Talk:Tree That Owns Itself

message: You might want to cite 4-5 items in the article via footnotes.  I'll put up the GA then. Deckiller 00:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe these issues have been corrected and I have renominated the article. :bloodofox: 15:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: This page has been dugg. Watch out for the vandals!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.245.142 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: The story behind The Tree that Owns Itself is largely legend. No such deed was ever recorded in Athens/Clarke County -- and, if there had been, it would almost certainly not be recognized as valid. Also, I seem to recall reading that no one named Jackson ever owned the property in question. In my mind, the really wonderful part of the story is that, in spite of this, no one has ever formally questioned the tree's supposed ownership of the land.  PurpleChez 17 April 2006 1:40PM
:This has become apparent to me as well and yet I hadn't gotten around to clarifying this myself. I appreciate you taking the time to restructure the article to reflect this. :bloodofox: 07:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've enjoyed doing it. I'm a local history geek. Did you take the pictures that appear in the article? They are great! The heavy blue-green color captures the feeling you get in that neighborhood when everything is nice and leafy. I was by the tree last Saturday (21 Oct) and acorns were falling like rain. I've got about fifty in soil at home, and a bowlful leftover, some of which are sprouting in the open air. Although I recognize that the tree cannot legally own anything, I loved getting an email yesterday from an office of the city-county gov't stating (as now cited in the article) that it is Athens' stated position that the tree does in fact own itself. It's a fun story. And, of course, it ties into lots of nice ecology imagery too. PurpleChez 13:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did take the photos in the article. Thank you! I wish photos existed of the original tree, I would really have liked to have seen it. I also quite like the tree as a symbol - I'm surprised that local ecology groups haven't grabbed ahold of it or celebrated it more. Or maybe they have and that's why it has become so popularized. Either way, you've done an excellent job of shaping this article up and, thanks to your contributions, it may be time to nominate it as a GA again. :bloodofox: 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've run across one old photo supposedly of the original tree. It was HUGE. I'll have to check to see about the legalities of uploading a photo that old. (The photo may be 100 years old, but does the author or publisher of the 5-year-old coffee table book it's included in have any claim to it?)PurpleChez 14:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I'd love to see that. If the photograph is over 100 years old, it's public domain. So, if you can get a scan of the photograph itself, that would compliment this article very well. :bloodofox: 02:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legend

message: Has this image been digitally altered? The text appears suprisingly clear and the metadata notes Adobe Photoshop use (where as the other picture by Bloodofox has the camera metadata). If it has been digitally altered please note it at least in the image summary. I originally thought the picture (and by extension the article) was a hoax although now I realize that is not the case.  Cedars 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This image was simply resized and grayscaled by myself in Photoshop with possible level adjusting, there was no digital retouching - I will take that as a compliment! :} :bloodofox: 01:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be the level addjusting that caught my eye. Sorry to bother you. Cedars 06:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for an apology - I'm glad people are seeing it! :bloodofox: 06:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's a great picture! The lettering is so crisp it almost does look like it was photoshopped, although I can vouch for the fact that it wasn't.PurpleChez 15:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Is the tree's official name Tree That Owns Itself or Tree that Owns Itself? This is not consistent throughout the article and should definitely be addressed. -- Kicking222 20:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose "Tree That Owns Itself" would be correct. I'll go through it and fix it. :bloodofox: 06:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I have corrected all instances of this. If not, please feel free to. :bloodofox: 06:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: That or that?

message: I have found NO evidence to support the statement that the tree was "attacked" by salt-dumping vandals from "a rival school" in November, and I find this statement extremely suspect. I recall nothing from the local media and have found no mentions of this online. I also find the "rival school" citation to be shady: a rival to who? UGA? Clarke Central High? I will look into this, but I am suspicious. PurpleChez 04:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This also sounds really suspect to me, I would not be surprised if it were simple vandalism. :bloodofox: 22:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have since deleted this claim. :bloodofox: 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Salt-dumping vandals

message: Please note that it is necessary to put a ref name in quotes (e.g. <ref name="ref name">) only when it consists of multiple words. Thus I almost always use single word names, acronyms, etc. PurpleChez 03:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still finding people going through the trouble of wading through articles in order to "fix" perfectly good reference tags by adding quotation marks to the reference names. THIS ISN'T NECESSARY. PurpleChez 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote format

message: This page just hit the front page on Digg.--132.170.29.154 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prepare for Vandalism

message: The book Should Trees Have Standing  would be a good reference for this page; it's on environmental law and the title essay is on rights for natural objects.  76.226.169.102 (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Should trees have standing" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Tree That Owns Itself. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724055155/http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/athens/TREE.htm to http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/athens/TREE.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810090041/http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/athens/DEARINGS.htm to http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/athens/DEARINGS.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040401032007/http://excursia.com/destinations/USA/GA/athens/stories/20010406/att_tree.shtml to http://excursia.com/destinations/USA/GA/athens/stories/20010406/att_tree.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509215727/http://www.letsgo.com/articles/view.php?article=north_america%2Flocal%2Ftree.xml to http://www.letsgo.com/articles/view.php?article=north_america%2Flocal%2Ftree.xml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060205141332/http://www.athensclarkecounty.com/tour/tour10.htm to http://www.athensclarkecounty.com/tour/tour10.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article has been tagged for a GA Request. Overall it is a very nice little article. Unfortunately there are a few citation needed tags, but I think if those get cleaned up there would be no need to conduct a reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears the article is up to standard as of the addition of Infobox. No apparent cleanup needed to warrant delisting. Tag has been removed. --Nemoschool (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Request 

message: Why does this article not have an infobox?  seems like it world work great for this article as it does for Tree That Owns Itself (Alabama) (also see example). I would add the infobox myself, but I don't want to impact the articles GA status. I personally believe the infobox will only enhance the article, but please let me know if you believe otherwise. I even thing the section "Son of The Tree That Owns Itself" should have it's own infobox. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that an infobox is needed. --Nessie (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Infobox