Talk:Cordwood construction

message: Someone added this link for the Natural Building Network. It got reverted as link spam, so I checked it out. In my view (and I am into natural building) it is an excellent resource. By this, I mean that anyone seeking to learn more about natural building would find this link informative. For example the site has a "Comparison of Natural Building Techniques" by Michael Smith that is one of the best compendiums I've seen. Given the state of the natural building field (new and rapidly growing), there is a need for good information about it. This link is a valuable addition, IMO and I would like to keep it unless there are compelling reasons for its removal. Comments? Sunray 00:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing this post quite belatedly, but here's why I deleted the link: if you look at the edit history of the guy who added it, you'll see that it was indeed a spam link, even if it did have good content.  Besides, under WP:EL, good, relevant content should be rewritten and added to the article, not added as a link, except in the (rare) case of good content that somehow doesn't belong in the article.  I know, this isn't always practical, but it is the ideal (and it's policy).  Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 00:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link for Natural Building Network

message: It seem like the sustainability of cord wood doesn't have much going for it.  I wonder if it's worth the time and effort besides aesthetics reasons? QueenMonarch 01:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does have a lot going for it in terms of expense, and it's actually a better use of wood than log homes, in my opinion. Of course, that is just an opinion. :) --Kickstart70-T-C 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sounds pretty cool

message: I just spent (too much) time doing a decent references and notes cleanup, but I see that a number of the references at the end of the article are not cited from the article content. Does anyone know where these could be connected? Otherwise, they should probably be removed, even if they are good resources, as per WP policy of references used as cites whenever possible.
I also removed the reference to the 'cordwoodguy' website. This was a difficult choice, but there have been so many factual errors discussed regarding his information over at other internet discussion forums, I think it's prudent. --Kickstart70-T-C 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page and references cleanup

message: Hello Wikipedia editors,
I have just cleaned up approximately 60% of the page adding tags such as , and fixing grammar and styling. However, there are some more notes that still exist on this page. Here they are.
1. Beginning- as you may see in the top section, there is a banner stating that the opening statement may not accurately/sufficiently cover the entire article. I may need help with this section, as the information needs to fit accordingly, with not too many words but not too little.
2. Citations - There was a lot of original research found on this article, and information that is stated in a fashion that it was from a proper source, but no citation, so I left the quotes/information with  tags (for those reading this in source, I did add the dates "March 2016" to the tags), hoping some of you could help add the proper sources. If it is discovered that they are not from proper sources, you should remove them.
3. History - History sections, of course, need citations from books, resources, etc. in order for people to trust the facts. In addition, History sections shouldn't be brief, and in this scenario, both of those I just said are true. So, please add more information and sources.
4. Too Many Examples - You may continue to contribute to this issue, but please prevent it. When I was performing cleanup, there were too many examples, so I cut them off into just 2-4.
5. How-To - How to's are not really recommended on Wikipedia, so Process really needs to be redone.
If #1 and #5 are resolved, remove the top banner.
Thanks for reading, and you may revert my edits if they are unneccessary, KnowledgeIsGoodForYou (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup | March 13, 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cordwood construction. 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/20090106064143/http://www.robpickettandassoc.com/Thermal_Mass_Beyond_R_Value.PDF to http://robpickettandassoc.com/Thermal_Mass_Beyond_R_Value.PDF
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) 03:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: what does one do when radial cracks develop in round wood when it dries (before or after construction) reducing the circumference of the log opening up the wall? --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  radial cracks opening up the wall? 

message: I object to this URL being presented as "the URL" to accompany Wiki results in searches such as Duck.com
That is just one external reference among many and not the default reference for this subject.
It needs to be demoted to references and further reading along with all the other urls that are equally credible sources of information on the subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajinus (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  cordwoodconstruction.org