Hello, Spireguy, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type ((helpme)) on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!.--Dakota ~ ° 03:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Pik Korzhenevskoi, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Waqas---regarding the Baltoro Glacier article, here is what I wrote on that Talk page: I notice that the reference to the "Concordia Region" has been put back in. To my knowledge, Concordia only refers to the the point of confluence of the Baltoro and Godwin Austen Glaciers. (Sources: multiple maps of the region, climbing literature such as American Alpine Journal.) It is not the name of a region. That's why I changed the reference in the first place, and why I changed the Concordia, Pakistan article as well. So I would suggest reverting back to the version which describes Concordia just as the confluence, not a region. If there are definitive sources to the contrary, please comment; otherwise I'll revert or re-edit this eventually. I don't want to step on any toes, but I do want it to be correct. -- Spireguy 14:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing it out, I did not know it was the name of the confluence. I've been searching for material to expand the articles of mountains, valleys and glaciers in the Northern Areas, and although I've been very careful about what I write, I still made a mistake, I thought "Concordia" could be referred to as a "region". (I now see in the revision history that you mentioned it on 18 April, I didn't read it until you referred me to the issue). Please rephrase the sentence on top so that it mentions Concordia at the top. Waqas.usman 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by Johntex for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
"Vandalism"
Your IP address is 207.225.62.126.
Hello Spireguy, I just received your e-mail and I am about to review the circumstances related to your block. Please wait a bit. Johntex\talk 19:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you share an IP address with one or more vandals. I have removed the block - which was set to expire soon anyways. I don't know of any fool-proof way to prevent this from happening in the future. To my knowledge, you did the best thing you could do by posting the ((unblock)) template here, and for including your IP. That made the investigation very easy for me. Sorry about the problem - happy editing! Johntex\talk 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully it won't happen often. Looking at the talk page for your IP address, there are some prior warnings, but not a huge set of them compared to some anonymous IP's. It could be much worse. Also, administrators know about the general issue relating to shared IP's, so we tend to keep IP blocks down to short time increments if possible - long enough for the vandal to get bored and leave the computer. If problems do persist, we could add a note there listing the contributing editors who use that IP address. Personally, even though some people think it is some sort of a sacred issue that we have to allow anonymous IP's to edit, I am in favor of a 100% log-in policy. It is just not that hard to create a username. There is a policy discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Restrictions on Anonymous Editing from Shared IPs. Johntex\talk 20:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that David Metzger by any chance? Spireguy tag sounds familiar; this is Mike C formerly of bivouac.com; saw your comment about prominence in the Boundary Ranges and figured it must/might be one of youse guys.Skookum1 21:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metzger->Metzler. Sorry. It's been a while, and I've got permanently fuzzy grey cells. Gave up working with bivouac when RobinT started revamping the organizational system underneath me without telling me, then expecting me to catch up and do even more work (prominence, infrastructre, edits, various ongoing policy bumpf docs that no one pays attention to) and then finally had the last straw when he started wantonly throwing around made-up names on the thousands of unnamed peaks I'd plotted; what value I had seen in the project got thrown out with the bathwater, as I'd spent 3-4 years working day and night only to be told my opinions didn't matter and the site administrator was boss; so I quit. His reorganization of the prominence region system I established - a reorganization done not to make things more scientific, but to justify the inadequacies of his database's many calculatory issues, and his own seat-of-the-pants definitions of what was and was not important in prominence (mind you, I was the one doing all the actual plotting, calculating and studying....); Wiki of course is consensual which is how I wound up here; and I'd started out as a historical geographer at Bivouac in the first place......Skookum1 22:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Waqas--thanks for creating the Passu Sar page and finding the nice picture. However, as I noted at Talk:Passu Sar, it's really a picture of the nearby peak Shispare (with Ultar Sar in the foreground). I'd like to move it to the Shispare page (which needs a picture anyway) and recaption it, but if I do that I would also like to tell the originator of the picture that I have done that. I thought you might prefer to tell him, since you contacted him already. Or I can do it, it's no problem---I just didn't want to step on any toes. Let me know.
Also, most references I have for the peak use only one "s", i.e. "Pasu Sar". These references are various reasonably authoritative maps, plus climbing literature such as the American Alpine Journal. If you have a better source that gives "Passu", let me know; otherwise it might be best to switch it back to "Pasu". -- Spireguy 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spireguy, this message was burried under the load of other messages and went unnoticed until today. Thank you for the correction. Have you notified the originator of the picture?
As for the spellings Pasu vs Passu, I have always seen it spelled as Passu by the locals (although I don't claim that most locals use this version of the spellings, because I didn't research it). If you compare Google search results, Google Search Pasu gives no relavent result in top 9, and the 10th is also in some other language, which mentions "Khunjerab Pass" as "Khunjerev Pasu", whereas Google Search Passu gives several relavent results on top. Waqas.usman 22:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Waqas---thanks for moving the picture. I added a more explicit caption. -- Spireguy 16:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the caption! I'm adding the pic to Ultar page as well (because it doesn't have a pic yet). Waqas.usman 06:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expanding the article and adding the pic. I did not know that the peak is the same as Bublimotin or Bublimuting. Is the Hunza peak same as the Ultar peak?
A suggestion about adding images, whenever you add a pic, please put it under some related category so that others can find it and use it. Sometimes it's hard to find a related category, but you should put it in at least some category that might even be undirectly related. (I've put the image under Mountains of Pakistan and Karakoram). Waqas.usman 12:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, about "disputed" location, since the articles on the Indian-controlled Kashmir mention their location as "India" rather than "Disputed: India/Pakistan", I think it's fair to mention these mountains as part of "Pakistan" rather than "Disputed: Pakistan/India". Waqas.usman 12:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the category tip. Hunza Peak is a rather minor peak on the SW ridge of the Bojohagur Duanasir/Ultar massif, definitely not the same as Ultar itself. Regarding location, I haven't been sure when to mention the disputed status and when not to. Lately I've only been putting it in for peaks very near the line of control. It would be nice to have a consistent way to do this that recognizes the de facto situation but also mentions the dispute, since that would be (I think) the most NPOV way to do it. -- Spireguy 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Indian users outnumber Pakistani users, you'll hardly find a mention of "disputed" on articles related to India-controlled Kashmir, and you'll find it mentioned on several articles related to Pakistani Kashmir and Northern Areas, especially on the important peaks etc. When I tried to add a conspicuous "disputed" note to Srinagar etc, my changes were soon reverted back. For NPOV, I'd say that "dispute" shouldn't be conspicuously mentioned on any important articles of Pakistani-administered Kashmir and Northern Areas. Otherwise, if someone feels it must be mentioned, then it must be mentioned on the Indian Kashmir articles as well, in the same way, in an NPOV tone (the articles created by Indians have a strong Indian bias, but Indian users far outnumber Pakistani users). Waqas.usman 15:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, that it is frustrating to have the Indian articles not mention the dispute and the Pakistan articles mention it, since that seems to contribute to an overall POV. Ideally there should be a consensus on a consistent description of the whole issue, but I guess that's unlikely to happen. It's not a big deal to me. -- Spireguy 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, the NPOV would be not to mention the dispute on Pakistani pages :) Waqas.usman 21:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
waqas this is not possbile indian editors get the backing from western editors i can only hope biased mentallity of editors will end if not we must take up the responsibility of editing all indian mountains and adding disputed claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.239.250 (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently created these new pages (mainly from other wiki pages, your texts), please review them for any mistakes, and expand them if you have more info:
I was able to identify some of the peaks, take a look. I might be able to figure out some of the remaining. -- Spireguy 04:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I had been busy for the last few days and didn't wiki much. I'll take a look at them. I've sent a link to Atif Gul (the photographer, who's a personal friend of mine, I actually took a lot of photos from him in bulk, without any description) but he's been busy as well these days. Waqas.usman 21:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I know little French, it's pretty obvious from the title what the guy says:
Bojohagur Duanasir (Peak 34/Hunza Peak) -7329m Bojohagur Daunasir
I think many pages refer to Hunza Peak as the 6270m peak, not 7329m, so I guess the guy is wrong. Waqas.usman 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't say definitively that no one refers to Bojohagur Duanasir as Hunza Peak, but the Jerzy Wala map (which is quite detailed and carefully made) clearly labels only the 6270m as Hunza Peak. The picture on the Blank on the Map site is of Bublimotin and Hunza Peak only, not of Bojo itself. That site is pretty good in general, and has nice pictures, but I have not found it to be 100% accurate. -- Spireguy 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your additions to the mountain articles, especially those in Glacier National Park (US). Many people I have met don't seem to understand that the height of a mountain may appear much higher than it really is if the lay of the surrounding land is lower in altitude...such is the condition in Glacier, where the tallest peaks are 4 thousand feet lower than in Colorado....but you already know that of course. Keep up the good work.--MONGO 04:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Spireguy. Saw your edit at Mount Stuart --- remember that mountain infoboxes can have photos and captions: please preserve them when you use the new template. Thanks! -- hike395 12:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure—and I hope you don't mind my doing the same for Template:Mountain on new mountain articles I make. (Well, there's only been one so far, but there could be more)
Incidentally, sorry about spamming the living hell out of your watchlist and/or recent-changes list with the tagging. Trust me, it wasn't any more fun making those entries than it is to have to plow through them. —Zero Gravitas 04:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi...not that you'd know when a mountain/pass name is Chinook or not, but I'm hoping you can help me remember the name of a couple of minor peaks in the North Cascades area; in normal Chinook they'd be "ikt"/"ixt" and "mokst"/"moxt" but I can't find them under those names; should be something similar; they mean "one" and "two". I remember this being the subject of discussion somewhere, either in emails or in the prominence list, but I have no idea what to search under. Someone in WA was familiar with them....in the long run my Chinook toponymy is only just started, but it's already pretty huge; it's the obscure words, and odd/eccentric spellings and adaptations that are going to be hard to pin down.Skookum1 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mox Peaks
Found it! Er, found one of 'em. I remember from someone's correspondence (in the prominence list) that there's a "one" peak ("Mox" being "two") and while there's two spires, the gist of the correspondence was that something around there was the "one", perhaps the lower of the two; or the name did referr to the double spire; but I don't know the history/provenance of North Cascades names. Thoughts?Skookum1 02:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought you might be thinking of Mox Peaks. Beckey calls them the "Twin Spires"; he says a Boundary Survey party called them the Sawtooth Mountains, and says: "Mountaineers in the 1930s and 1940s applied the name Twin Spires, but the Forest Service applied the name Mox Peaks to their subsequent maps. The whimsy of this appellation is not clear to those who know the area." I am really not sure what he means by that last sentence. It seems reasonable to me that the Forest Service thought that a Chinook version of "Twin", or "Two", would be a good name. Don't know if there was an original indigenous name of any kind, "Mox" or otherwise.
As to "ixt", is that related to the "ish" ending of river names like "Skykomish"? Otherwise it doesn't ring a bell.
see below about Skokomish (next section). Up our way the '-mish' ending is "wind", as at Squamish (which is only an approximation of the unpronounceable tangle that is their name for themselves, and whatever else they they use to call their language). Ixt or iht means "one", or alone (esp as kopet ixt - kopet also meaning "stop" or possibly something like "until now"), sometimes seen on the end of terms like klimminawhit ("liar", from "smooth one").
BTW Mox Peak East is a good one by spire measure; it has a dramatic 1500 foot east wall. -- Spireguy 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is relevant---I just added it to the North Cascades page: Beckey notes that "Many names were derived from Chinook jargon, mostly applied by the Forest Service from 1910 to 1940; this dialect is incongruous here since it was a coastal Indian trade language." (Beckey 1996:141) That probably explains his cryptic comment about Mox, i.e. that it was the wrong language to use for a peak remote from the coast. -- Spireguy 03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and sorry, one last bit: what I meant here was that Beckey thought that the CJ was only a coastal trade language, and that it was also only used as a trade language; it was much more than that, as my comments about Forest Service guys probably knowing it (as anyone in the backwoods anywhere between Spokane and Prince Rupert did in those days....)Skookum1 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beckey: Sorry, not familiar with that source/cite. Jargon was nonetheless widespread, and also perfectly legitimate for use by non-natives and in non-native contexts of territory; Beckey sounds to be citing a linguistics prejudice about where a language "belongs", and who it "belongs" to. White people learned and used the Jargon, for whatever sometimes trival or, in the native context, superfluous reasons. My own view is that white usage is as legitimate as non-native usage; it was a shared language, and if the Forest Service guys were "into it", that's their business. And also part of the Common Jargon Heritage, and not secondary to it as nativist chinookologists would have it.Skookum1 05:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry---Fred Beckey, author of the three volumes of the Cascade Alpine Guide, the invaluable and definitive source for climbing (and a lot of other) info on the Cascades. Well worth a look; see North Cascades for a more detailed cite.
Sounds something like Farley, who's the "definitive" for southern BC; along with John Baldwin's book on Ski-Touring the Coast Mountains (can't remember if that's the title or not...). Farley was the main source for much of bivouac.com before I got busy there; the area definitions are a mix of range hierarchies and prominence hierarchies - restructured by Robin into "cells", which I don't find are as revealing as to the shape of the country's geography - the shape of the country - as are maps showing the physical boundaries of the prominence "islands"; although in my system, unlike peaklist.org's maps, which are good on a regional basis, I went down to units as small as a New England State, or at least WV, TN etc in regions farther north. So Farley's area names, which were to me (ironically enough, given the mountaineering nature of the book) were from a lowland, access-based perspective. The one that really irked me of Farley's areas was "Nahatlatch-Stein", namely pretty well the Lillooet Ranges other than those access from the Lillooet River (the Seton Portage-Shalalth area is rarely used for access; in fact I think only natives have gone up by that route, although hard to say about the old days). Thing is the name Nahatlatch-Stein itself doesn't address the identity of the region, native-cultural or even since-Contact-cultural. Long digression possible here, but likewise with Farley's name Bivouac climbers were adamant in using the name "the Chehalis" for the Douglas Ranges, and weren't interested in the historical titles so much as practicality of access from the city. Likewise the South Chilcotin name, which I'll spare you a rant on, but which has gotten used to the point where the Bridge River Country, where the park is largely located and most easily accessed by, has come to be thought of by outdoors-Lower Mainlanders as being in the Chilcotin - which it's NOT (other than its northern and western extremities). And so on; in terms of the "Nahatlatch-Stein", the Stein is well-known because of the park campaign (hithertowhich it had been completely unknown, which is why it was still wild...and the Nahatlatch, which has a string of lakes and campgrounds which have grown semi-popular since the timber butchery of the area ended (for the most part) and the roads because safe/open to drive (never safe if it's a radio-controlled road in an active extraction area). But Farley had Lillooet in the "Nahatlatch Stein", and the southern Cayoosh; the Cayoosh being a region including the basin of Duffey Lake-Cayoosh Creek as well as the Cayoosh Range proper. But because the Joffre-Matier area is so well-known, the Farley system cuts it off as a separate region from the adjoining Cayoosh Range, and isolates it also from the general definition of the Stein basin; sigh. Obviously near and dear to me but largely irrelevant in what people decide to use; the "South Chilcotin" problem is compounded by one of the guide-outfitting parties in the Bridge River Valley using the name Chilcotin Holidays; and their site doesn't really mention any of them other tourism/recreation areas, not even Gold Bridge, Gun Lake, and Bralorne (which along with the Tyax-Gun Creek area where Chilcotin Holidays and the Tyax Lodge are, constitute the life and history of the Bridge River Country (which includes the Bendor, Shulaps, Yalakom/Camelsfoot, Seton-Shalalth, and touches on D'Arcy-Anderson Lake at McGillivray Pass (D'Arcy's not quite in the Bridge River-Lillooet Country, though definitely in the "old Lillooet Country", which included Douglas-Pemberton-D'Arcy (though Douglas is technically outside it...but part of it historically culturally...as is Lytton at the other end, and Clinton and Cache Creek-Ashcroft a bit also). The ties are old in that country, as through the Nlaka'pamux/Thompson territory from Boston Bar through Lytton to Spences Bridge, and that's the "Couteau Country" in the old days (also seen Kootomin on old maps, but that's still not a native name, but a French-native hybrid). Not so named because of its serrated landscape, but because of the war-craft of the Thompsons, which involved decapitation (the Chilcotins, on the other hand, were known for devouring hearts...); the Couteau or Knife Indians, known in old documents also as the Hakamaugh, a rough adaptation of Nlaka'pamux (if you knew how to pronounce Nlaka'pamux, that is).
So anyway....sigh...that's the direction I come at with attitudes as to what's an appropriate name or not; I'd prefer the opinion of the guys in the Forest Service, who were out on the land and had an interest in its history, than it what makes sense to a sense of what's "appropriate" as defined by who had the right to use such a word; I have far more problems with new names, and climber's names, than I do with a historical name that has its own reasons; so much history - the times past - is judged nowadays through a modernist perspective; it should not be; it is as it was. One local in Lillooet, who's someone else pissed at bivouac's (and other sites/guides) is even more pissed about Robins' nameing/renaming local summits than I am (he's got roots in the country from 1862 and beyond, rare in BC...) and says unnamed peaks should be left that way. Often enough, the natives who lived here for thousands of years didn't name summits; but places of importance instead; the concept of naming peaks is as much a foreign construct as is the grid-survey system and land alienation; but because Bivouac has (or had, as Robin may have truncated data, as he does too often...) more summmits mapped (thanks to me, to the tune of 25,000 peaks, four times that many including subpeaks), Robin has started throwing names all over the map, and deciding when something named a ridge needs another range, even if the summit is named a ridge, he's decided otherwise.....Skookum1 01:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Back to Farley/Becker: so while climbing guides can be referred to, they're no more contextual than anything else; I'd rather go with formal geographers (as I've done with the range defintions in the various Category:Mountain ranges of British Columbia I've stubbed and (some) mapped for Wikipedia; S. Holland's Landforms of British Columbia, 1976 BC Govt) or local lore (often in local, un-academic "kitchen histories") on what's where and so forth; geologists have a different spin from geographers, and ecological zones don't always match other kinds of zones (whichever, depending); and so on. There's a lot that could be in all these articles ultimately; the Cascades is a difficult one because it spans a large, diverse region, and there's only some commonalities, really, relative to any one chunk of the Cascades by itself; I think the North Cascades-Canadian Cascades article is, for example, such an area; and different from Chelan-Ellensburg-Yakima obviously, vs the Columbia and the Rainier-Adams-St Helens region; I wouldn't know where to begin with Oregon; the idea is that ultimately these pages could be a synthesis of geographic, geological, cultural, zoological/botanical and folklore/climbing history and more; in my view nearly anything in certain types of articles is only a stub; the additive nature of the environment, re information relevant to a subject - nearly any subject, seems bound to lead towards that over time...as a historical document, it's becoming the historical document; and completely unprecedented as a collective, consensual record of human knowledge and experience and what-have-you....including obscurities like mountain names and backcountry history....Skookum1
I don't think Beckey was claiming that non-native use of a Chinook word is always inappropriate, but rather that they removed an existing name ("Twin Spires") in favor of a name that probably couldn't have been the original local name of the peak (if it had one). -- Spireguy 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's likely to have been a Lushootseed or Skokomish one, or Skagit if that's where the Twin Spires/Mox Peaks are; and chances are a striking formation like that would have a name in nearby towns where it could be seen from, or thereabouts (can't see Bivouac's Javamaps for to see what towns are nearby; hard to bother with on Topozone). I see what you mean, though - if Twin Spires is more "there" historically, then of course it should be there; my Chinook list of anything that's gazetted, though; including artificially-conferred things like Street names and the occasional business (the Hiyu Hee-Hee Tavern on the Kitsap: "lotsa fun", "lotsa giggles").
Skokomish
About Skokomish see Skokomish (tribe); one interpretation has it that it's Twana or Lushootseed, the other than it's a local Chinook Jargon hybrid of skookum, which is of course CJ, and -mish, which is the Puget Sound Salishan ending for "people" (farther north it tends to be mxw and mcw around Vancouver and inland (Halkomelem, Squamish, Straits), and in Hunquminum (the VI version of Halkomelem). Anyway, I'd never come across the skookum-mish etymology for that before, and thought it was a hybrid/created word from the Skykomish and Snoqualmie Rivers, which when they merge are the Snohomish; thought it had something to do with that. Tribal tradition says otherwise - that skookum meaning "strong", was definitely intended; even if it's a pun on the Twana meaning ("fresh water") it still works in terms of local argot; and tradition blends in a lot of elements, or can, so it works both ways, as story and as origin.Skookum1 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi--Exactly what is wrong with the ISBN0-89886-238-8, which is the corrected entry I put on the Masherbrum page, which matches the LOC and Amazon, and which checks out (I cut and pasted into an auto-ISBN checker)? Thanks, Spireguy 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your correction was correct, thanks for fixing it. Timing error on my part. RichFarmbrough 22:28 25 August2006 (GMT).
I have got into an edit war with a Pakistani POV pusher which I am liable to lose to lose uder WP:3RR. Surely K2 is no more in Pakistan than it is in China. Please can you help. Thanks. Viewfinder 09:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the 1963 border agreement between Pakistan and China however its language is not that much clear. Obviously according to it peak could belongs to one country as it define the border. You can find the agreement between Pakistan and China on here ., here and and here. Can you decode its language for me? I cannot spend more energy on it because I really have to work/study (non-wikipedia stuff). While trying to decode it please do not use Indian sites and writers because they are not neutral in this case. Thanking you in anticipation. --- ابراهيم 15:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I cannot get any of the above links to work. Some of them cause my browser (IE) to crash. Viewfinder 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second and third links worked for me. The most relevant section is point (5) on page 4 of the second link, which says that the border passes "over the summit of the Chogri Peak (K2)." Nowhere is there any mention of a special provision for K2 being entirely or mainly controlled by Pakistan; it simply says that the border follows the main water divide, right over the summit, as one would expect. (The third link is basically the same info as the second; I assume that the first is as well.) This fits in with the climbing-oriented references I mentioned on Talk:K2, which make clear that the northern route to the summit of K2 is entirely in China and is administered by China. I'll copy most of this over to Talk:K2 as well. -- Spireguy 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your comments regarding the annotated Himalaya image on Commons and uploaded a new version. Could you tell me if there are any other problems? One thing I am not quite sure about is Nuptse. Should it be more to the left?
I also tried to make the south col routed dotted to show that it is behind the ridge, but that did not look too good either. If you want I can email you the photoshop file, if you want to improve the image yourself. Just let me know. Janderk 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image looks good now. I couldn't do the Photoshopping, and I don't think that you'd be able to put in the route where it is hidden, so I think what is on there now is good. About Nuptse, it has many summits of similar height; I think the main summit might be a tiny bit to the left of what you have now, but not enough that it is worth changing, imo. You arrow certainly points to some summit of Nuptse. -- Spireguy 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I made another small change and moved the Nuptse location slightly more to the left to try to point at Nuptse I. Janderk 22:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looking at the Washburn map I see that Nuptse I is in the middle of the long high ridge, so your arrow is quite good now. Thanks again. -- Spireguy 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spireguy, wondering what your opinion is regarding adding historically documented information on traverses of mountain ranges. My feeling is that this is historical information that others might want to track down and that these pages are good places for that information. But I am a newbie here and want to be considerate of the culture. Romandial 19:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just cruising through the Mountains of British Columbia category to try and find a suitably shrinkable peak-pic to use for a stub template for BritishColumbia-mountains-stub, which I'll be creating later today; so far might use Mt. Albert Edward or Mt Garibaldi pics or something from my own collection; has to look good at 35px...anyway, I'm familiar with Luna Pk in Washington so when I saw this one I went "where the hell is that?" and so looked at the text and saw "Borealis Peaks". Hmmm. Thought I knew every range, even every mountaineers' grouping in BC, so went and looked at Bivouac; it's mentioned in Luna Peak's article, but from there a Bivouac search turns up only a photo essay by Drew Brayshaw. Now, Drew is one of these guys that likes to go around the countryside naming things, as if he were God or something; a whole ara of the Bendor Range he went around with his snack boxes and christened summits Gingersnap, Oreo Cookie and such stupidities....then whined and ranted when they weren't kept in the system, as no one else used them (well, might have been Klaus Harng, but....same idea). There are no other references to Borealis Peaks, unless it's in Fairley or Baldwin (?), although I gather you may have used it in peakbagger.com (?); yeah, OK, it's in the area between Bella Coola and the Monarch Icefield. But in my three years of poring over BC Basemap and all of Bivouac's materials I've never even heard Robin or Fred refer to that area that way. Just curious - you got any idea/source? There's no Borealis Peaks article, nor should there be; I'm just concerned with the text in Luna Peak; no layman has ever heard of the Borealis Peaks, that's for sure...Skookum1 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
?Hey; more on this tangent later but pls have a look at the section on my talkpage about the Columbia River; notes on everything but also wondering about the basemap used by prominence.org; it's useful for some things; or is it copyright those guys/yourself? Almost would be a good illustration for Columbia Basin, for instance, or, by combining maps Oregon Country/Columbia District, and nice to put the historical trails mentioned in that other post on......Skookum1 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David; chanced by the Cascade Range page to see progress there and noted absence of mention of the North Cascades in the opening, despite the presence of the Canadian Cascades portion of same. Someone, somewhere, I thought it was you, had a definition of the southern boundary; is what's in this article on that sufficient for you? Whoever I'd heard from/corresponded with before was of the opinion it was a certain pass, by the look of things the one south of Glacier Peak, I'd think. Anyway, here's the opening of the Cascade Range article:
...."famous for its chain of tall volcanoes called the High Cascades and also for the ruggedly glaciated spires of the North Cascades, which span the border with the Canadian province of British Columbia, reaching up the east side of the Fraser Canyon as far north as the confluence of the Thompson River" - or something to that effect is what I'm thinking of amending it with. Wordings? Thoughts? The Coquihalla Range, by the way, is something of an unofficial name as it's not gazetted although it does show up even in older histories; I'll see what I can find....Skookum1 (Talk) 08:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
All the pics shown are volcanoes...and don't look much like the Cascades around these parts, that's for sure; hell, that's practically flat country down there, south of Snoqualmie...other than the cones, that is. I'm shopping around for a picture of Mount Slesse, and maybe Hozameen or another typically North Cascades summit (as if there are any "typical"); I'm trying to get Randall's Flying Photos (google that...) to give me permission to use their images in Wikipedia, same as they did for Bivouac.com (who now charge a fee to see them), as they have LOTS of the Canadian Cascades, including really good shots of Hope Mtn/Isolillock, Hozameen, Cathedral Park, Manning Park, and a really nice aerial from the north of Jones Lake and the Four Sisters (Foley through Cheam....), plus northerly aerial views of Baker and Shuksan....hopefully they'll say yes....Skookum1 (Talk) 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi; I'm going to browse Randall and Kat's Flying Photos tonight and pick some images, and also get around to writing them about usage; their older stuff I had to do a lot of colour alteration on, but Kat must be using better filters now as most of these are fine. Thought I'd show you some via external links here:
Cheam and the Four Sisters and ?? looking South from over Fraser Valley near Chilliwack (not sure what's in the distance at left - Hozameen? - no too far south, I'm sure, and not as distinctive; whatever's highest over that way (SW by a bit W, whatever the compass boxing is, from Cheam0. At first I thought this was Shuksan because of the "strike" of the mountain in foreground, but it's actually the Cheam with th rest of the Four Sisters behind it; Foley, the sharp one at the end, is the last; Jones Lake is to their right in the more or less cirque formed by the "Cheam Range" as it's also been called.
Coquihalla Range between tollbooths and Boston Bar (these have names on Bivouac, odd ones; I'll check: "The Horn" is one that's legal/official); the Coquihalla Highway is at the foot of the face at right, behind the ridge in front of it.
Over the Coquihalla Range, looking towards Lytton (gives a good idea of the flavour of the high country in the Canadian Cascades beyond the Coquihalla/Manning Park area - more plateau-summits than anything else. Those in the centre-left background are the Clear Range, Lytton Mountain, the last in the Cascade Range, is a flat summit in front of them. Still very high, but forested. Brighter haze at centre is Thompson River valley around Ashcroft-Cache Creek.
View Southwest from same area towards Mount Baker All but the ridge at right are in the Canadian/North Cascades - the ridge is the last bit of the Lillooet Ranges above Hope, which is down in angle of the misty valley to the ridge's left; can't remmber the names of the summits.
Hope that's not too many. That's just a sample from one of their flights; the next I'm scrolling through is a flight to Chilko and Taseko Lakes via Whistler and the Bridge River Country; wonderful stuff, better than some of their earlier runs.Skookum1 02:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking on North Cascades location map[edit]
The southern boundary should be moved one major drainage to the north (where it currently necks down) to match the definition in the article (US Hwy 2). -- Spireguy 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made two new maps just now, based on what you've told me, one using the original basemap, the other a NASA image - the NASA image is a bit "stretched" east to west as it was taken from over California; it could perhaps be resampled a bit to un-stretch it, I'm just not sure by how much; but here they are, with the NASA image in two slightly different framings (one a bit further west, showing fogbanks hitting the Strait of Juan de Fuca and verging in on the Olympics, the other avoiding that; all three maps could use key placenames on them, too, but I'm not so good with that kind of thing:
Let me know which one you like best and I'll add Seattle, Victoria, Everett, Vancouver and whatever inland WA cities you think would be best (Wenatchee or Ellensburg? Spokane maybe?). I can also make the red line thicker on the NASA images if that would be better....Skookum1 02:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new southern boundary looks good. I prefer the one on the original basemap; I think it's clearer. However I would suggest reframing that one to include a little more south and a little less north and east. The natural context here, I think, is the rest of the Cascades, and the southern Coast Range. I would suggest labeling Seattle, Vancouver, Everett, Wenatchee, and Mount Rainier. -- Spireguy 03:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I retitled the section to "Peaks of the Cascade Volcanic Belt" from "Peaks of the High Cascades", because once again it had Garibaldi wrongly included in it (if it was "Peaks of the High Cascades"); then added the appropriate intro for the new title, and broke the non-Cascade Range peaks off into their own group; which has since grown, including such obscurities as the Bridge River Cones - which are in either the Chilcotin Ranges or the Pacific Ranges, or just on the boundary of those two subdivisions of the Coast Mountains. Late last night (or, early this morning when I couldn't get back to sleep...) I fielded by BlackTusk, just after his addition of Bridge River Cones to the Cascade Range page, that that whole section of non-Cascade Range members of the Cascade Volcanoes, should be moved wholesale to the new Cascade Volcanoes page, which should have existed a long time ago (see my notes about this see User talk:BlackTusk; he must have gone back to bed right after, or left for work or whatever (it was 6:30 am), as I haven't heard back and his usual contributions and fixes of the various BC volcano entries has been quiet since (I just got up, after finally getting back to sleep...). Anyway, just flying this by you before I do it in the next couple of hours; my view is that the continued inclusion of Cascade Volcanoes that aren't part of the Cascade Range is just going to confuse things further if it's allowed to stand; the supposition that "some definitions say the Cascade Range includes Garibaldi and northwards" or however it used to be put was uncitable, except by way of citing erroneous references (as if there were any); I'll put in a bit about historical usages of "Cascades" (not "Cascade Range") north of the border - even for the Kootenay! - but all academic definitions, except "fuzzy ones" such as the Seattle geographer who sprawled the word "Cascadia" across the map (wrongly), make it clear the Cascades end at the Fraser...I'm not sure what peakbagger says, but I'll check; it's a common misconception stateside and really aggravating; not quite as bad as thinking we're the 51st State, but getting close. I wrote Aaron Maizlish about his basemaps on peaklist.org but haven't heard back yet...do you know who made those maps by any chance, i.e. what basemap was used?Skookum1 19:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it here so as to not further clutter the section above; the basemap is from User:Qyd and I've been trying to find the one I used, as this isn't quite it (different resolution); it's sized 800x500, could be made 700x500 by cropping off some of the Pacific, or some of Wyoming, but the "golden mean" proportion appeals to me (used to be a photog); if it should be cropped more let me know - I thought maybe this basemap/frame might also be useful for various ranges extending over to Montana/Wyoming, though; the source basemap used here ended at the California border anyway and I cropped it just above the Thompson/Kamloops; thought about adding another colour-line for the rest of the Cascades but that would just clutter it; and with the state boundaries showing so clearly here are the city markings and Rainier still needed?
By the way, this map shows something that is an "oddity" by way of geosynchronicity, though not in the sense of geosynchronous, but as in synchronicity....note the outline of Vancouver Island...then not the outline of the Columbia Mountains, i.e. the permeter formed by the Kootenay/Kootenai and Columbia Rivers; almost identical, down to a few square miles discrepancy; this was pointed out in some book long ago, I remember my Grade 12 geog teacher pointing it out. Weird, huh?Skookum1 04:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one pretty well; it could perhaps be a bit smaller, but it is good for overall context, especially with Oregon and Idaho showing. I think you're right that city markings are not particularly necessary. -- Spireguy 20:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll trim some Pacific Ocean and Great Plains off it, then add it. BTW did you see the SWBC ranges map on the talkpage at the Mountains Wikiproject? Still needs some fixes but as a concept in complicated range-sets (e.g. Hazelton Mountains, Omineca Mountains, which have complex subrange systems, likewise the Selkirks and Rockies.Skookum1 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
===============================================
NPR is looking for Spireguy...
My name's Robert Krulwich...I work on NPR (also ABC)and I've gotten interested in the spot on our planet that is farthest from the center of the earth...and as best I can tell "Spireguy", more than any other guy I can find, has taken a hard look at this question. I found some calculations on a neighboring page, and I think they are Spireguy calculations, that compare the heights of two Andean mountains and seem to award the prize to a Volcano called Chimborazo in Equador.
I would like to interview Spireguy...but I haven't a clue how to contact him..so if anybody here can help me, or if, as seems pretty likely, Spireguy makes regular visits to this site, could he (i'm assuming he's a he) contact me at rkrulwich@npr.org?
Thanks
Thanks for going through the text and fixing the typos. I have one book by the author, "The kangchenjunga Adventure" in that thers is a picture of Frank. I know nothing of copyright, but do you have an opinion on wheather it would be appropriate to scan a picture from his own book, which is over 60 years old. Sensitive subject, but if you have any expertise on this it could be very useful. Thanks in advance. (Gowron 21:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please can I point out the coordinate style changes that have appeared at List of highest mountains. Imo it's messy. The editor claims that this is needed to assist Google Earth but I don't buy that; it is surely within GE's resources to write a program to convert dms coordinates scraped off wikipedia to real numbers. I don't object to going over to decimal degrees (aside: 4 decimal places is enough), but imo the current format greatly and unnecessarily adds to the bulk of the article. What do you think? Viewfinder 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see ((coord)). One of the advantages of the new template is that it puts the choice of display format in the user's hands. Another is that it adds a Geo microformat. Your comment about Google Earth is bogus; I made no such claim, in regard to these changes. If you want fewer decimal places, remove the seconds from the source code. Andy Mabbett 22:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The claim about GE is made here. Still, I have found out how to edit my own display format. Viewfinder 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it is - and as I said, that claim does not relate to its use on LoHM (it relates to its potential use in the tile bars of specifically-tagged articles about single locations). Andy Mabbett 22:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm theoretically in favor of the Geo microformat (in a vague way, since I am no expert on XML-type issues), I would like to see more concrete advantages put forth for this change. It is definitely clunky, visually, and I think it's important to remember that 99% of WP users have no idea how to change their display format. It seems to have been cleared up that this change is not specifically to benefit GE, whether or not that is necessary or useful. So why change? I guess I should look more closely at the ((coord)) discussion, but a quick look didn't convince me strongly. If there is a setting that makes it default to just a dms display, then I would be happier with it. -- Spireguy 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The coord documentation says "By default coordinates are displayed in the format in which they are specified.". See also Geo microformat. Andy Mabbett 09:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On my home computer, the coords were displaying as both DMS and decimal, which was excessive. On my work computer, they are displaying only in DMS, which is much better. I haven't made any attempt to configure these two computers differently, so I'm not sure why they come out different. If the usual display is just the specified format, then I'm fine with this change. But if a lot of people get both DMS and decimal, that should be addressed. -- Spireguy 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds as though you need(ed) to refresh your browser, at home, to get the revised CSS. Andy Mabbett 19:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for my reverting. Actually I mean that this mountain was never renamed, because Жеңиш Чокусу(Jengish Chokusu) in Kyrgyz means "Victory peak" or "Пик Победы"(Pik pobedy ) on Russian, and the translation of Жеңиш Чокусу(Jengish Chokusu) as "Independence" is wrong. I know it because Kyrgyz is my native language. -Greenvert 14:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More correct variant is "Jengish Chokusu".-Greenvert 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you take a look at my recent edit to Mount Cameroon, and also the dialogue about it on my talk page, in which it is claimed (by the guy behind the Smithsonian Institute?) that it is unreferenced. Do you think it is adequately referenced? If the verifiability of SRTM data is challenged, the implications could be far reaching. The steam age elevations could be restored to many pages. Ouch! Viewfinder 07:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buaidh. Thought I'd just say hello more formally since I have left a lot of comments in the past few days on pages that you started or have heavily edited. I know that can feel a little confrontational. I hope we can collaborate positively on our common interests. Cheers, Spireguy 22:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One question: do you have a strong preference for the format "xxx feet = yyy m" as opposed to using Template:convert, as in 14,000 feet (4,267 m), for example? The latter is preferable, in my opinion, and is becoming standard on mountain pages. -- Spireguy 22:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template:convert utility is a wonderful feature, but it works much better with inline text than in tables. My primary concerns are:
Lack of full control over formatting and alignment, and
The output of convert sorts in alphanumeric order rather than numeric order.
Try sorting on the columns of the following table.
Perhaps future enhancements to the template:convert can resolve these problems. --Buaidh 13:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't discriminate against application/xhtml+xml[edit]
You deleted the link to SLV Dweller from the San Luis Valley page because it doesn't work with all common browsers. What you've failed to realize is that Internet Explorer is the only browser that doesn't support the MIME type that SLV Dweller is using. We make it very clear to people browsing with Internet Explorer that they cannot view the web site because of the lack of standards support on that browser. We also educate IE users about the availability of other free browsers that will work because they comply with recognized standards.
Are you aware of the various W3C recommendations? Are you aware of how the web is evolving?
Many other pages on the World Wide Web use a MIME type of application/xhtml+xml, and the removal of links to such web sites from Wikipedia is evidence of nothing more than status quo thinking. The Web is moving forward, and there should be no discrimination against new standards.
The faults of Internet Explorer (especially version 6) are numerous:
Inadequate support for CSS Level 2
No support for upcoming innovations in CSS 3
Flawed CSS box model when operating in quirks mode (web pages without a doctype declaration use quirks mode)
No support for application/xhtml+xml
XHTML with a MIME type of application/xhtml+xml is a W3C recommendation and has been since 2001. The fact that Microsoft hasn't done anything about it is not acceptable grounds for removal of a link to a web site that complies with this web standard. SLV Dweller chose XHTML and application/xhtml+xml to ensure an effective archival encoding of our content for future machine processing (in addition to the other benefits of XHTML).
These are the browsers that DO accept application/xhtml+xml:
Safari - now available for Microsoft Windows, but historically the dominant web browser for Mac OS X
Opera - available for both Windows and Mac
Konqueror - the dominant browser on Linux operating systems
Firefox - 49% market share in some European countries, available for both Windows and Mac
Netscape - available for both Windows and Mac
You can see that there are plenty of alternatives to Internet Explorer, and the reason most people don't do anything about switching to a modern browser is because they think "the blue e" IS the Internet. I'm confident that you are not one of those people.
Depending on the locale, the market share of the above browsers comprises 50% or more. Internet Explorer usage is declining each day, largely in part to the advancement of the Web and the lack of progress on the part of Microsoft.
Microsoft is actually working on Internet Explorer 8, which is widely expected to support application/xhtml+xml. At that point, Microsoft will finally have caught up to the rest of the browser development community. At that point, what excuse will you have for having deleted untold numbers of links from Wikipedia on the basis of one company's delayed action in support of standards?
Please do not delete links to SLV Dweller anymore since the online community that has an interest in the San Luis Valley is astute enough to abandon Internet Explorer in favor of experiencing the modern-day Web as the standards bodies have advocated.
I am concerned about some recent pro-Indian edits to K2. The previous version has been stable for some time and imo the new edits are likely to trigger more ding-dongs with pro-Pakistan editors. What do you think? Viewfinder 18:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a lot of text material in the Gandaki article. Since I am a beginer to wikipedia, I am not sure if the inputs I have provided on the Gandaki and Mahakali rivers are ok from wiki standards. I have material on other rivers which are common to India and Nepal. But I can add them if the additions I have made so far are in order.Since all rivers originating from Nepal are transboundary rivers (except Mahakali river on the West and Mechi river in the east which are border rivers), it is essential to provide all known facts of the river in Indian territory too.--Nvvchar (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me about uploading images, just one question, you said I should put a correct license tag. I'm not sure which one, which license tag should I put?--LANGOLASSI (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if a semi-protect is necessary at this point. It has become a (small) edit war, but I don't think that shutting out the anon editor(s?) is required. So I'll abstain from a note on the request page. Also, see Talk:Mount Shasta, California for a proposal to start over, if you will, on the climate section. To be honest, some of the stuff that was in there already (and which was not getting warred over) does not seem to me to be sufficiently cited anyway. I think it's best to be cautious about verifiability, especially when people are getting into wars. -- Spireguy (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you please take a look at the recent history of List of highest mountains, where an unregistered editor is pushing for the Siachen summits to be placed in India. That editor appears to have stopped editing the article without consensus, and his claim seems to be supported at Siachen glacier. Thanks. Viewfinder (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i recently seen that you have edited masherbrum and inserted disputed claims why only pick on pakistani mountains why do you not add this to mountains situated in indian administered kashmir is there a underlying bias against pakistan? 86.158.239.250 (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.239.250 (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edited Masherbrum to put in a reference for the Indian claim, as requested, I believe, by you. (The value of the claim is disputed; the fact that the claim is made is not.) If you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains, you'll see that I have proposed creating a template to uniformly deal with all mountains in the Kashmir region. That would be the best way to focus the issue and prevent "bias". As to the "bias" that you seem to perceive, it's an artifact of the haphazard way that Wikipedia works---some articles get more attention than others. Also, the most famous mountains in Kashmir happen to be on the Pakistani side of the LOC, so they naturally get more attention. I hope this helps explain the situation to you, and I hope you can participate amicably in the editing process. -- Spireguy (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so its okay if i change mountains on the indian side as disputed also cheers dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.239.250 (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This will always be a contentious issue, so people on both sides tend to complain and get into edit wars over this. Hence, your best bet is to log in as a registered user---which makes it much easier to converse with you and to assume good faith---and to be civil on talk pages. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your tagging of Prominence#Debates_about_use, could you give examples of claims that need further citation? I was not aware that anything there was controversial or being disputed. Viewfinder (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing is a lot of material, some of it about rather subjective issues, that ideally should be cited to make clear that it is not OR. I was somewhat concerned about that issue when it was originally put in, but I never pressed the issue, since overall it's a lot of good points, both pro and con. While I was deleting the spire link, I noticed again how much there was that was not cited. I wouldn't say it was particularly controversial, just not sourced.
For example:
"This has the effect of spreading list ticking hikers out more thinly, creating environmental and economic benefits." -- value judgment, should be sourced
"...there is some sense in which Eiger...." -- see WP:AWW
"Such material is seen by its proponents as..." -- this directly alludes to a group opinion, which should be sourced
"...some passionately expressed derision by some climbers..." -- same as previous
First, a declaration: I wrote much of this section more than a year ago in an attempt to provide a balanced summary of the prominence debate. Apart from a challenge to the visibility paragraph, which was addressed, the content has been stable.
Comment, critical or otherwise, on prominence by professionals has been hard to find, so the sources are primarily forums, to which links are not encouraged by Wikipedia on the grounds that they are unstable. Regarding the first example: that prominence hikers are spread more thinly seems evident from analysis of the geography of prominence lists, and that it logically follows that there are economic and environmental benefits. I did not write the second. We probably can source the third (COHP?), although I don't think anyone disputes it. The main source of last three examples could once have been found via the prominence forum, but the link there now redirects and I can no longer find the linked jagged globe forum. Another source is Wikipedia itself; see Talk:Marilyn_(hill)#Delete.3F; even though no other wikipedian came out in support of Excalibur's attempt to delete, I think we can agree that some of his sentiments are widely shared.
More generally, if everything, controversial or otherwise, will have to be sourced to the letter or get tags, there will be a lot of tagging and it will be difficult to add much without infringing copyright. I agree that more sources would be better, but is there a threat to delete? Unless content is being disputed or challenged, tagging seems to me to be unnecessary. Viewfinder (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you watch Gasherbrum I and K6 (mountain) where editors have been deleting NPOV footnotes about ownership of these mountains? Viewfinder (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up; I'm already watching both pages (I actually created K6). I do get very tired of this particular issue, though.... -- Spireguy (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you review my edits to Chimborazo (volcano). I reverted the edits by the previous editor but updated per recent discussion with Edward Earl at the prominence forum. Viewfinder (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is one of the points where we still disagree a bit on interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines...I don't know of any reliable source that puts forward Huascarán as the winner, and in the absence of such a source, I don't see a compelling reason to put in the extra info about the uncertainty. But I'll probably stay on the sidelines on this issue this time around, and leave it up to you. -- Spireguy (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yo; please have a look at this discussion and also the other sections on that talkpage. The editor who's advancing the notion that a mountain range/physiography article should be a physiogeography+ecozone+geology+molecular systematics article made a series of name changes and additions/revisions to the article and it's even more of a mess than it was when he came along; his prior experience in Wiki and his own field is in biology and he's presuming to lecture ME (ME!!) on what are appropriate physiographic terminologies; actually he's dismissed the relevance of official toponymies and classification systems and wants to create his own. Shades of RT. I'm getting really sick of the whole thing and now it's clear that he seems to think he has the right to create OR and SYNTH based on any refs he happens to think are cool (no matter what their actual relevance to the field). I need fellow-"montaineer" backup here, or someone to take up the torch, or who knows which RFC to put this to; this isn't properly the tur of an admin, this needs expert opinion, but hte article is nowhere near the point where expert opinion is going to be of any use. And you and me and a few other prominence/moumtain geography folks around Wikipedia are the experts, as far as who's around wikipedia goes...I wish this guy would go back to biology....Skookum1 (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help much on this issue. I don't have enough expertise in the relevant classifications, and I don't have easy access to the relevant references, to resolve the subtle issues of organization involved. -- Spireguy (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm contacting you because I see you have made edits to Albuquerque Academy. Some navigation boxes were recently added for the New Mexico Activities Association allowing people to navigate which schools competed with each other. These templates are now threatened. Please make your voice heard regarding the NNAA Navigation box issue: [1]. They have already deleted the Nav box for all of 3A and 4A but these decisions can be reversed. However, your support is needed. Greg Comlish (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changes I'd like to make to Template:Infobox mountain[edit]
I've got a whole list of changes I'd like to make to the template on the discussion page. Since you are an active member of WikiProject Mountains, your thoughts would be appreciated. –droll[chat] 09:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In January 2007 you created a created bare-bones stub for the San Mateo Mountains (Cibola County, New Mexico), indicating that you would return. Aside from the addition of a location map, the stub is basically as you left it. Is there more that you could add? It is good to see contributors to the Wikipedia still active three years later. --Bejnar (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could get a bit more, if I have a few spare moments. Thanks for asking. I'll try to put that on my to-do list. -- Spireguy (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 14:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject New Mexico[edit]
It was recently suggested that WikiProject New Mexico, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi-active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there haven't been much active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. Another user has added the project to the WPUS template and I added it to the list of supported projects in the WPUS main project page but before I take any further action I wanted to contact each of the active members for their input. --Kumioko (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hello, Spireguy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Spireguy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Spireguy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.
If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here
.png){kind=logo}
