User talk:Lumber Jack second account

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Timber treatment rewrite 2 Timber treatment 3 Revert 4 Wood preservation references

[edit] Timber treatment rewrite

Thanks for that, I'm glad that someone with more than cursory experience in wood preservation got to that article. I agree with your conclusions about the sodium silicate treatment hyperbole. --njh 23:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timber treatment

Thats a great rewrite. I just took out one sentance about the company in Florida because I don't think it was particularly relative. Tobes ^(talk) 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Thank you for experimenting with the page Wood preservation on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Pcbene 01:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

@PCbene;

Around 60% of the article Wood preservation comes from my college diploma project. From July the 3rd until 5th of this year, I posted one chapter of my project into this article. Since then I have edited and observed this article as well as it’s German counterpart Holzschutz.

I would like to make clear that:

* MY EDITS WERE NOT AN EXPERIMENT OR A TEST.

* I AM NOT A NEWCOMER

If you have the same excessive knowledge over Wood, Lumber, Chemicals, Preservation and Construction as I do, then I am willing to discuss your revert, otherwise please except my revert of the article to the stance of my last edit.

I would advise you:

• to research who has edited an article in the last year.
• to discuss a revert beforehand.
• and edit mistakes in a article before / rather than reverting.

After all, reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly

Thank you for your understanding

Dear Lumber Jack, I apologize for the confusion. I have reviewed my revert and determined it was indeed unnecessary. It is possible I mistook the edit as unnecessary, or simply encountered a bug in the vandalism program I was using. Regardless, I am indeed sorry. However, I am a bit unsettled by the intensity of your complaint. For one thing, the template I used, {{test1}}, is a generic message used in instances when the edits were minor (which, in this case, they were), or when the classification of the edit as vandalism may be questionable (which, as in this case, it was). No offense was meant by the message, and most certainly no personal insult. I do understand that reverting in not a decision which should be taken lightly. Sorry for the confusion, and thank you for bringing this to my attention. Pcbene 03:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear PCbene, thank you for your mail. I to apologize if I sounded a bit too harsh on Friday, but the article Wood preservation (and its German counterpart) regularly gets vandalized by people trying to sell their newest product. Thus often the contributions are useless or one-sided (which makes me frustrated). As of my last edit, I sorted the chapters in the right position and changed the content somewhat. Someday I’ll find time to complete the article with all relevant preservatives and upload a few photos.

But until then, Cheers --Lumber Jack 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wood preservation references

The wood preservation article is now very strong, but it would be better if it had good references. Since you have already done research in this area, maybe you have a collection of references on this subject you can use to support the article. Anyway, the article looks great. ike9898 20:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the information I translated from the German. I can try to get some References.