User talk:Lumber Jack second account

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[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.

[edit] Hi

I notice on Schuminwebs talk page you aren't happy with his deletion of your article. I'm putting together a petition to try and reform this places article deletion policy and cut some of the red tape rampant here. Are you in? Johnjoecavanagh 15:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You've got my signiture. --Lumber Jack second account 20:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We could probably spread the word if you put it in your userpage somewhere - Its hard getting the word spread, but once it does we can get enough support to really look for change around here. Johnjoecavanagh 22:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Lehrgeruest meyers2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lehrgeruest meyers2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Even though it has a licence in the German version of Wikipedia apparently that's not enough, na bitte frust pur

--Lumber Jack second account 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project CityCenter

Would you please uplod your picture to Commons. We could use the picture in wikipedia articles about the Project CityCenter in other countrys. --Dany3000 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

All there and a couple more, plus a overhaul of the article
---Lumber Jack- 15:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In January I only translated the English version. Updating with such an article is actually an issue. Thanks for your message: I will be gradually improving the Franch version according to theEnglish one. Regards. Jpm2112 20:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Done Jpm2112 10:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Merci---Lumber Jack- 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)