Talk:Caulk boots

Caulk is spelled Calk and Calks and Corks are Not the Same

Not too certain who the contributor is on this article but unfortunately he/she has a very little information and worse, it is incorrect. Calk boots, spelled c-a-l-k and are called "Caulk" boots, pronounced the same as the caulk for your tub or sink, while Cork boots are "Cork" boots and pronounced cork. Corks and Calks are a specific part of the boots, on the bottom and they are steel protrusions to help with traction. Corks are more round, often not replaceable while Calks are more oval and often replaceable. I will not edit the actual page, I've done it 20 or 30 times and even created several pages back in the days when I actually signed in. It was a complete nightmare, overzealous and über anal retentive editors demanded I form my sentences a certain way, stated not enough information was given to even start an actual Wiki,(even though it was at least twice the length of the Caulk boots entry) etc ad nauseum. So I vowed to leave it to the professionals in order to retain some sense of sanity as literally every attempt I made was shot down. Oh, a final suggestion, the Cork and Calk boots are far from limited to the Pacific Northwest and Canada as also is incorrectly suggested. I'm guessing here, but believe the author made assumptions by watching Axe Men! Corks and Calks are used in MN, WI, the entire North Eastern United States logging area, and probably many other areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.215.115 (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the definitions given in the references in the article? I'd be interested in your comments. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I sure did, and I won't make too much of a comment on either source as it will only serve to make me appear biased against women. Which I am not. I would say having a pair of cork boots made for someone is extremely odd as there are many companies that make them, a quick search on the internet and here is a link for you: http://www.woodsindustrialsupply.com/store/footwear/ scroll down to the last dozen pair and judge for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.215.115 (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And here we go, you removed a Tag. I added the so called clumsy See Talk Page, instead of Tagging this with the 4 or 5 other Tags that are warranted as in the following:

{{Unreliable sources}} {{Dubious}} {{Primary sources}} {{Third-party}} {{Verify credibility}}

Take it from someone who has actually worked in the Logging industry, this article is far from perfect and simply removing a Tag, especially on a less than half-a-paragraph stub is not only rude, it is against Wikipedia Policy.

We had a bit of bad luck with me posting here while you were editing the article. I know Wikipedia encourages bold edits, but having initiated a discussion here, it may have been wiser for you to await some replies and actually have a Discussion before unilaterally tagging the article. Yes, I'm sure you have inside knowledge of the logging industry (I have a little too, though not on your continent) but Wikipedia depends on content from reliable sources that everyone can refer to, rather than what's called original research of your own. That source of yours looks useful. Why don't you compose some words that refer to it and post them here for Discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start this article (see page history), but I did move it to its current page. I can't comment on the original contributor's TV-watching habits, but I've never seen Axe Men. I tried to find some references a few years ago but wasn't very successful, hence the poor ones in this article. I don't think commenting on the references will make you biased against women (I am one) but it is possible that the "Women and Timber" reference is a poor source, as I've found several inaccuracies in the CCRH website. I don't think the wording implies the boots are used only in the PNW and Canada, but it is certainly an oversight that there are no references to other places they are used. I'd welcome some links to other sources if you can find them. Oh, and the comment in the source about the cost of having boots made isn't used in the article, so I don't think we have to worry about it, though it does seem irrelevant in the context of the page referenced. But like I said, the Wikipedia article we're discussing doesn't talk about custom vs. premade boots. I found this site: http://www.hotboots.com/bootinfo/logger.html which is a site for men "into" boots, which may or may not be accurate. There are links to several boot manufacturers on that site. I think adding a cross-section of references from bootmaker's sites would elimnate bias and not "promote" any particular company, which might be a concern, as commercial links might not be unbiased. Here are some Google seaches "Cork boots" 26,200 hits, "Calk boots" 6530 hits, and Caulk boots 14,300 hits. Here's a .edu search, and a .org search that might help find sources that aren't on commercial sites. Finally, a search for definitions of logging equipment. Here's the kind of thing we could really use: a news story--it only has an illustration of boots but it does mention a book, The Logger's Encyclopedia. (Unfortunately there's not a library copy near me.) A book or a news story would definitely be considered reliable sources and would be a vast improvement over the current references. I can't work on this more now, but I'll see what I can find as far as sources and info to add to the article later. Oh, and for what it's worth, I've worked as a wildland firefighter, who generally don't wear corks/caulks/calks but some of the sawyers, most of whom were "real" loggers, did. That's all the experience I've had with the things so I welcome more input. Valfontis (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, deleting another persons comments is strictly forbidden, this includes tags. And every tag I posted was indeed accurate. The sources cited would not stand for even an hour let alone a day on a more popular subject. Second naturally people searching for calk boots that are searching for information will indeed search for caulk boots due to the pronunciation. (Which is actually how I found the Caulk Boot Wiki, I was on another discussion board and a newbie was spelling calk boots c-a-u-l-k boots, when asked where in the world he got that spelling he gave a link to this article.)

I also posted a link to you from a company that actually sells the two major cork and calk boot brands, I cannot find any comment from you about it.

Finally, until you follow the same rules as everyone else concerning tags and editing I am for the time being just refraining from any further discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.215.115 (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as one of the top 400 editors on Wikipedia, I'm pretty familiar with the rules. If you look carefully, I did not delete your tags (which do not belong on talk pages), I reformatted them to make the page more readable, which is allowed. I also restored the tag {{refimprove}} to the top of the article because it was a good suggestion. I didn't have much to comment on on your link--it shows it sells the type of boots under discussion, which may or may not "prove" anything about your argument. And I was posting before I dashed off to work, so I think my lengthy comments were more than adequate. I'm sorry you're finding this process so frustrating. I'd suggest you read about assuming good faith, and perhaps post at the administrator's notice board if you feel you are being treated unfairly. You may even report me for changing your comments if you wish. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue with the process being frustrating for me goes back to 2002-2003. Back then I actually had an "account" and I actually worked on several Wikipedia articles. The "Main Event" that was the proverbial straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back, was eventually settled by The Arbitration Committee. Since then I have edited but one article. My main issue is one of total inconsistent "rules" from one article to the next. Some are edited seemingly thousands of times due to constant battles, and über anal retentive editor's attitudes. Some are treated like a collaborative article, (nothing is added or deleted without discussion), others are edited or even deleted repeatedly by one individual for wording opinions, while at the same time anyone else making an edit on the very same article is read the riot act, and treated like they vandalized the article rather than as an equal. And still other articles have one or two authors and are left alone despite major faux pas and errors. I could go on for pages considering all the inconsistent "rules" but this is not the place for it, if you are actually interested, hit my Talk page and I'll go into detail and can even provide links.

As for this article and my Tags on the discussion page, when I first looked they were removed not reformatted, I never bothered to look again. I put them there for examples of other warranted Tags that I thought would be overkill despite being accurate. Having them reformatted is fine, actually even a better way of using them in a Discussion Page. As for the sources, first "Ottawa Valley Expressions", it is just like the title says, a list of Ottawa Valley expressions, and according to the author: a collection made by students in my writing classes at Opeongo High School, my own family, Irene Foran Dooling’s family, especially those so well explained in sentences, and several from individuals who forwarded their favourites. Expressions are hardly a viable source. The source WOMEN AND TIMBER has, from what I could find in reading much of the rather interesting material, but the one reference of the word caulk, and that is in the very page the Reference Link points to and not again in this form. ( After which only referred to as corks.) I've had entire articles deleted (removed) that were sourced much better than this one for "Lack of credible sourcing" by in my opinion, an über anal retentive editor that totally overstepped their "authority". Thus my frustration, not all articles are treated equally, not all editors are treated equally. Being there are apparently so many references available for both Caulks and Calks I would think at the very least both should be included. (In the history one can see it has been attempted before but removed, changed, changed again, etc.) A search on Google for Calk Boots brings up many, many companies selling them as Calk Boots, I gave but one example. Perhaps another more authoritative in nature link is warranted, but again, I have no interest in doing an article edit. If someone does, here perhaps is a good place to start that is not limited to references limited to the Pacific Northwest or Canadian areas: http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/dictionary/index.asp?action=view&term_id=9536&term_type_id=3&term_type_text=things&letter=C

Cheers..