User talk:WWB/2006

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, WWB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --TeaDrinker 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Blunt[edit]

I was somewhat confused by the edit summary you left. I could find no talk page for CREW (a disambiguation page) or Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Just somewhat confused... --TeaDrinker 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TeaDrinker -- The talk page referred to the Blunt discussion page, where it looks like some people wanted to remove CREW's link entirely. That didn't seem right to me, but it was worth noting that it is a critical outfit, so I added the term "left-leaning," which gets the point across simply. --WWB 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy and thanks for the note... It appears I had simply misread the edit summary--thinking it refered to refered to the CREW talk page rather than Blunt's... When those talk pages did not exist, I was simply confused. Just me being obtuse. Keep up the good work. --TeaDrinker 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking in size of Forest Park (Portland)[edit]

You recently deleted the reference to the Portland Tribune's "Forest Park Fallacy" article, saying the ranking is not disputed. Could you please say a bit more (on Talk:Forest Park (Portland)), since at least on the face of it the Tribune disagrees. Thanks, --ScottMainwaring 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first reason I took it out was because the sentence was not appropriate to an encyclopedia entry. Looking back at the page again, I now see that the page cites it as the largest "urban forest," and at first I did not think it did. What is not in dispute is that Forest Park is NOT the largest forested park in the country (as the Tribune story notes). So the information in my deleted sentence was fine (and I'm now inclined to alter the top sentence) but the style was off. I'll give you a chance to reply before making that re-edit, just in case there's further disagreement (or confusion). Thanks for following up. --WWB 19:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]