User talk:Wsiegmund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive 13 or later. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Because of length, some discussions on this page have been archived. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page and User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo.

Previous discussions:

• 2005.09.22 Sitka Spruce range and upper/lower case common names
• 2005.12.31 Wsiegmund/Archive01
• 2006.03.01 Wsiegmund/Archive02
• 2006.09.01 Wsiegmund/Archive03
• 2006.10.01 Wsiegmund/Archive04
• 2006.11.01 Wsiegmund/Archive05
• 2006.12.01 Wsiegmund/Archive06
• 2007.01.01 Wsiegmund/Archive07
• 2007.02.01 Wsiegmund/Archive08
• 2007.03.01 Wsiegmund/Archive09
• 2007.06.01 Wsiegmund/Archive10
• 2007.10.01 Wsiegmund/Archive11
• 2008.11.01 Wsiegmund/Archive12
• 2009.01.01 Wsiegmund/Archive13

---

Contents 1 DYK for Mount Triumph 2 Canoe 3 Request to participate in University of Washington survey based on ideas gathered during the Wikipedia focus group you were invited to attend 4 Three Chute Falls 5 Photo request: Alaska Airlines headquarters 6 RE: American Beaver

[edit] DYK for Mount Triumph

On 26 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mount Triumph, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Canoe

Hello. I came across this article reverting vandalism from the recent changes page. The vandalism inserted was a silly (in my opinion) edit re: the origin of the canoe. Before reverting I checked the article and found information contradicting the editors addition, so I reverted. The information in the article on the oldest canoes was marked with a "citation" tag, so to be safe I googled the info and found a reliable source (again, my opinion) on the very first page of the search. After editing the cite in I noticed that my source was already listed in the external links section of the article. Now curious, I checked into the edit history of the page and found that an anon IP had gone through and marked the article with more than a dozen "citation" tags. This edit summary gives me the impression that the anon editor had some axe to grind with the article. They state "RS should be easy to find!!!!!"...and they were indeed correct. The external links contained them. Most of the other citation tags are attached to very mundane and non-controversial facts in the article. I will be copying most of this post to the article talk page, but I am coming here as you are the editor that add the improve ref tag. Would you object to the removal of the tag? I will be going through the remainder of the citation tags individually, but with the exception of one or two I don't believe they're necessary. I'm not taking issue with your adding the tag at all. I just want your feed back on the issue. Thanks Tiderolls 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page. Deleting the citation tags is fine with me. More use of in-line citations would help the article, I think, but I'm not an active editor of the article so I don't object to the removal of the improve ref tag. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request to participate in University of Washington survey based on ideas gathered during the Wikipedia focus group you were invited to attend

Hello. Back in March, you expressed interest in attending our Wikipedia focus group sessions but were unable to attend. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you.

To take the survey, click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Thank you for your interest in our research! Commprac01 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Three Chute Falls

I have nominated your picture of Three Chute Falls to become a Featured picture. Click23 (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words of your nomination. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know those guys are tough, but with the only opposition that it is not sharp enough is a complement to your work. Click23 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't participated in enwiki FP for a year or more. It seems much the same. I appreciate your comments and it is always a pleasure to see my images used by other editors. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have been to Bandelier National Monument, what a interesting place. I stopped by there last year while I was visiting Cimarron, NM. I would move out there if my wife would let me. Click23 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Photo request: Alaska Airlines headquarters

Hi! Do you have time to photograph the Alaska Airlines headquarters by SeaTac airport? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can try to do that in the next few months. It appears to be badly obscured by horticultural plantings so I'm not sure that a decent image from the ground can be obtained.[1] Someone with a wideangle lens may be more successful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You could try parking in the lot and seeing if you can get a good shot of the building itself; if the building has Alaska markings on it, then it will be sufficient. If not, the horticulture will be more of a challenge (as you'll have to include the sign in with the building) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RE: American Beaver

Thanks for your comments. I disagree that his comments cannot be interpreted as a personal attack, if not a gross hyperreaction, since H. first removed my refactoring of my support despite edit summary (which I believe is very improper), and his subsequent comments arguably painted me as someone who is falsifying the discussion thread when clearly I did not. This also has the potential effect of discrediting the argument by discrediting the editor. H. then harped about it at the admin notice board, but continued to maintain that I falsified the thread, even when another administrator first suggested H. "let it go". Nonetheless, under insipid/juvenile threat there of being blocked for disruption, which gives me pause about the decision-making abilities of said administrators, I have withdrawn from the discussion, and will hereafter avoid said administrators and unpleasantness. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm relieved that you are both putting the matter behind you. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)