User talk:The Real Luke Skywalker

Editing Sequoia_sempervirens horticultural details...
You did some edits here on this part of the topic., I was hoping to have your input. For instance, I can observe roots 100' in length (or more) from my window, so I know they're possible... But I'm not sure of a reference. I was wondering if you'd had any horticultural resources... A big section was just copy pasted from a source without quoting (it wasn't a good source) so if you'd like to help put something in... 76.21.107.77 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is only one tree near the roots you can see, they may go 100 ft.. Although, that's not very common across most species growing urban, or even rural. At least cities near and surrounding the range of both large redwood species. I worked with trees for decades, including several country clubs with hundreds o acres and thousands of trees. And there is nothing I recall where I could take somebody to point and say "look, roots over 100 ft. long". But the main point, and I've looked ... I can't find a solid reference validating coast redwood or giant sequoia roots out in the several hundred ft. range. I forget the link, but on Douglas Fir (I think) someone put something radioactive that they used to trace carbon sharing through root travel. Different angle, but that path might lead to something of use. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

December 2017
Your recent editing history at Sequoiadendron giganteum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I only reverted a revert one time, then apparently I should be safe to to do it one more time safely. Because my first edit put the giant sequoia page into alignment with the facts on the coast redwood page about size comparison between the two species. I did start a heading under the talk page as you suggested, but it also looks like I'm safe to revert one more time as well according to what you wrote. What you wrote, denotes no editing war has taken place yet.. Cheer, TRLS The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit is placing undo weight on one single tree when as a species Sequoiadendron giganteum is recorded in reliable sources as larger.-- Kev min  § 15:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well no, the contrary is opposite if you consider Wikipedia as somewhat reliable. Wiki's own coast redwood page and other reliable resources state coast redwoods reach 41,000 to 42,000 cubic feet. Take a look at the coast redwood on this page link. CAn you honestly say that giant sequoias (plural and all-inclusive) are larger than the tree in the photo? >> http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_grogans_fault.shtml The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If any resource of all kinds only present 12 individual giant sequoias in the world bigger than that, then it's purely impossible that giant sequoia, as a general statement, are the largest trees (plural). So I'm allowing credibility within Wikipedia's own pages. Within that framework, the giant sequoia page holds a big factual problem that can easily be corrected by an omission, a sentence or a paragraph. Related, there's plenty of literature, etc., related to these sizes of coast redwoods. And the 42,000 cu. ft. Lost Monarch coast redwood was discovered by Dr. Sillett of Humboldt State Univ. He's the same guy that climbed the largest giant sequoias and measured them, as well as the coast redwoods. There's, books, articles and videos related to each of these. So the cooast redwood and giant sequoia sizes are pretty much verified completely. Nat Geo did a couple of magazine articles, but named giant sequoias and skipped the name of coast redwood, so those articles wouldn't be completely useful. Anyway, that's for chiming in.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3RR is not an entitlement to revert 3 times, hence why I issued the warning before it got to that point.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grogan's Fault


The article Grogan's Fault has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This article is an attempt to promote the single source's website and professional credentials. This may turn out to be verifiable, but right now, there is no reliable published source with this information. Only one source to article information is that business blog post."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 2602:306:CD1E:44B0:7D32:7D06:B9E8:AE64 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What you wrote is certainly speculation, because we don't have a clue to who first formed this article about Grogan's Fault (unless you can trace their profile). It's doubtful it was any of the references. So any attempt was probably an attempt for a page on a single tree. But I agree it may as well be deleted because it seems making the page was of no benefit to begin with. Whoever first started it may have just had extra time on their hands. So unless someone else has a better reason to keep it, feel free to remove it. The deletion will probably be an improvement.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * PS - There's several news articles, etc., covering this tree. I still think a page deletion may make sense, but FWIW, the following website is managed by a researcher Dr. Earle and is considered a top-level authority site. It's above news on the totem pole of references. His coast redwood page down under "BIG TREE" refers to this discovery and names it as "Grogan's Fault" in the second paragraph under that heading >>>> http://www.conifers.org/cu/Sequoia.php The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not worth anything. You keep quoting this website, but it says explicitly on it that the information is from the mdvaden website. Please read what you are reading. --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:F842:9971:6DAD:1A87 (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never quoted Dr. Earles page before in this context. Conifers DOT ORG is pretty much the authority on conifers. Coast redwood is a conifer. If Dr. Earle says Grogan's Fault exists, then it exists. But his website is not connected to any other I recall us discussing.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's worth keeping in mind, that just because Dr. Earle mentions a reference, does not mean a reference is all he's aware of. Dr. Earle personally visits trees, documents them and talks face to face with researchers and others. He will add notes. But nothing goes to his pages that are not verified. Cheers.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take your personal word on his website verifiability to use his sources in Wikipedia in the future. Do you have a policy or guideline page I can quote, "Template:Real Luke says his stuff is good, so we can use it on Wikipedia?" Can I quote you on my next college paper, "Red-linked Wikipedia editor The Real Luke Skywalker tells me that Dr. Earle personally visits trees and talks to researchers and others," and, although he doesn't publish anything officially Real Luke assures me that "nothing goes to his pages that are not verified." --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:F842:9971:6DAD:1A87 (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can't find a basis for Earle's conifers.org on your own, it will be easier for me to initiate conversations on article talks to omit content with other sources. For example, American Forests is internationally recognized, but their coast redwood page has the wrong photo. Unlike Earle's which is spot on. So if it's more complex than you care to manage, in the New Year we can recruit a couple others to sort through resources and facts in several tree related topics. Aside from conifers.org, there Dr. Robert Van Pelt the scientist who wrote Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast. Using Van Pelt may be an easier angle for verifiability, although for other trees like Lost Monarch or other species since his book predates new discoveries of the past few years. As for this Grogan's Fault page ... it's pretty easy. With or without a resource, it has not need for a solo page. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for a basis, and certainly your personal opinion plays no part; but since you seemed to think it was needed, it puts the website in even more doubt. You can go to all the article talk pages you want and offer your opinion on a scientist. Enjoy. --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:F842:9971:6DAD:1A87 (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Grogan's Fault while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Not sure whether you are the same person as User:96.39.163.157 ? —hike395 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)