Respect your decision and whatever the reasons for it, but hoping you reconsider and change your mind soon. We need you around here man. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 10:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contact me by e-mail if necessary. Viewfinder (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the sad result of the behaviour of minor contributors or the rules of Wikipedia then there's something seriously wrong with both of them. I'm very sorry to see you go.

Qwrk (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My withdrawal was the immediate consequence of a general purge of my internet media accounts following the excessive use of Facebook to pull strings in my life. But I have decided not to restore my Wikipedia account. My site, which includes my e-mail address, is still available. The behaviour of the User:Farhoudk, who made claims that are just plain wrong, was certainly not helpful. But the biased and nasty response of administrator User:JamesBWatson and his cohorts, who blocked me not my opponent despite him not me breaking 3RR, upset me considerably more. But, as an independent topographic researcher, the rules too are a problem, particularly the WP:OR rule. Even if I can put together a referenced argument in support of my claims, my edits can still be challenged as OR. My site has been used as a reference by other editors so it is evidently regarded by Wikipedians as adequately reliable. It is therefore better for me to post my research to my own site, then let others judge it before deciding whether or not to post it to Wikipedia. I will be updating my inflated elevations page very soon, especially the section on Mount Damavand. I hope it will be considered more reliable than unreferenced or outdated claims in outdated articles by employees of the likes of NASA and USGS. In recent times I have tended towards using Wikipedia, rather than my own site, as a platform for my own research, bending the OR rules too far in the process. Viewfinder (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see your retirement. You might go to vacation :) instead to get rid of these temporary headaches for a while. Your statements on WP:OR rule is a reality. New official measurements are available for Mount Damavand elevation using gravimeter as well, but still is not reliable for me to mention on wiki, as Iranian authorities have not published it officially yet!! Also when it comes to compare elevation of Damavand with other summits in for example Eastern Europe to have extra judgments, all measurements must be accomplished by same internationally acceptable procedures and instruments. I am sure this kind of global measurements will be done in near future and not only the problem of having inaccurate elevation of Mount Damavand will be resolved but also we will see better accuracy for elevation of summits mentioned in List of Iranian four-thousanders as well. Until then, it is better to leave the elevation of Mount Damavand as disputed. Farhoudk (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Iranian authorities have and are about to publish new information then we can wait for it. Let's hope they do. Viewfinder (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link from 1998 is a low value link because the information is entirely trivial. That this is the best that you can do does add weight to the inevitable conclusion that this BLP of a minor isn't worth the bytes its written in.

Describing him as a mathematician and astrophysicist is also misleading. He is at best, a student whose had a puff biography written of him by his mother. Please do not add misleading information. And please do not lecture me on this sortof thing. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the description should have been amended per the article. Viewfinder (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting lonely here. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute appears to be over Jorge Egocheaga, with Qwrk insisting that he be included in the verified list, citing Eberhard Jurgalski's 8000ers.com. I have just downloaded the cited page and I cannot find him listed. EJ is well known to me, I could contact him directly. Viewfinder (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Qwrk is apparently waiting for an update. Any help would be appreciated I'm sure.

I will contact EJ. Viewfinder (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile it appears that Qwrk has already heard from EJ, who has not updated his site. Whatever the situation, until we have a reliable source in support of the claim that JE's ascent has been accepted, he has to remain in the disputed section. Viewfinder (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to look at [1]? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 17:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eberhard just called me to inform me that a user, who goes by the same name as User;Globetrotter1918, has been active on Polish wikipedia, and who is currently blocked "with an expiry time forever (account creation disabled, can not edit own talk page) (unauthorized use of puppets)"

Check;

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wk%C5%82ad/Globetrotter1918 [translation here; https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpecjalna%3AWk%25C5%2582ad%2FGlobetrotter1918&edit-text= ]

When it comes to logical fallacies ["8000ers.com is NOT the authorative source for this!" while at the same time using link to sources on 8000ers.com to be used as a reference], I stand by my view that, even when the basis of wikipedia is a good one, in essence there is something fundamentally wrong with this platform when a contributor with 3,000 edits is given the same weight as a newby with 6 edits to his name.

I thought this is something you all should know.

Qwrk (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will e-mail EJ. Thank you for the Finisterre edit. I think we should accept the 4150m GPS reading and delete the references to 4125 and 4175. I have asked PB to upload more information about the name. Viewfinder (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also edited one (Keokradong) and added another (Mowdok Mual) prominence in Bangladesh. I hope these will not be disputed. Peakbagger is not a reliable source of summit coordinates or prominence data other than where its author has cited other sources. Viewfinder (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I have amended my retirement to semi-retired, that appears to be the way it is working out. I am still available to help where I can. Viewfinder (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hope Qwrk is ok.

Regarding Finisterre: I noticed earlier in the Bjørstad source it says "Primary factor 3700 m" under the elevation. Is this a prominence? If so I would much rather use a value that is directly sourced rather than one we calculated on a talk page. The combined error margin of the two measurements probably exceeds 7 m anyway. As I am about to change the standing of five peaks at List of peaks by prominence with this, I would like to be armed with a least something.

Also would you mind if I moved or copied our Finisterre posts from here to the article talk page? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these should be moved to article talk page. Primary factor is another name for prominence. I stand by the 441m col and would rather it was not changed, at least until I have asked about the source of 3700 on the Boising page. Viewfinder (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VF. Noticing you are currently engaged in a productive discussion. In that spirit, I would recommend you restore what you removed here. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. What is happening is that User:Slawekb, having failed to get an article removed, is now slanting that article against its subject - a minor - and in particular his mother, by giving undue weight to exaggerated claims. I will not be provoked into edit warring at the article. As for what I removed from its talk page, BBB refers to the subject as "my favorite minor" in a context that can only be a suggestion that I am motivated by an inappropriate attraction to the subject. Given the current hysteria in the UK that has been generated by Operation Yewtree, I am not minded to let him or her get away with that. In fact, I am more minded to report it. At the very least I want an apology. My interest in the remarkable subject is wholly based a common autistic condition and scientific background, and the urge to defend him and his mother against hurtful attacks by a cabal. I do not ever expect to meet him or communicate with him in any shape or form. Viewfinder (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya. Though consider that generally an unfounded accusation or personal attack reflects more negatively on the editor who says it, rather than the editor it is directed at. At least in my opinion. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 03:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing Wikipedia for 9 years. Most of my edits have been on topographic related issues, but occasionally I get involved with other issues. I affirm emotional interest in the Jacob Barnett article because of the autism issue which affects me personally. I have argued strongly in support of the existence of the article, and rejoined the argument last night in response to what I saw as an attempt to get the article deleted through the back door by toning up criticism of its subject, who is a minor. What really upset me was the use of four letter words by the initiator of this section in support of his or her case against the article. Viewfinder (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viewfinder, it here looks like you are trying to justify the removal of Barney's post because it includes four letter words. The only four letter words in that post are "what", "that", and "very", and surely you cannot be objecting to these, so I assume you must mean something else. But if you want to accuse Barney of using inappropriate language, you should be prepared to support it with diffs. Don't rely on him (or anyone else) knowing what in the world you are talking about.

That having been said, I don't think it was necessary to go to ANI with this issue. However, I do think you should carefully consider your role in editing that article. You have already demonstrated an unwillingness to examine the existing sources critically, even to the point of being unable to see the obvious falsehoods contained in those articles and presented with clear evidence. It is not uncommon for an individual who is otherwise a good critical thinker to be unable to exercise that skill fully when presented with a conflict of interests. This is a clear cognitive bias, and as such you are probably not even aware of it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the four letter words: I am sorry, I was called away suddenly before I had time to post the diffs. Here they are: [2] [3]. Re my specific reasons for removing Barney's post, I stated these in the section above. Regarding my editing of the article, see [4]. I have made only minor edits, some of which you reverted on sight but subsequently part reinstated. I don't think I need reconsider my editing role. That Barney has accused me at ANI of owning the article is astonishing. I reject your claim that I have not examined the sources critically. I was not the only editor at DRV to challenge your "obvious falsehood" accusations made against multiple non-tabloid journalists. I also reaffirm my suggestion that you are toning up the criticism with intent to further an ongoing goal to get the article removed. Still, if you can reach a consensus with Cunard and Marshall about the article, I will not challenge that consensus. Viewfinder (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a long list of sources presented at the AfD, and Agricola44 gave a lengthy and fairly conclusive analysis questioning the reliability of each of them. As to obvious falsehoods: (1) Claims that Barnett has a higher IQ than Einstein (Einstein never had an IQ test performed, and anyway no source is ever given for the apparently invented number of 170 that the Daily Mail article suggests). (2) Barnett was tipped as a future Nobel Prize winner (BBC and others). (3) Barnett disproved Einstein's theory of relativity (Time and others). (4) Barnett is one of the world's most promising physicists (MacLeans and others). (5) Scott Tremaine is a Princeton University professor (many sources). I know that you are (apparently) unable to detect falsehood; see cognitive bias. But at least accept that a news report making an unattributed claim that Barnett is "tipped for a Nobel Prize", whatever that might mean, cannot be considered reliable. It does not meet the journalistic standards set forth by the BBC's own editorial guidelines as articulated in http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-accuracy-principles/, especially paragraph 3.2.2: "All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed."

Also, I have already explained my motives in the appropriate discussion page: I am trying to adhere to the WP:NPOV policy, specifically WP:WEIGHT. You realize that in questioning my motives you are now calling me a (*gasp*) liar?! Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of calling you a liar yet you repeat accusations that multiple non-tabloid journalists have been indulging in "obvious falsehoods". Please explain to me the difference between an "obvious falsehood" and a lie, or allow me to point out that those who live in greenhouses should not throw stones. I was not the only editor at DRV to reject your claim of obvious falsehoods, see [5]. Viewfinder (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's back away from the "obvious falsehoods" for a minute. Let's aim for a slightly lesser goal: journalistic accuracy. Per the paragraph that I quoted above, would you agree that reliable news sources must refrain from unfounded speculation, and that content that cannot be corroborated should be attributed? Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to your recent edits, the sources whose accuracy was questioned were excluded from the article. There is a place in the article for mention and criticism of these sources, but the weight that you have given them is undue. Viewfinder (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viewfinder, you did not answer my question. The question was "would you agree that reliable news sources must refrain from unfounded speculation, and that content that cannot be corroborated should be attributed?" Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what you call "unfounded speculation" would be more accurately described as giving lay readers the impression that the issue is greater than it actually is. Ideally this should not happen, but realistically, short of imposing draconian censorship, I don't see how it can be prevented. It is right that challenges to such journalism be added and given due weight, even if we disagree about the appropriate weight at Jacob Barnett, where there is too much about the news coverage controversy. Incidentally one of my favorite internet sites is The Skeptics' Bible. Viewfinder (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not referring to generalities when I say "speculation". I am referring to specific, concrete statements that are not mere statements of verifiable facts, like "Barnett is tipped for a Nobel Prize", "Barnett has disproven Einstein", "Barnett's IQ is higher than Einstein", and "Barnett is one of the world's most promising physicists". Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Tipped for Nobel Prize"...If I thought a horse had a 100-1 chance of coming in, I would tip that horse if it were quoted at 200-1. Tipping someone does not even imply that it is likely that he will win, only that the tipster thinks he is more likely to win than the rest of the world thinks he is. "Disproven Einstein"... when Barnett was 12, he may have said that he thought he could do this and that he had the equations to do so, that is what Time wrote, Time did not state disproven Einstein as fact. "IQ higher than Einstein"... of course we'll never know, Einstein was never tested; journalists are not perfect, people like you and I can always pull them up on such slips. It is neither "obviously true" nor "obviously false" that Barnett's IQ is higher than Einstein's was. It may be true, or it may not. "One of world's most promising physicists"... again, that is subjective. None of these examples are "obvious falsehoods". Right wing journalists in the UK often write that Conservative governments manage the UK economy better than Labour governments. Such statements are neither obviously true nor obviously false. Viewfinder (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have said that we should not focus for the moment on the "obvious falsehood" criterion, since what is obvious to some is clearly not so obvious to others, but rather the much less subjective criterion that news sources, if they are considered to be reliable, must adhere to the basic standards for accuracy in reporting as articulated by the BBC's editorial guidelines. Specifically: 2: "All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed." Do you agree that this is a reasonable standard to which our sources should be held? Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be trapped into supplying an unconditional Yes or No answer. If we cover a non-obvious situation we should maintain a neutral point of view. Viewfinder (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to "trap" you. I am just trying to arrive at an agreement as to what kinds of news sources are regarded as quality sources for writing an encyclopedia. For example, I recently read an article that quoted the Polish prime minister Donald Tusk as expressing concern over the buildup of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border. The attribution for the concern was very clear, and an encyclopedia article could say "Donald tusk was concerned..." etc. But a statement such as "Barnett is tipped for a Nobel Prize" does not have any attribution, and it is not clear what the source of such a statement is. That is what is commonly called "speculation", and while you might be reluctant to give an unconditional answer to my query, hopefully you will agree that speculation is not exactly a hallmark of reliability in journalism.

To relate this to an example that you raised before, I hope you would agree also that we should be equally careful in referencing an article written by a conservative journalist who asserts that conservative governments manage the economy better. Indeed, this would be a statement of opinion and not fact, and it would potentially taint the rest of the source (we have a policy on this: WP:NEWSORG). Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He is working on a subject.... if he solves it he is in line for a Nobel Prize..." While that is not necessarily a statement that he will get or is even likely to get a Nobel Prize, can not the BBC and I still argue that Tremaine is tipping him? I refer you back to my horse analogy. Viewfinder (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been fine if the BBC had said that they contacted Scott Tremaine, who then had said: : "Watch this one. He's a likely candidate for a future Nobel Prize." Then we could say that "According to Scott Tremaine..." etc. However, there is no indication that the BBC did contact Tremaine, or indeed that they contacted anyone regarding the statement. It is an unattributed statement; that's what the word unattributed means.

But to head off any more attempts to decipher what Tremaine's views really might be from the selective quote that Mrs. Barnett furnished the Indianapolis Star reporters, the only time in this entire affair that Tremaine actually corresponded directly with a reporter, he said this (to the Indianapolis Star correspondent):

"I have seen a YouTube video in which Jake describes his theory, and I have spoken with his mother and corresponded with both her and Jake by email," Tremaine said. "I hope that Jake continues his interest in physics and mathematics."[6]

I have no doubt that this is faithfully reported by the journalist in question, and accurately and entirely represents Tremaine's opinion on Jacob's promising future. Do you agree? Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Barney's unhelpful contribution below (now deleted), this thread seems to be no longer about my behaviour and is becoming an intelligent and interesting discussion about the BBC. Of course the BBC do not always get it right. All organisations deviate from time to time from their own guidelines. They are no more perfect than the people who work for them. Right now I have more pressing tasks which prevent me from giving your question the in-depth attention that it deserves, I will try to answer it soon but meanwhile it would probably be best if you return to the article talk page and try to seek consensus with Cunard and Marshall about the article. Viewfinder (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having had time to think about it, I have decided that, contrary to what I wrote above, I will not continue this discussion here. If it belongs anywhere, it is at Talk:Jacob Barnett, but given that the issue was discussed exhaustively at AfD and DRV, I think that re-opening it even there amounts to raking over old coals. Viewfinder (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]