User talk:Bradluke22

Volume of the Lost Monarch

It's me again. Where have you found that the volume of the Lost Monarch is 42,500 cubic inches? Preston's book says at least 40,000. Krasanen (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got it.Krasanen (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope I'm doing this correctly. Have you tried Dr. Van Pelt's book Forest Giants of the Pacific Northwest? I have corresponded with Dr Steve Sillett on this very issue. The Lost Monarch is a tricky tree in that it is "multi-stemmed" ...so proponents of its largest volume like its discovers, consistently print the larger volume without any rationale for including multi-stemmed trees in what has traditionally been a volume measurement of single stemmed trees. Thus the Lost Monarch has 2 separate volume measurements...it really depends on whether you believe multi-stemmed trees should be included in a list of volume champions. The traditional volume of the Lost Monarch is approximately 35,000 cu/ft however Dr. Stillett asserts the following "The two largest living redwoods (by volume) are ~42,500 and 39,100 cubic feet. They have been given the nicknames Lost Monarch and Melkor...In terms of global ranking, the largest living redwood is smaller than at least 7 living giant sequoias. The second largest redwood is smaller than at least 13 giant sequoias. There are records of redwoods cut in the late 19th and early 20th century larger than the largest living giant sequoias, but that is now mythology and there is no way to verify these claims." So as you can see he believes multi-stemmed entities should be included, however Dr. Van Pelt in his book uses the lower figure counting only a single stem in his calculations. AfterSeven (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sequoias (54).jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Sequoias (54).jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Evans Grove

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Evans Grove, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No notability, basically orphaned

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Tomdobb (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top 40 Sequoia

Hi, Bradluke. Not sure what you meant: were you asking what top 40 are in my edition of Wendell's book, or which trees I have actually visited? Thanks! hike395 (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which you have seen? Boole22 (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been quite a number of years (10+) since I've been over to Sequoia, but as I recall, I've been to General Sherman, General Grant, President, Lincoln, either Roosevelt or Hart (can't remember which), and Agassiz (I think). Redwood Mountain Grove is my favorite grove. hike395 (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Accessd 12 March 2009" question

Dear Bradluke22, When we put in a reference or other link into the article (like Adam(tree)) to an Internet webpage or website, Wikipedia recommends adding the date-it is not required but helps to show how old the link is, as the webpage may no longer be there anymore. So it means that is the date I found the information (online) that I put into the Wikipedia article. Understand? I'm poor at explaining things in written form...hope this helps. Feel free to ask if you need more/better explanation, Wikipedia has a huge help file Marcia Wright (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Bradluke22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Marcia Wright (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

groves

Groves should go in sections of the forests article and not have its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habanero-tan (talk • contribs)

Citing sources

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bradluke- The link just above from Mgiganteus1 will take you to the guidance on citing sources. Eric ^talk 14:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Indian Basin Grove

The article Indian Basin Grove has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Your addition to Matthew Perry.jpg has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:King Arthur.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:King Arthur.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kaldari (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln vs Lincoln Redwood Tree.jpg

This is to inform you that I have renamed the file Lincoln.jpg to a new name File:Lincoln Redwood Tree.jpg to differentiate it with the real US president. so you can do your changes on the new page. -- Ðℬig XЯaɣ 06:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]