Talk:Forest swastika

message: Can the picture be precisely dated? Circeus 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source I got it from was the second reference listed . I suppose that you could send an e-mail request for information on the photograph, but I presume that it was taken at some point in 2000 during the period of the year that it was visible. GeeJo (t) (c) • 16:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image was taken on November 14, 2000 according to , who had it on display already on June 18, 2001. Lupo 11:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of the image 

message: Does anyone think the source itself is jumping to conclusions regarding this second forest swastika? Just looking over the wiki page on the swastika you'll see that it was a popular religous symbol in that part of the world well before it was used by the nazis and that in it's original form it wasn't tilted 45 degrees and was reversed from the nazi version, which is exactly how the sourced article described the 2nd forest swastika.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.162.151 (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I've looked in here because I wondered exactly the same thing.  The first sentence alone caused me to think that the NYT had reported on something which didn't actually exist.  But then we're given the dimensions of it.  Does it mean rather that some of the facts in the NYT article are inaccurate?  It needs some clarification, i.e. if something in the NYT article is amiss we need to be told what - otherwise the "falsely" is just left hanging there without explanation, and leads the reader to ask where falsity enters into the equation. Draggleduck (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The edit history shows that the word "falsely" was added here as vandalism, now reverted. --Lexein (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forest Swastika in Eki Naryn 

message: It's a nice article, but due to length issues, I don't really see this as being good article material. I'm delisting the article for now, and if there are comments, please respond here or at my user talk page. Nishkid64 19:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah well, it was nice while it lasted :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting as GA 

message: I'm changing the size listed in the article. 60 m2 is a square with sides only about 7.75 meters long, and that seems awfully small, so I checked the sizes listed for the Brandenburg swastika in the sources used in the article:
Source                                    	Size given         	Area        	In m2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/                    	"20 metres square" 	400 m2      	400 m2
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ (Google cache)	"60 sq yd"         	60 sq yd    	50m2
http://archives.cnn.com/                  	"200-by-200-foot"  	40,000 sq ft	3,716 m2
http://www.berlinonline.de/               	"3600 square Meter"	3,600 m2    	3,600 m2
The most likely number I can see from this is 3,600-3,700 m2, so I'm updating the article with 3,600 m2. WODUP 01:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 60 m is the dimension that makes sense here. As usual people get confused by square-meters and meters-square. Looking at the picture and the number of trees and the size one would expect for an average larch, the size would be about 60 by 60 meters, or 3600 m^2. (So the Telegraph meant 60 yards square) :)1812ahill (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: There was an article in National Geographic on this back in the 80s, in case anyone wants to look it up. Tarkaan (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Geographic 

message: I tagged this unsourced statement with the  tag:
"History
It is unclear how the trees came to be planted and arranged in such a fashion. It has been suggested by whom? that it was laid out in 1937 by locals. . ."
As you can see, I used the wrong brackets. The article won't allow me to change it, saying that it can only be edited "In source mode". However, I don't know what that means and there's nothing to be found by searching "WP: source mode". Help? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this edit get what you wanted?  BTW, you can turn off the visual editor.  I find it just gets in my way, at least in its current state.  To turn it off, go to Preferences / Gadgets and tick "Remove VisualEditor from the user interface". TJRC (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly so, and thank you for your tip. I was caught unaware by these WP changes. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannot correct a boo-boo 

message: Something failed: typically its possible  to determine age precisely by counting tree-rings. But nothing mentioned about that and nothing about age at all. --Itu (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but still not said how they found out. --Itu (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How old 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Forest swastika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130723054843/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2000/WORLD/europe/12/04/germany.swastika.reut/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/12/04/germany.swastika.reut/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071027110415/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/11/30/wtree30.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/11/30/wtree30.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified