Archives

User_Talk:Viewfinder/Archive 1: November 2005 – September 2006

Archives

User_Talk:Viewfinder/Archive 2: September 2006 – April 2013

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made some modification. Let me think what do you think. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Viewfinder. The first citation in the Mount Damavand article contains the footnote on the elevation. The first sentence reads: "The 5,610 metre height given here is from the Statistical Centre of Iran, which states that "the highest point in Iran is Mount Damāvand being 5,610 metres high"." That particular link to the SCI is dead and currently the website for Statistical Centre of Iran doesn't contain any information at all on geographic facts that I could find. I have added another link to the end of that statement that sources the exact quote, but it's from an Iran Embassy site.

Do you know how best to fix this? I know you are not the original author, but you have contributed that footnote (which was a section originally) in the past and I thought I would ask before tagging the link.

BTW, I have made the first steps in getting the elevation corrected in virtually all languages of Wikipedia that have an article on the peak. It may help me to be armed with that SCI source. Wish me luck. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the SCI link no longer supplies any geographic information but you have found another official site which still has this information. This page vigorously upholds 5671m but its author implicitly admits that his own GPS readings are more consistent with 5610m than 5671m, even if 5610m is a bit too low. While there is a GPS consensus around 5625-5630m from GPS, the 2007 GPS survey by Petter Bjorstad included a reading of -17m taken from the nearby Caspian Sea which is actually -28m, which suggests that the geoid model used by 2007 GPS devices is locally more than 10m too high. The highest 3" cell in SRTM data is 5595m and in 1" ASTER data is 5604m, that is clear evidence that 5671m is too high. Viewfinder (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that article before and it is strange that the author supports 5671 when his own data is closer to 5610. I suspect myself that 5610 may be a little low but it seems that many reliable sources are quoting 5610 and I assume we both agree that's still the best one to go with. I was just checking if you happen have that SCI link. Thanks for the info. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 5671 author is a local guide who probably does not want to face up to the fact that Damavand is lower than Elbrus. Viewfinder (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, maybe, but I have a great deal of respect for anyone who gears up and climbs a mountain, especially in an effort to settle something like this. So I will refrain from bashing him too hard:)

Forgot to mention before that you cleared up another little mystery. I can't remember where but I have seen 5604m pop up couple of times in my research and I was wondering where that one came from. The ASTER data is likely the source, but I if understand it correctly, that highest 1" cell only indicates that the peak is at least that high, though unlikely to be much higher. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK Soltani is a respected guide who does a good job of getting western customers safely to the summit in a country which calls western countries "Great Satans". But his 5645m GPS reading baffles me, maybe he was using it in barometric mode not satellite mode. His 5626-5630m readings are in line with Petter's but fall >40m short of the 5671m he upholds, compared with the +/- 15m GPS error margin that he mentions. Yes I recall the 5604m and traced it to an earlier edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. The current EB version claims that it may be as high as 5800m which is typical EB nonsense. "At least" that high though unlikely to be much higher, yes that is true. SRTM 5595m is averaged over a 3"x3" area - unless there are local no data areas which for Damavand there are not. For a volcanic cone the summit likely to be about 10-20m higher; for an ice-chiselled ridge or horn the difference may be greater. Viewfinder (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please convert this false and shamless information of damavand elevation to the correct and new elevation that's NASA and so many competent organizations that have been calculate that , (( 5610m is false and 5671m is correct )) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horamantarh (talk • contribs) 08:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source for your claim that 5671m was "calculated by NASA"? No. 5671m is old, inaccurate and incompatible with the modern GPS and NASA's SRTM data. Unfortunately it still appears on sites who copy each other. No primary sources have been supplied in support of it. Viewfinder (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have been unable to find a free-to-use photograph of the hall, which is a pity because it would be good for readers to see what it really looks like. Have you any access to such a photograph? Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I have a photograph. I was often there when my grandparents lived in the converted stables but I have only made occasional visits since my uncle built the new hall. The last time was in 2008 for the funeral of his first wife. Meanwhile this looks authorized: [1] Viewfinder (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm no expert in copyright, but would not like to use it without further confirmation from the source. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about copyright. What I meant was that the photograph appears to be on the web with the approval of the estate. Agreed that its reproduction on Wikipedia would require permission, but I doubt if an external link on Wikipedia would upset anyone. Viewfinder (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile the occupier's marriage to a landscape gardener is surely notable. I was puzzled by the deletion of its citation. Viewfinder (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you restore it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Beinn Mhor from S.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Kindly be advised that referring to data provided by individuals instead of well known organisations such as NASA reduces the reliability of information provided by wiki. Therefore kindly do not undo my corrections made on article Mount Damavand for altitude of Damavand, as I have cited a NASA reference which is much more reliable than anybody else. All the best. Farhoudk (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing an old NASA source (2005) which merely copied an older source. I am citing a primary 2007 GPS survey. Viewfinder (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring at Mount Damavand. You are clearly aware that what you were participating in was an edit war, as you reported another editor for taking part in the same edit war. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  JamesBWatson (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Viewfinder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been editing mountain articles on Wikipedia for a long time. I thought that I had been making a worthwhile contribution to their accuracy, and that that included correcting errors of 60 metres in mountain heights. This block will seriously damage my reputation and therefore my ability to continue to do this. Despite my extensive use of the talk page, Farhoudk, who has been on Wikipedia for as long as I have, persisted in reverting me. Despite the fact that it was him, not me, who violated WP:3RR, and that I warned him in my last edit summary that a further revert would breach WP:3RR, it is me, not him, who is serving the block. I am willing to apologise if I have not followed all the rules as closely as I should have done, and I am willing to pursue dispute resolution instead of correcting (as I see it) the article, but I cannot do this while blocked. The implication at the above mentioned talk page by the blocking administrator that "discrepancies of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain" are not worth bothering about, really saddens me. I have been a topographic researcher for many years, and errors in mountain heights that are greater than the error range of hand held GPS devices should be corrected on Wikipedia. Footnote: it is stated at here that I "arrived on the scene recently". That is not correct, check the article history. Attempts by editors to restore the old and inaccurate elevation (as I see it) have been resisted by other editors who regularly edit mountain articles.

Decline reason:

I think you miss the point here: you made a change. It was not accepted by one single editor. You may therefore never, EVER re-add it until you have discussed it on the article talkpage in order to gain new WP:CONSENSUS for it. Indeed, the GPS survey you're using might not even be considered to be a valid source. As you have continually reverted the valid removal, you have engaged in what is called a "long term edit war". The onus is on YOU to provide proof, generate discussion, and never make the change again until you have consensus to do so. DP 10:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• On the issue of having "arrived on the scene recently", I stand corrected. Having checked more thoroughly, I now see that you have been edit warring on this since December 2005, which must make it by far the longest edit war by one editor I have ever come across, and making a mere two-day block really minimal. It may possibly help you to point out that a belief that what you are doing is "right" does not exempt you from the policy on edit warring. Indeed, if it did then the policy would be pointless, since in almost all edit wars every participant believes that he or she is right. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of waging an eight year edit war. I not only deny that accusation, but I am very, very upset about it. Yes, I changed the elevation in December 2005 and linked it to an official Iranian site, and yes, I have been defending it against unsourced changes - and the article against vandalism - ever since, and I have contributed plenty to the talk page. But I would ask you to re-check [2] and point out any editing prior to yesterday that you persist in calling "edit warring". Viewfinder (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction. I linked the elevation to an Encyclopedia Britannica source in 2005. I did not find and link it to the official Iranian source until May 2006. That source eventually died and was replaced. Viewfinder (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that there is a general one revert rule on Wikipedia, and that if you break it you can be arbitrarily blocked for "edit warring" without notice. I repeat my demand that the claim that I have been edit warring at Mount Damavand since December 2005 be substantiated. Right or wrong, the elevation change that I made then has been upheld by several other editors. It is upheld by the great majority of editors of Wikipedias in other languages. I know of no regular editor of mountain articles who opposes it. Viewfinder (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You ask for the statement about edit warring since December 2005 to be "substantiated". As far as I am concerned, it is a matter of very little importance, and I would quite happily have left it at my statement that you had joined the edit war "recently". However, since you denied that, I checked, and found that the earliest time when you made something effectively similar to the edits in the recent edit war was in December 2005, and that you had made the same, or essentially similar, changes at various times over the intervening years. I emphasise that as far as I am concerned it really makes no difference, since the edit warring you have done within the last few days is the reason for the block, and it was purely to acknowledge your insistence that you were not recently arrived on the edit warring scene that I mentioned the earlier history at all. However, since you ask for it, I will give you further details of edits you have made which essentially amount to repeatedly insisting on a substantially lower height than 5,671 metres (in most cases 5,610 metres).

In recent edit warring you have repeatedly replaced 5,671 metres with 5,610 metres. The edit in December 2005 that I referred to actually replaced 5,671 metres with 5,604 metres, as you can see here. To me, changing 5,671 to 5,604 and changing 5,671 to 5,610 are minor variations on essentially the same change, but if you prefer we can count only changes to 5,610. Your first change to 5,610 was here, in May 2006. It was then followed by several reverts in 2006: [3], [4], [5], [6]. In 2007 we have an edit which, while not exactly repeating what you did before, certainly repeated your insistence that 5,671 was wrong: [7], another edit that removed 5.671: [8]. There are also a couple of other edits that relate to your insistence that 5,671 is "wrong", but the next direct revert occurred in 2012: [9], and then there is a gap until 5 January 2014, from when we get the following sequence of reverts: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14].

You are perfectly free to make your own decision as to when your actions first became edit warring. You have repeatedly undone other editors' edits giving the height as 5,671 metres. The first time that you undid that particular content was in December 2005. I have no intention of debating whether that counts as a revert: if you prefer, you can say that the edit warring started in 2006. Personally, I don't see any way of reading your editing in 2006 as anything other than a slow edit war, but I actually don't care, and if you like you can say that you started edit warring in February 2014, as it makes no difference whatever to the block, which was given for your edit warring from 9 February to 12 February 2014. As I have already said, the only reason that I even looked at, let alone commented on, your much earlier history of similar editing is that you stated that I was wrong to say that you had only recently arrived on the edit war scene, and for some reason you thought it important enough to need correction. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JBW, I have checked the above edits that you mention, and find that the ones in 2006-7 changed the elevation without changing the sources that I supplied in support of my elevation. What should I have done? Left the article with the sources contradicting it? Deleted the valid sources? These edits should not be regarded as competent rejections of my edits on which to base your accusations of "long term edit warring". Your admin colleagues claims that my change was not accepted by a single editor, but returning to the recent past, please note these edits: [15], [16], [17] (by an editor who persisted against an opponent who violated WP:3RR), [18]. You can see that my change was defended by four other editors, three of whom are regular editors of mountain articles. Most recently, I was blocked despite stopping short of breaching WP:3RR, unlike two of my adversaries. If you check the edit history again, you will find that WP:3RR was breached by my adversaries on 4 January as well as yesterday. Viewfinder (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I regret my attempt to resist Farhoudk, and I hope that I can come to a consensus with him. Failing that I have the option of pursuing arbitration. But I can do nothing while I am blocked. I am sorry, but I seriously took the view that my original change, having stood for eight years, had become established and the onus was therefore on Farhoudk to justify his case for changing it. Viewfinder (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]