- No, this is not an "unconstructive edit". I was the original editor of the paragraph in question. For some reason, a mistaken editor has changed my "forest-unfriendly" to "forest-friendly" (which is wrong)... Check the history... Please leave my edit in place. 96.231.137.242 (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
NOTE: Your history makes it hard to tell at first glance, which makes it hard to judge, but it appears the issue is a content dispute at Canaan Valley. This appears not to be vandalism, as I and several other vandal fighters first thought. 96.231.137.242, can you source some information/references that show you are right about your contention that the climate 75,000 years ago made the valley unfriendly to forests? Cool and moist environments are usually good for forests, so it looks like you are wrong on the face of it. I for one will not revert you further, and will remove your warning if you can come up with anything proving your statement. Currently you have no references, which is why you keep getting reverted. Yours in good faith, Jusdafax 02:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks. My source for this info was the film already in the Ref section: Freshwater Institute and West Virginia Audubon Council (n.d. [but 1980s]), The Canaan Valley: A National Treasure, 12 minute educational film. Difficult to check, I know, but that is where it came from.... 96.231.137.242 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
- As far as "on the face of it": During the last Glacial Maximum, the climate in the Canaan Valley was tundra-like... Treeless... So, it does make sense... 96.231.137.242 (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Ok, I'm pulling the warning I gave you. You might put something of that in the text as well. Suggest contacting the other editors to remove warnings. Best wishes, Jusdafax 03:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
