Talk:Pulaski (tool)

Free picture

I did a hunt on Google for a gov't picture but had no luck.--Knife Knut 00:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a NPS photo that I can put up but it's not that good. I'll see if I can dig up a good photo and post it. Kaibabsquirrel 02:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

you guys did not say anything about a hazel hoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.3.120 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

that would be an adze i think Clinchfield (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Image — dangerous use

The image shows dangerous use -- at least unpaid volunteers are not allowed to utilize the tool in any way that has the tool over one's head. It's trivial, but it also does not show a good example of the tool so if anyone has a replacement, I would vote to have the existing photograph swapped out with something else. Damotclese (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made a note of this in the caption. Feezo (Talk) 23:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a start. }:-} When fire crews are utilizing them, they're usually grubbing out a fire line close to the ground, wearing gloves, helmets, goggles, all that PPE that are required. Actully looking at the Wiki entry it looks like the whole article could use some additional examples of how the tool is used in the real world. Forest Service trail workers (paid employees or volunteers) utilize the tool a lot, of course. Maybe I should add some field usage text referenced to Forest Service web pages. Damotclese (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Adze vs hoe vs mattock

Is adze really an accurate description of the hoe end? My understanding is that an adze is specifically designed for shaving layers of wood, while the hoe end of a pulaski is designed for... hoeing. The article used to use the word mattock, which is very similar to a pulaski, and it's wiki page also says the hoe end is an adze, which i also disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newellshk (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Museum exhibits - 1 or 2?

Zackmann08, I merely read the cited sources logically, and reworded the info with grammar; no OP. The only PROMO I am supporting is fact and readable grammar. 7&6=thirteen made a bit of a mess with his good but sloppy contributions, and what he left was nearly unintelligible, and what was understandable was factually incorrect. But if you prefer the nonsense that now lies there, I guess that is your prerogative. Sadsaque (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Copy edited. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sadsaque (talk) I did not get to see the proposed changes that you made, would you please post them in Talk:: here so that I can see them? If there are factually incorrect things in this page, I would like to have them corrected. If Zackmann08 reverted legitimate corrections, let's step through them and adopt those with suitable references and citations, please. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The changes are the last 2 in history. The cites were existing. Sadsaque (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)