Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here is the standard welcome information!

• Checkout: Welcome, newcomers

Also these links might be useful:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

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!

Grinner 10:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Grinner. You seem to have interests in the some of the same fields as me, so you may come across me quite a bit. If you have any comments or objections to anything I post then please bring them to my attention and they will be addressed promptly. Please do not do a Gillean666 and go into mass destruction mode... (btw during the few hours between the creation of the panorama links by Mark J, about which I had no knowledge at the time, and destruction by Gillean666 the quantity of orders I took was precisely nil). Postings that followed their destruction were in support of the links so I have restored them, I hope they are OK. Viewfinder 11:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm liking the panoramas, so no I won't be deleting them. By the way I think Gillean has relented on the mass deletion mode. Grinner 11:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the panoramas - very interesting. But I can't see the one for An Sgurr, Eigg - it's giving me a 404 error message - can you help? CarolGray 22:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - link typo, thanks for drawing it to my attention. It should be OK now but the image size is greater than A4 so note the paragraph about download at the top of the page. Viewfinder 22:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copying this across from User talk:Mark J#Panoramas 'Spam':

I'd just like to pip in here and say I have trouble finding the usefulness in all those linked panoramas. Additionally the commercial aspect is way off too. Remember WP:EL#What should not be linked to... If the copyright of these images was such that they could be added to WP itself, then... Thanks/wangi 21:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll take it to Viewfinder's page, although you are the one adding the links! Although I am going to remove at least the link from the Forth Road Bridge article - having a panorama of peaks visable from a peak is one thing, but from a bridge!? Thanks/wangi 17:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically if the image itself was licenced so it could be included in Wikipedia then fair enough... However you're using web links as a way of getting round putting the images up for real. Web links aren't a way to bypass copyright. Thanks/wangi 17:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These panoramas have already been deleted once and and the reaction can be found here. Surely to look at the view from a mountain is part of the reason for climbing it, so the images ARE relevant and useful. The mountain pages are in need of expansion. Why not add some more external links?

I do not understand some of the above so I cannot really comment. I have taken no orders at all as a result of the images being on Wikipedia so there is no commercial element. There is nothing advertised on the linked site. The images ARE up for real. I suppose I could put the panoramas on the Wikipedia pages themselves but they would take up loads of space and drown out everything else.

On the copyright issue, I am the copyright holder. It is theoretically possible that the OS could object on the basis that the panoramas were made from their data but so far they have not done so and it would be both destructive and unnecessary for them to do so. Viewfinder 21:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using the {{coor dms}} template in some city articles lately. I am asking you this question because I notice you had made some edits to the template. What it the 9th parameter to the template? I can’t find any information on the talk page. •DanMS 05:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried editing this template but I was concerned about the effects so I reverted them. I am not sure what you mean by the ninth parameter; there seem to be only eight.

I may try deleting the superfluous spaces between the minutes and seconds, and seconds and hemisphere. What do you think about these? It seems to me that either these should go, or a space should also separate the degrees from the minutes. I did this for the Mtnbox coor dms template, and the change seems to have been accepted. Viewfinder 14:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viewfinder - well done on correcting the caption (was about to do the same!). But what does "30" mean? - MPF 12:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified this, see Andes Viewfinder 13:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - MPF 13:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following your comments in Talk:Highest unclimbed mountain I’ve decided to reply here. In particular the page on your website about the heights of the mountains and the position of the border is tremendously interesting. You’ve obviously done a lot of work and have impeccable sources! A lot seems to have happened in the last few months and I hadn’t kept up. A sad backdrop is http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7598_1583871,000500020006.htm. It does indeed look as if Kula Kangri is not so high as Gangkhar Puensum and this may have ramifications on the border issue.

Clearly, the zig-zag border makes no topographical sense but I’d be less confident that you are that the border is (or would be decided to be) along the watershed! Helping your argument is the Bhutan article http://www.dop.gov.bt/fyp/05/05fyp_01.htm you drew to my attention which says “”The border with Tibet is traditional, following ... the crest of the Himalayas in the north”. I wonder whether, knowing the positions of KK and GP, some committee “pencilled in” the border on the ridge between them and continued east and west from there, generally along the “crest”. If KK is lower then one could properly regard this ridge as a spur (as you do) but this would not have been known at the time.

Steven Berry, in saying that GP is wholly in Bhutan was possibly simply reporting what he had been told. However, my 1992 big Times Atlas is very odd. It shows the zig-zag border but marks a mountain only at the SW “zag”. It marks it “Kula Kangri 7554” but I had realised this must be wrong. The Lat/long are pretty much where GP is stated to be. Even though I presumed the map is wrong I supposed it was just that the mountain is wrongly labelled. However, the mountain is not shown on the zag of the border but a couple of miles west. This makes no sense but I was taking it seriously. Hence, I felt there was “authority” for GP to be in Bhutan rather than exactly on the border.

Your relief map is terrific! However, even if we were certain the border was on the watershed, I think that still leaves doubt. If KK were higher (as it certainly used to be thought to be) how would you draw a watershed passing through KK? Would it pass through GP? There may be a subjective element here.

Two minor comments: on your http://www.viewfinderpanoramas.org/kula.html article, the link to the Japanese map is broken (it is OK on http://www.sol.co.uk/v/viewfinder/kula.html) also, your link to http://gangkhar-puensum.iqnaut.net/ strives me as odd in that is simply mirrors the Wikipedia Gangkhar Puensum article (acknowledging the fact). Thincat 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the above comments. On the relative heights, it is possible that the Chinese may have rigged their figures to further their territorial cause, but this seems unlikely because (a) they would be likely to be caught and exposed, (b) many other new elevations which they have published in their Mountaineering Guide seem to be accurate and SRTM compatible, and (c) their territorial case is not, imo, dependent on these heights. Mountain range "crests" do not have to include their highest points, and in some cases cannot do so without a long detour. Even if KK is the local HP, drawing the border over it would be difficult. Such a border would either have to pass (a) over GP, the NE over KK, then eastwards which would take it north of settlements that all authorities now agree are Tibetan, or (b) descend to a low point well to the north of the pass west of GP, then turn south over KK, south west towards GP, but turn east before reaching GP, leaving GP wholly in Bhutan. Course (b) is shown on large scale (and mostly wrong) maps, but not on detailed topos because they expose its illogic. The case for it would be hard to substantiate, because it would go a long way from the watershed, and it would create a kind of Bhutanese enclave, easily approached from Tibet but cut off from the rest of Bhutan by a high pass defended by glaciers.

It would be interesting to know more information about the locations and nature of recent Chinese border incursions. If high altitude civil engineering work is needed to avoid flooding then this strengthens the case for watershed borders. There may also be military considerations, but this page is probably not the right place to elaborate on these.

The local 1:200000 Russian topography (1980's) of the area can be downloaded here. The summit names and heights are wrong (it gives KK 7425m) but the general relief and border course are correct. As you say, the Times Atlas has Kula Kangri in the wrong place, and its topography seems to be wrong.

Sorry about the slight mix-up over links, my SOL server was down earlier this week so I had to use my other site. I am gradually transferring everything to the new VP site but I cannot do this all at once because of links from other sites. Viewfinder 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you see San Diego and Palm Springs from Mt. Whitney? To the best of my knowledge, those cities are well obscured. I have a similar question about supposedly seeing Reno from Mt. Diablo, all the way across the Sierra Nevada.

Of course you do not see these cities, that is obvious. They are there for reference. By showing Palm Springs and San Gorgonio Mountain in the same direction, for example, I am showing the location of San Gorgonio Mtn relative to Palm Springs. Viewfinder

An interesting observation has been posted here: "A relative height is a fact, and is ineligible for copyright".

It logically follows that a contour line is a fact and is therefore also ineligible for copyright. OK, photocopying maps and selling the copies is obviously copyvio, but what about tracing the contours for the purposes of creating DEM data, whose many applications include the computing of relative heights? That should be OK, and that is precisely what I have been doing for a long time. Nobody had objected, so I assume it is OK. But most maps bear catch-all clauses implicitly forbidding this. It is an area which needs clarification.

For my part, I see copyright as a negative force, not a force for good. Economic theory tells us that the general interest is best served when price is based on cost of reproduction. It follows that if knowledge can be reproduced for free, it should be available for free. But I do not like plagiarism either. Presenting someone else's work as your own is wrong. I can understand concern about the possibility of high volumes of data being copied to Wikipedia from other sites, with the credits removed or watered down. Personally, I do not think that has happened yet in the field of topography, but not all topographic researchers agree.

Comments about the above are welcome. Viewfinder 14:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to see another user who sees Adkagansu for what he really is, a subtle POV pusher. I really hope that you will help me keep an eye on him and also help stop his POVing. Please get back to me, thank you!--Moosh88 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must have gotten mixed up. I thought Adkagansu deleted the picture that I re-added. Thanks anyways. :) --Khoikhoi 00:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your comment at Moosh's talk page. Check your email. --Khoikhoi 00:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted El C, who else do you suggest I contact?--Moosh88 00:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedat Laciner is on Wikipedia contributing under two different usernames, please keep and eye on him, as he has already begun his POV pushing campaign. His user name is Slaciner, I don't know the other name he uses. Please contact me if you have any questions or something important comes up, thanks!--Moosh88 23:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i'll edit the Pico Bolívar height back to 4981 untill the url is fixed, i do have the pdf on my computer, it's an article published on the geography school of the Universidad de los Andes, in Mérida, Venezuela. It discusses merida state highest's elevations, and while it acknowledges and even mentions the GPS measurement, they don't seem to care too much for it, and rather rely on topographic maps of the area, which is to date the oficial way to measure elevations. On the other hand, Pico La Concha and Pico Humboldt are completely different mountains separated by several kilometers. Pico Bompland and Pico Humboldt do belong to the same massif, not sure if you mixed them up, the pdf i was talking about has a comprehensive list of elevations higher than 4300 in Venezuela with coordinates, mountain range located, alternative names, etc. I hope this clarifies matters.

It would be good to see the pdf article, please fix the url. I would also be interested to know the year in which the topographic map of the area, on which the article relies, was published. To the best of my information, La Concha is about 3km NE of Bolivar, with an intervening drop of abut 250m, and Humboldt is 5km E, with a drop of about 450m. I think that puts all three on the same massif, although Humboldt qualifies as a separate mountain under the commonly used "Andes 400m rule". If you are interested, we have complete lists of South American summits ranked by topographic prominence down to 1500m, you can call up the page covering Venezuela. But we are unsure of some of the elevations, including Monte Roraima; if you have better information, please tell us. Viewfinder 04:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the URL might have been fixed try this: http://www.saber.ula.ve/cgi-win/be_alex.exe?Acceso=T016300000959/5&Nombrebd=Saber if that still doesn't work i'll gladly send it to the e-mail on your website. Is the "Andes 400m rule" a wikipedia standard? the author of the mentioned article uses a 100m+ prominence rule, i'm not sure which one is more accurate, thanks for the info and links. 0kty

The above link worked fine, many thanks. There is a lot of useful information in the document, and it looks to be fairly accurate. I have saved it and I will use it for reference.

I do not think there is any fixed Wikipedia prominence rule. The 400m rule is used by John Biggar here. I am not further contesting these additional peaks, but there are very many higher and more prominent peaks in the Andes which are not listed.

Still, the pdf article is dated 2001, which means that this page, which is on an official Venezuelan government site, is more recent. And the GPS readings by John Biggar that I referred to, which agree closely with the 4981m elevation, were taken on the summit of Bolívar in January 2006. At the time that the topographic maps were made, it was thought by all that Bolívar was a 5000m summit. It is only recently that accurate satellite and GPS technology has shown it to be slightly lower. Viewfinder 19:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied on my talk page. gala.martin (what?) 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]