Jordanedwardmitchell

Edit to Whitewater Falls

Wncoutdoors: With respect to your edit to Whitewater Falls, I understand the distinction that you are making between Whitewater Falls and Crabtree Falls based upon visible drop. Can the same be said with respect to the other three waterfalls that are taller than Whitewater Falls? In other words, the visibile portion of any one of the following three waterfalls could be taller than the visible portion of Whitewater Falls.

• Amicalola Falls, Georgia - 222 m (729 ft)
• Cascade Falls, Georgia - 183 m (600 ft) cascade with 3 drops, the tallest of which is 80 m (262 ft).
• Cochrans Falls, Georgia - 183 m (600 ft) cascade.

I honestly don't know the answer to this question, so I have marked your statement in Whitewater Falls as one that needs a supporting citation.--Tlmclain | Talk 21:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It was a mostly mindless edit. I remember reading that somewhere, but I can't remember where or when. Hopefully I or someone else can find it again and cite it properly. The reason I believe it to be true is that Whitewater Falls is on a larger stream than the others, which means there is no tree canopy over it, which means it's easily visible from a distant location, year-round, and you can (while standing in one spot) see the entire falls, top to bottom. This is clearly not true of the waterfalls you mentioned based on theier photographs. They look like a series of cascades rather than one "waterfall" per se. At any given point, you can't see the entire "falls". In fact, under those criteria, I can think of some streams in Western NC that are a near continuous drop or series of drops for easily 1000 vertical feet or greater. But I wouldn't call them a "waterfall".

At any rate, waterfall "height" is somewhat subjective and it's hard to avoid weasel words when talking about them. Wncoutdoors 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wncoutdoors: I very much agree with your observations about waterfalls in general, particularly when it comes to cascading waterfalls, which are sometimes just a steep streambed. I also have seen people get all tied up with a distinction between highest and tallest. With respect to the waterfalls in question, all I have done is look at photos and really have no idea which waterfall can claim the tallest "visible" drop. By the way, someone marked your entry Cullasaja falls as unsourced, so I spent a little time on the article - I hope I didn't mess it up.--Tlmclain | Talk 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Did I actually save that? I have to stop editing while I'm midless at work. Looks good! Wncoutdoors 18:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the Whitewater Falls page and basically included information about the eternal "height" argument. 5minutes 12:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Waterfalls in General

I see you've posted some more waterfalls. Thanks! I've been working on trying to get as many of North Carolina's waterfalls a) listed; and b) brought into the format and template of the Waterfall WikiProject. I appreciate your help and look forward to working with you more in the future.

At some point, I'd love to get an article together on Waterfalls of North Carolina. Probably couldn't be as good or informative as Rich's site or Kevin's book, but dangit: we've got tons of them here, and it's a shame that so few people know. Again, thanks! 5minutes 12:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep adding info about the ones I know. Can't speak for the templates though...I have enough languages to learn, and WikiMarkup seems to be one of the more annoying ones so I stay away from it and stick in mainly just text.

That's cool! I'll try and go back to add the template info. Do you have any photos that you'd be willing to upload? I've not been able to make it to the mountains much this year. 5minutes 01:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your post

You got it mostly right. Using equal signs before and after items makes them stand out (and adding 4 tildes at the end "signs" your post - see mine at the end). Thanks for your contributions! 5minutes (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Waterfall on West Prong Hickey Fork

The article Waterfall on West Prong Hickey Fork has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be non-notable waterfall. No references can be found. Great picture, though, which was added to Pisgah National Forest page.

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.

Note: I think the waterfall articles you are adding are great, however, this one just didn't seem to meet the notability standards of a wiki article. If you want the article to be kept, you should add some kind of reference, from either a website or a book. That will show people that these waterfalls have "coverage" and are indeed notable. Once that is done, I think you are allowed to remove the "prod" tag. Otherwise, an admin will decide whether to delete the article or not.

Also, don't forget to bold the name of the article in the first sentence using ''' ''' and add wikilinks to your article using [[ ]]. Danski14^(talk) 15:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Some improvements were made and the deletion tag was removed. Keep up the good work! Danski14^(talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Glad all that happened while I wasn't looking.

Your user name

Hi :) I don't want this to sound affronting, but your user name apparently represents or is too similar to the name of an organisation called WNC Outdoors. You should read our allowed user name policy, especially on company names. In short, promotional user names are not allowed on Wikipedia. Given that, might I request you to consider changing your name to avoid future problems? In case you believe this request is not in order, you could reply to me out here, or on my talk page, giving reasons why. I do hope you enjoy your stay in Wikipedia and that this particular message in no way reduces your enjoyment of editing and adding to the information we have. Cheers and best, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 11:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, myself and the organization are one in the same. I just used it out of habit because it's what I use for everything. I've submitted the change request through the proper channels.

Update: Changed!

File permission problem with File:Cedar rock creek falls.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cedar rock creek falls.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 03:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Rainbowfalls horsepasture.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Rainbowfalls horsepasture.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)