this ~~~~. Thanks! --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S13:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this factual enough? It speaks volumes about this person's (whoever it is) intentions and credibility. Read carefully and you will see that it states former lead singer/frontman of Kings of the Sun at least 3 times. I suppose that it is factual enough. So please, stop your vandalism and let this amazing community do its job! Thank you! Currentpeak (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Please don't mischaracterize the edits of others as vandalism. I've pointed him in the direction of WP:COIN, which he should find helpful, even if the issue isn't removed. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S17:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort here but you should understand that the username is against policy. The fact that the user had not edited in a way that appeared to be promotional was the reason I did not just block the account rather than leaving the notice that the username was questionable. Your message was a bit redundant and could serve to confuse a new user. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)16:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
On 6 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Image Lake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Image Lake(pictured), a popular hiking destination in Washington state, is near the site of a failed proposal to open an open-pit copper mine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Image Lake. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Samx. Can you help me understand something here. How am I supposed to edit any article? Do I search it up and edit? Do I have to do any research? Can you tell me the specific steps to doing that. Thanks, I'm looking forward to editing. I saw the welcome pillar thingy that you sent, but I don't really get the point of it. I learn things more in someone actually giving the instructions.
P.S. Also, how can I do see new users and help them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1dfan2001 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You can edit a page by clicking the "edit" tab at the upper right corner of the page. However, you might want to check out some of the links in your welcome message. As for welcoming new users, I've already left some instructions on how to do so above. @ Crab rangoons, I don't see why you can't apologize to Inter16 yourself. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 01:03, 8 August 20
Thank you SamX. I'll make sure I try that. P.s. if I'm doing anything wrong don't hesitate to tell me. I'd rather have you be polite on other occasions except when I did something I wasn't supposed to than not know anything and get myself in big trouble. I've seen that happen to Crab Rangoons and I don't want to replay every thing that just happened. Thanks again, very warmly.1dfan2001 (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Sandboxes are useful places to test wikicode or develop pages. If you would like a personal sandbox, you can create it here. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S20:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you changed the position of one image in the article. For some reason the image was then shown flush with the text for me (up to date Firefox on Win7, 1920x1080 pixels, zooming the size of the text did not help), i.e. the right border of the image touched the left-most pixel of each first letter in each line. I have no idea why. For now, I undid the change.
Do you have any idea why that image behaved weird? And how that can be fixed? All images on the right does look bad, so staggering was a good idea; I'd like to get it to work. HMallison (talk) 08:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it was because there was no outside border to the taxonomy box, so the text overlapped it. If I included a table with invisible borders about five pixels wider than the image, it would probably do the trick. I'll preview it and see how it looks. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S12:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Done: <div> works a lot better. I found that eliminating the left margin and increasing the right margin (through the "margin: xem" attributes) also tidied things up. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S13:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
To insert a hyperlink, put two brackets around the page name, like this: [[PAGENAME]], with PAGENAME being replaced with the name of the page that you are linking to. To display different text in the browser than the page that is being linked to, type [[PAGENAME|displayed text]] in the edit window, with displayed text being replaced with the text that you want to be displayed in the browser. Be sure to use the pipe character, which can be found to the right of the bracket keys on most browsers, not capital I or lowercase L or anything like that. For more information, see Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S01:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me start the 1920s portal, I also have a Victorian era portal, that might need a little help! Hailey 20:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I saw the portal and figured I had something to do besides mindlessly eating away at backlog, so I decided to go for it. I'll check out the Victorian era portal, too. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S20:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, SamX, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- tnumbermaniacc05:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Callitropsis. You have new messages at Anderson's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi SamX. I don't think you have read the discussion going on the talkpage. Peter1007, Sam Sailor, Superfly94, and you, are NOT explaining why the sources are unreliable, as if the sources are reliable. The article itself is straightforwardly "BIASED" has NO neutrality. It's basically slandering the religion and the founder. Please READ the talkpage. And you haven't left any messages on MY talkpage. Only Superfly94 and Sam Sailor did. Are you them?Nancyinthehouse (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have read the previous version of the article, and I find it mostly neutral, except for the references to the coalition against heresy. I tried to read the talk page, and it seemed to basically be original research, and it was quite confusing. The version that you keep trying to revert to is very short and only cites primary sources. Please try to be less confrontational to other editors. If you are not, you may be blocked from editing. And no, I am not a sockpuppet. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S00:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi SamX. I'm sorry, but they are not original research. They are facts. Galemw2 explained why the users cannot use those sources because most of them are false, considers other religions heretic or cults. I also explained to them before they made the edits. Before I edited the article, the article relied on personal opinions, personal blogs and websites that had no neutrality and were all created to slander the founder and the religious movement. So that's why I started editing mentioning all of my reasonings in the talk page. But suddenly they blank the whole article without explaining, and using more BIASED websites (most of them in Korean) and their wrong interpretations. The sources used were false fliers, book that was found guilty to be published, websites that consider other religions cult and heretic other than religion of their own. It's not right to consider other religion "CULTS" or "HERETIC." Basically the whole article mentions about that. Please help with the article to stay neutral without using unreliable sources. Thanks. Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if they aren't original research, they're still primary sources, and the article already cites quite a few primary sources. So no, I don't think the article needs to be entirely rewritten. However, it definitely could use some cleanup. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S13:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback Tool update
Hey SamX. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Image Lake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mountain Alder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Image Lake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black bear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
@Neubauerkirsten: Looking through the submission, I can see some things that may prevent it from being accepted. Here are a few suggestions:
The submission is not neutral in tone, and seems to promote the subject. For example, the sentence "Supported initiatives include large-scale collaborative research projects headed by University of Chicago faculty, seed projects, and efforts that engage a wider public in humanistic scholarship" uses a lot of buzz/peacock words, and is quite vague. There are other areas of the submission that have the same problem, and the section "Leadership" seems to spend a lot of time on the accomplishments and publications of David Nirenberg, which isn't especially relevant to the subject of the article itself. I would suggest that you either remove those passages altogether or edit them so that they are more specific and less promotional.
The submission uses a lot of primary sources. Primary sources are discouraged because they tend to be non-neutral, and are often not very reliable. In other words, you probably shouldn't use anything published by the University of Chicago or any related organizations. If you can, replace those sources with reliable, third-party sources. If you can't find any, then I would recommend removing the statements supported by those sources altogether.
If you can't find enough third-party sources, then it is likely that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. If it does not meet the guidelines, it is likely to be deleted if it is accepted.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have a conflict of interest. While people who have conflicts of interest are not prohibited from editing Wikipedia, undisclosed paid advocacy and directly editing areas where you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged by the Wikimedia Foundation for a number of reasons. (Editing Articles for Creation submissions is somewhat exempt because the submission is being accepted by someone else. However, if it is in the article space, please make edits only to the talk page.) Please read WP:LUC for more information.
I'd encourage you to follow any of the hyperlinks in this reply, and be sure to sign your talk page posts with four tildes, (like this: ~~~~), which automatically produces your username and the date and time that your comment was saved. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks! — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear NeilN, Dear SamX, Dear Jim1138, Son stole the Computer. I am apology for him. His to evil thing. His to bad, not help. I stopped Son. Please, no ban. Son apologyed. Thank you much very greatly.
Dear NeilN, Dear SamX, Dear Jim1138, Son stole the Computer. I am apology for him. His to evil thing. His to bad, not help. I stopped Son. Please, no ban. Son apologyed. Thank you much very greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.253.244.192 (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't you agree that it might be better to give a new editor more than a minute before tagging for deletion? Might it not be better to engage the creator and offer advise and encouragement before tagging? Dlohcierekim 15:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Happens to us all. Take a break. Come back refreshed. We are all suffering from some degree of burnout. We misconstrue or misunderstand. It take its toll.19:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 19:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Image Lake you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001(talk)00:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
WP definition of Ethnobotanist, or WP process for defining (applied, in practice)
Hi SamX - thanks for your recent email reply.
I'd like to know if, under WP policy and practice, there's any effective way to address a problem with a long record, apparently incorrigible. I refer to false and misleading use of the term 'ethnobotanist' at WP - for an iconic countercultural figure. Apparently, by routine 'cult recruitment' methods, he gathered a somewhat fanatic-like following, with authoritarian tendencies (like many cults). I notice some (named parties) have become WP editors, apparently for purpose of using WP to write and broadcast his hagiography. Specious honors and titles are part of the operation. From what I'm finding so far - WP appears convenient, 'wide open' to such purposes by its procedures and policies - a 'sitting duck' with no adequate boundaries to address such a situation. The talk page for the entry in question documents years of edit war, an intractable situation (as I conclude so far). Many impartial editors have tried as record reflects, to address this - and other issues, related, about the entry in question.
I don't inquire randomly. I'm an ethnobotanist - not because a devoted following declaring me so. By generally agreed-upon standards (Ph.D. from an accredited institution; publications in peer review journals etc) - could you or someone in appropriate administrative WP authority advise? I'd like to know if there is, or can be - any procedure under WP policy and practice, for addressing a clear pattern of purpose and consistency, active tampering with this entry. It has been going on for years (as the Talk Page reflects) - to maintain 'party line' of a reverent cultic movement (that its leader was an ethnobotanist). I believe this goes to policy, procedure - stepwise method - presently lacking from what I can tell so far. I find a need, per WP's stated purposes, to correct not just misinfo, but disinfo of this particular partisan interest - 'out there' in our present milieu, generally unobserved, and keeping nice low profile (by various indications).
Hello, Callitropsis. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
KONS International Literary Award
Hello, I am new at Wiki, I would like to ask you for advice (when you have time, no hurry). I have noticed that you marked that the article "KONS International Literary Award" needs more references. I have added some more references (newspaper articles, accessible in the internet), but they are in Slovene language. Is the language of the references problem, or is it something else?
My question is: what has to be done to clear the sign that the article "needs reliable sources"? I think that now people who come to the page would get the impression that there's something wrong with this information, that it is not reliable... (If you ask me, it has the references which confirm that this prize is true, in Slovene and English... It's just not fair.)
Thank you very much for your time!
All the best and kind regards (from Slovenia)
Tjamnik (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, I've removed a duplicate thread.
First of all, you seem to have a conflict of interest, so you really shouldn't be editing the article at all. If there is a change that you would like to be made to the article, it would be best to bring it up on the talk page.
Nobody is denying the existence or legitimacy of the prize. However, the article still has the tag because many statements are not supported by independent, reliable sources. Click on the link for more information about what sources can be regarded as reliable.
If there are any changes that you want to be made to the article, you can put {{helpme}} at the top of a new discussion thread, which will get the attention of another editor. If you have any additional questions, feel to post here, and I encourage you to take a look at the welcome page. Kind regards, — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S19:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Visit Andersen
Hi
visitandersen.com (Visit Andersen) is a new site for everyone interested in the author Hans Christian Andersen.
Visit Andersen has a Facebook page, Youtube videos with the fairytales a G+ profile and every day is new content added.
visitandersen.com is in three languages: English, German and Danish.
No problem. There are definitely less easily detectable ways to vandalize than adding a page to a bad category. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S21:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I know, but thank you nonetheless. I really do wonder why they think they can get away with vandalizing someone's userpage, though. If there's one thing that attracts scrutiny, it's edits made to userpages not your own. Oh well, if they target my page, it means I must be doing something right. Hm, does having my userpage vandalized twice in an hour by two different users mean that I'm doing something extraordinarily right? XD AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably. Judging by their rapid edit rate, they were trying to do as much damage as they could in a short amount of time, WOW-style. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S21:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear SamX,
thank you for your explanation. I edited this article in good belief - there were severe and serious mistakes in it, which gave the reader wrong information or even made the text non-understandable. I used my knowledge - that means: I didn't write anything that is not true, anyone can/could check it (but it seems that no other editor who made the changes have made the effort to check the facts).
But, anyway, I have read (some) Wikipedia guidelines, and now I see it is not such a great project, as I thought. First of all, it is censoring the information. On Wikipedia you won't find anything that is not incorporated into the collective "general knowledge" (i.e. printed encyclopedias), which is often very restrictive and putting some important topics aside or even into collective oblivion (see, for example, what Pierre Bourdieu and Loic Wacquant have written on this topic; of course there are other scientists who write on collective amnesia).
Anyway, you or other Wikipedia editors will do what you/they wish - change it back if you think that my changes are not appropriate.
I have decided to completely quit doing edits in Wikipedia (and supporting it by donations - how stupid and naive I was!!!), because I definitely do not want to support any kind of distorting real facts and censorship - not only in case of this article, but also in other cases where people or facts were put (pressed!) into collective oblivion.
Best regards,
Tjamnik (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Administrators are highly regarded editors that almost always have years of experience in dispute resolution, content creating, and participating in the deletion process. Unfortunately, your request is likely to be declined by community consensus per WP:NOTNOW if you try to run right now. However, I'm sure that, given more time, experience, and a chance to win the community's trust, you have the potential to be an excellent admin. I'd recommend that you wait a few years, making more edits and learning about Wikipedia policy and the community all the while, before considering running for adminship. Have a great day! — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S14:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Sam, I noticed your warning on User talk:Thesunshinesate. The user has already been reported on WP:ANI. The section is here. Since they haven't edited after the warnings on their page as well as on ANI, it's perhaps as well to wait and see which way they'll go after all the attention, unless of course you have something new to add at the ANI discussion. (You may be interested to see that socking concerns have just been raised.) Bishonen | talk15:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC).
Sorry about that. I noticed the ANI notification just after I saved my comment. I intend to comment on the ANI thread as soon as I can. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S17:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You are autoconfirmed because you have made at least ten edits over a period of at least four days. Reviewer is a special permission that is granted to certain users that have requested it. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S14:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You can apply for the permission at WP:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. However, I'd recommend that you get more experience fighting vandalism, especially in actual articles, before applying for the permission so that your request has a better chance of being granted. Have a good day! — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S00:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
(Sorry for the delayed response, I was very busy.) Account creators are highly trusted users create accounts for other people who are unable to create accounts for themselves for technical reasons. Creating accounts for no reason is unadvisable, especially if you use them to edit, since it may lead to misunderstandings or even accusations of sock puppetry. However, there are legitimate uses for alternative accounts. Generally, though, it is not a good idea to create, or especially edit with, other accounts. Have a good day! — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S19:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello SamX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Stylishbritain/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is a new sandbox that might be submitted to AFC, let's give it some time to possibly improve. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak17:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
After a while, you learn to ignore it or, better yet, view it as a badge of merit. Some users even keep records of vandalism to their user or talk pages. (If vandals don't like you, you must be doing something good!) Anyway, it was probably just some random kid who got bored and felt like creating some trouble. (Of course, that doesn't make it acceptable.) — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S23:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I also wanted to let you know that I reverted an edit on the article called "Siege of Yorktown". I read an article about how to sort different kinds of IP addresses, telling me either it could be from a different continent, school, home, or something. (That I forgot.)Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
That info can be useful, although it is generally only used in sockpuppet investigations. However, it is considered standard practice to add banners to the top of shared IP talk pages that alert anyone who is attempting to contact someone using that IP that it is shared. Such tagging is often done with a program called Twinkle. Twinkle can also be used to quickly revert edits, post standardized messages on people's talk pages, nominate pages for deletion, and add maintenance tags to the tops of articles, among other things. It's a very useful all-around tool, and I highly recommend that you use it. To activate it, just follow these instructions. However, I'd recommend that you read all of this first. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S14:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Stumbled onto a new/proposed page you nixed [[2]]. A brand new academic center. But, it is being founded with a $26 million gift, and has a well-known architectural firm renovation a large, gothic revival building purchased for its use at the edge of the campus of the University of Chicago. All of this has received coverage in the press, the article has lots of valid links. I am puzzled to understand why the article was not acceptable.A.Jacobin (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@A.Jacobin: Thank you for your work on the article. You seem to have improved it a lot. The article was declined because the notability wasn't properly demonstrated by reliable sources and it was promotional in nature, but you seem to have fixed most of those issues, so there really isn't anything stopping the article from staying in the mainspace. If you have any more questions, feel free to post here on my talk page. Have a good day! — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S16:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Mention
I mentioned you as a experienced user on 1dfan2001 talk page. Along you, I also mentioned Crab rangoons, and Inter16. I have no idea who they are, but I've seen both of their contributions to Wikipedia, so I decided it was fine to use them.
My top icons are just images on Wikimedia commons; all you have to do is link to them. Guestbooks are just like any other page, but they usually have a brief message that says something along the lines of "Hello, this is my guestbook, add your name to the list below to sign it," followed by an ordered list of signatures. You can use my guestbook as a model for yours if you'd like. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S00:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Sam, and I have the same signature background like your signature! Thanks for letting me use your guestbook as a model! Could you post all your top icons for me? Allied Rangoon‧talk01:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I would like to apologise of editing the LVH academy. I was only talking about vandalism being done and simply not talking about myself vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairimacs (talk • contribs) 23:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Please don't make such edits in the future. Also, your talk page messages will be more likely to be seen if you post them at the bottom of the page. You can do that by clicking the "new section" tab at the top of the page. For more information on editing Wikipedia, see Help:Getting started. If you have any other questions or concerns, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Have a happy new year! — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S23:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Why do you assume to be the authorative god of the pedia? I.E.: who died made you God and decided the plebs (Us) have to live with it...?
look up, read headline. answer please.
I edited an article that was full of pap and you nixed it, twice...
Is there an army of pedia gurus who know better than the rest of us? Should we let incorrect facts stand?? Are you the arbiter of all knowledge???
Thanks for the note. I removed the image for a few reasons. For one thing, there is apparently some ambiguity over the occurrence of var. glauca on the eastern slopes of the Cascades in Washington. According to this source published by the Forest Service, "On the east side of the Cascades in Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir, on dry sites, grows in nearly pure stands." They are also known to occur in northeastern Washington, so it seems plausible that they may occur in between, on the eastern slopes of the central Cascades. Also, it could just be the lighting, but in this picture that you took of what appears to be the same tree, the foliage appears to be somewhat bluish, which is a characteristic typical of var glauca, but not of var. menziesii. Since, in my mind, the taxonomy of the tree was ambiguous, I decided to remove the image from the article. Have a good day. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S02:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
That is well-reasoned. However, I didn't see any mention of P. m. var glauca in Wenatchee National Forest, the location of the individual in my photograph, in the source you cite.[5] Moreover, the nearest collection of that subtaxon is northern Grant County.[6][7] On the other hand, P. m. var menziesii has been collected at two locations (south of Mt. Stuart and Beverly Creek) within a few kilometers of my photograph.[8]File:Pseudotsuga_menziesii_7456.JPG is the same individual (it looks the same and is within one arc-second and 20 feet elevation of the other). It doesn't look bluish to me, but the resolution is poor. I have a half dozen other images of this tree and a couple of other trees nearby. Unfortunately, I haven't found any macro images of the leaves of this tree. Anyhow, if you wish to remove this image because it is not a good illustration of the subtaxon, I will not object. Do you think images of young cultivated individuals are given undue weight in the article? I count five. Also, two of the cone images are from cultivated trees. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund(talk)07:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. IMHO, the picture that you took, along with other pictures in the article, illustrate the wide variety of habitats and growth forms that Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii can adapt to, so I think that it would be a good idea to leave that picture in the article. Instead, maybe something along the lines of "This particular individual occupies a habitat more typical of var. glauca" could be added to the image caption?
In response to your question about the pictures of cultivated trees, perhaps this picture or this one could be added to the article, since there aren't any pictures of the canopies of old-growth specimens growing in areas with high rainfall in the article. IMHO, the image that is currently in the infobox should probably not be the main image, since it exhibits a stunted growth habit that is not typical of var. menziesii. Thanks for taking such good pictures, by the way. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S01:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be slow responding. I made the changes you suggested and I'm thinking about the caption change. Your wording may be misleading because the depicted habitat is not atypical of the Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii habitat in much of Chelan, Kittitas and Yakima Counties where P. m. var. glauca is not found for the most part. That said, I agree that it is different that you find on the lower western slopes of the Cascade Range, or the lowlands. Thank you for your kind words. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund(talk)17:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APseudotsuga_menziesii_7971.JPG&diff=147254573&oldid=123291894){kind=link}
![[5]](http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=47.4213,-120.9256&z=13&t=T&marker0=47.4213,-120.9256,File%3APseudotsuga%20menziesii%207971.JPG){kind=link}
