Archives

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

There is already large amounts of uncited pro-Galloway material on his page, plus a long-running cabal of editors planted their by SWP who vigorously defend it. Or are you only interested in "anti" rather than "pro" stuff? Why is that better? I am trying to offer a little balance to the Galloway fan club. I read your work ethic on your front page, and I applaud it, but the reality is that far too many pages on WP have adulatory material and this is a much bigger problem than the anti vandals. It just seems less because it's less grating. Maybe you could relax a little on political pages and go with the flow on comment, politics is all about comment and if we stack every page with hundreds of cites they get unreadable. I note that the onus from you is always on the likes of me to cite, whereas flattering material can be uncited. MarkThomas 08:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP makes it clear that negative material needs to be particularly thoroughly cited. I have no objection to your addition of anti-Galloway material, but it is essential that you cite reliable sources. If you do this, then I will defend your edits. There are plenty of right-wing leaning, anti Galloway material that is considered reliable. Uncited negative material about right wing public figures should be equally mercilessly deleted, and if you need help with this against "SWP" plantations, then let me know. Viewfinder 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're recent revert threat was directed at me, but in fact I was reverting numerous reversions of my original edit from some time ago. The Galloway praise of SH hardly needs citation for proof, it's been shown on every TV network in the world a zillion times. It can easily be cited if you really want to further break up the para flow on the initial section. I have added semiprotect to stop the newly created user harassment and called for a proper discussion repeatedly and been abused for it. MarkThomas 17:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR, which states that no individual editor may perform a revert on a single article more than 3 times in 24 hours. It was enforced against me not long ago. Also the salutation of Saddam does not need to be stated in the article more than once. Viewfinder 17:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand this and I won't try any more reverts on it, at least for a while. :-) But it really gets exasperating that no proper discussion can apparently be had about the opening para of the Galloway article, given the widely celebrated and controversial nature and status of his Saddam-praise. I am convinced that it's placement way down the article is deliberate. MarkThomas 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've rm'ed the semiprotection on the grounds that they are all established users. How do you check how long someone has been a user please? For example, Sandy seems to have been a user for about 48 hours. MarkThomas 18:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the user's name, then click on "user contributions". Both SandyDancer and Guy Hatton are established users. Viewfinder 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzling then that neither of them rushed to rectify my changes as they so normally do. Perhaps they couldn't for some reason? MarkThomas 19:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edit was much shorter, more appropriate for a summary so I decided not to revert it, but leave it toother editors to decide. But that does not imply that I endorse it. Although I have not checked thoroughly, I think SandyDancer is on his third revert but I do not think Guy Hatton is. Viewfinder 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, I agree with you that the comment you removed is not particularly worthy of inclusion. However, my impression is that the guidelines to which you referred me apply to an article and not to the discussions about it. I had discussions with a higher authority because I removed the contentious crap and personal remarks about me which somebody wrote on the discussion page about a similarly controversial character. I wonder if there is any point in removing it, it is still there in the history, because I am sure I am not the only one who reviews the edit history of all articles with which I am interested, not just the controversial ones. Perhaps the answer is to have two articles, one pro and one anti, but then again, each would have to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines of which you have reminded us. :-) Guy 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I realised that I should have made the edit summary a bit clearer but I don't think edit summaries can be edited. I was specifically referring to section 10.1, at Talk:George_Galloway#Further_comment, and the removal (at my request) of soapbox edits by Freedom Fan. These comments, which were similar to those removed yesterday, were removed by an administrator from a talk page, not a main article. Such comments are not relevant to any discussion about article content and are nothing more than attempts to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I cannot see any guideline evidence that they should be tolerated on talk pages any more than they are in main articles, although I agree that they are seen by fewer people on talk pages. I can find no evidence of any ban on removing talk page material. As I see it, leaving blatant soapbox editing in encourages it. We can review edit histories of main articles, so your suggestion that soapbox edits are not worth removing is logaically extended to main articles. Re two pro and anti articles, many articles have pro and anti sections, which usually solves controversy problems. Viewfinder 17:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely not vandalism. When the image was replaced to Paine.jpg, it was thought to have been pointed to the same image as on Wikimedia Commons, and not to a different one. Peter O. (Talk) 23:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it was an accident. See your own talk page. Viewfinder 00:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attempts to be reasonable with the literature debate. Hopefully we'll get a decent section to replace the list at some point. Cordless Larry 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that though I did not unprotect your page at all, it was never protected. I cleaned up a maintenance template {{sprotected}} that was on a page that did not have protection set. Placing that template on a page does not protect it. To request page protection, you can go to WP:RFPP. Although this is User: space, the page does not 'belong' to you, please see WP:USERPAGE for more information on userpages. If your page is under a heavy vandalism attack, you can request assistance at administrator intervention against vandalism. I hope this clears things up, if not please leave me another note. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I added the semi-protect template, the appropriate disabling message appeared, so I assumed that this was OK and that it was working. If the problem does re-occur then I will try RFPP or AIV. Viewfinder 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only wiki sysops (admins) can place protection on a page; the template is just a notice to others. No worries though, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please count the number of reverts. I Have not merely reverted but also added clarifications.

I am sorry for being insufficiently pro-Israel. I had thought Wikipedia aimed to be anti-elitist but you are rapidly showing me the error of my ways Aminaa

Your edits are still basically reverts. I will report you; admin can then decide whether or not to block you. Viewfinder 00:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised; I should have expected as much from a bunch of rightwing white boys. Wikipedia as a notion is clearly dead. Aminaa

I did not make the changes to the Golan Heights you removed in the List of countries and outlying territories by total area article. Please do not attribute it to me. (Nidator 09:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oops! I think I misunderstood your edit note. My apologies...

(Nidator 09:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps my edit summary was not as clear as it should have been. Viewfinder 09:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was being dim. (Nidator 10:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I feel bad to read the article says it is in Kashmir instead of in Pakistan. Can you visit K2 using Kashmir or China visas. No. Then it is important to mention Pakistan in the beginning. I feel it is not necessary to even mention it is in Kashmir or near China but if you like to mention it then do not mention it in the start. --- ابراهيم 09:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the K2 talk page and in particular the linked map. It is on the border with China. Viewfinder 09:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my two cents on Talk:K2 and put in some minor changes to K2 itself, see those pages for more. In particular, yes, it is definitely on the border; not sure why the claim that you can't get there from the China side. Hopefully this is leading toward a (temporary!) stable state that is somewhat satisfactory. -- Spireguy 15:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have given links for 1963 Pakistan china border agreement. Please see Spireguy page and help in resolving this dispute. I will be thankful. --- ابراهيم 15:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Since you seam to have a far better background on mountaineering than me, I wanted to ask you what do you think about the disposition of montains in the article List of mountains in Argentina, grouped by system. Also, I did it myself with my little knowledge on the subject, so it's bound to be really wrong; could you take a look at it? Thanks a lot, Mariano(t/c) 08:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My background is in topography, I am not a mountaineer and seldom hike outside Britain. Most of my knowledge of mountains comes from SRTM data, maps, and contacts who are mountaineers, including John Biggar, who runs Andes expeditions and has probably climbed more Andean summits than anyone else. I think your grouping by system is a good idea. There is no definitive way of doing this. At first sight, it would seem that there are too many mountains listed under Ojos before you get to Pissis, but I look at the systematics more carefully. Unfortunately listing mountains by countries is often up against the problem that international borders divide mountain systems which are not naturally divisible. The Argentina-Chile border is a prime example of this. Viewfinder 09:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you asked about the possibility of establishing the height of the Cumbre Principal of Torres del Paine National Park. Unfortunately, from photographic evidence, it is very hard indeed to establish absolute heights, only relative heights. My calculations where only intended to establish, primarily, the relative heights of Paine Grande, the Cuerno Principal and the Torre Central.

My previous calculations neglected two variables, and I also had a 500 meter positional error in the viewpoint I took on the map. The height above sea-level of Lago Pehoe, and the curvature of the earth were also not accounted for. The curvature of the Earth admits at most a 25 meter error into the observed heights of those mountains from the Pehoe viewpoint. Assuming an adjusted height of 100m for Lago Pehoe accounts for both factors. We get 2360 for the Cuerno Principal and 2725 for the Torre Central. An additional calculation by the same method gives the relative height of Paine Chico as 2825. This relative height explains why the Torres are so effectively hidden. Anyone summiting any of the Torres would be surprised to find a higher mountain to their south. As for the absolute heights, it is impossible to guess without a reliable reference. Anyone with a GPS handset and about an hour of their time there could provide it, but unfortunately, its the other side of the world.

The calculations assume that Lago Pehoe is at 75 meters.

Cumbre Principal (Pixel Height 490, Distance 14.9, ht 3050) Cuerno Principal (Pixel Height 459, Distance 12.2, ht 2360) Torre Central (Pixel Height 361, Distance 18.0, ht 2725) Paine Chico (Pixel Height 438, Distance 15.4, ht 2825)

All heights are relative to an assumed height of 3050 for the Paine Grande. This may not be accurate, but I can't see any reason for supposing that the listed height for the Paine Chico is more or less accurate than that listed for Paine Grande. The greatest source of error is still likely to be any rotation of the image, in which case, the relative height of the Cuerno Principal would be twice as accurate as the relative height of Paine Chico. Incidentally, the other Peak of Mte Admirante Nieto is higher than Paine Chico..

I will quickly attempt to establish exact heights from the photo as well...

This is harder, because I need to guess the view direction. The perpendicular distance (in the plane of the projection) between the Cuerno Principal and the Cumbre Principal is 6.3 km, when measured at the distance of the Cumbre Principal. This occupies 997 pixels. Assuming both points are close to the view direction (not too far out), we get 1 pixel ~= 6.3 meters at that distance. This gives us an adjusted height for the Cumbre Principal of (2880 to 3480), subject to an error of +/-10%. So I believe the 3050 figure as being possible, but discount any estimate below the lower range of that. For small changes to the estimated height of the Cumbre Principal, the other heights can be assumed to scale linearly.

-- The Ostrich

The reason for supposing that the listed height for the Almirante Nieto is more accurate is that one of its routes is the easiest of the Paine Massif. Contrary, to reach the summit of Paine Grande is perhaps the hardest climb in the massif (only two ascents). Jespinos 23:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your photograph is excellent, and I will repeat my calculations based on your photograph and viewpoint. This will take a while, but I initially note that you agree with me that there is a massive error in the relative height of Paine Chico/Admirante Nieto and Cuerno Principal implied by the elevations shown on current mapping. Establishing the absolute heights is more difficult, but should be possible. But the angle of vision on your photograph is quite wide; I think that this can create significant distortion, although you probably know more about this than I do. Viewfinder 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other quick point of information, the height of Lake Pehoe is 34 metres; this is supported by SRTM data and official Chilean mapping. Viewfinder 17:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before I carry out further calculations, please could you send me the full sized version of your photograph, so that I can verify your pixel claims. The pixel heights you give suggest that your 1600x1067 version is smaller than your original. Viewfinder 17:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. My email is a&dam_a_brow&n@hotma&il.com without the &s. If you drop me a mail, I'll send you the larger version. But please understand that it isn't for common distribution. As for the field of view, that is the primary source of the error in the absolute height calculation, but the relative height calculations don't have any error from this, provided that a) the photograph is indeed a planar projection and b) that the vertical centre of the photograph is close to horizontal. If a) were not true, it would create image distortion, so it is pretty much given. as for b, the complete photograph is actually looking down by 55 pixels out of the total span of 2048. This means that vertical lines will slope ever so slightly towards the centre as they rise, but it is pretty negligible (tan of a small angle close to 0). I've also established, based on the horizon line of the lake, that the image rotation is less than 1 in 435, which eliminates that source of error.

The actual position from which the photo was taken is not the hotel explora, but the pehoe camp site, about 500 - 1000 meters to the north of that. As for the error introduced by the height of lago pehoe, it only affects the proportion of the height that scales. This means that if Pehoe is at 25 meters, the error is the scaling of the extra 50 meters, which produces a relative error of about 2% in the relative heights, or 25m. Since the other sources of error are compatible with this figure, you can neglect it. The curvature of the Earth results in the height for the Torres being higher than my calculations by something like 20 m, but the other mountains are pretty much unaffected, being at approximately the same range, and nearer.

-- The Ostrich

ps: how do you date tag your contribution?

You can sign and date tag your contributions with four tildes. A quick point: you give a range of 2880-3480, assuming 10% error, but I make 490 x 6.3 = 3087, so should not your range be nearer to 2780-3380? Viewfinder 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There was a +100 in there. You see, firstly the viewpoint was assumed at 75 meters above sea level, and secondly, the curvature of the Earth results in the bottom 25 meters being below the horizon. However... Since Pehoe is actually at 25 meters above sea level, and since the curvature of the Earth accounts for 17 meters not 25 as I thought, this makes the difference 40 meters. So the actual figure from the calculation should be 3130. But this will under normal circumstances be under-estimated by the downward viewpoint of the camera, and over-estimated by the deviation from the centre of projection, hence the error. Also, my measurement of the perpendicular distance had to assume a view direction that may not have been very close to the actual view direction. The Ostrich 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion continued offline. It was agreed that there was another error source, Paine Grande is not more than 14.3 km (14.1 km according to my calculation) from the photo source. It was further agreed that the photograph suggested that Paine Grande is 2,900m high, but that there is a 10% error margin. The photograph that we are discussing (Paine Grande is on the left) suggests a higher Paine Grande summit than other photographs (e.g. this one) that I have studied. I hope that an accurate survey will resolve this question soon; geometric analysis of photographs is evidently not accurate, especially if the angle of vision is wide. Viewfinder 13:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for reverting the vandalism (link) on my user talk page, I appreciate it. Gasheadsteve 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the new picture on the Gasherbrum page, appearing also on the Gasherbrum I and Gasherbrum III pages. I don't think any of those peaks to the right are correctly identified, and I certainly don't think Gash I is visible from that viewpoint. Looks more like The Twins and Gash VI to me, based on Wala's 8000m peaks of the Karakoram sketches. What do you think? If I have a chance tomorrow I'll check Google Earth...assuming that region is good now? -- Spireguy 20:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that the peaks are, left to right, GIV, GV (several peaks) and GVI. But I am curious as to (a) the exact location of the camera, and (b) the very steep looking peak in the centre of the GV group. I think this is GVII; GV HP is the rightmost in this central group; the steep peak looks to be a bit higher than on the maps. This area was substantially improved by Google Earth on Nov 23 and is well worth a look. Obviously, the peaks are not as sharp on GE as in the photo, but I can get a reasonable match despite the location uncertainty. Viewfinder 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now that I look carefully at Wala's sketch from the other side of the ridge, your identification of GV and GVI is clear (as is, of course, GIV). His sketch from the backside (east) indicates three summits between GV and the south col of GIV, one of which is GVII. The frontside (west) sketch seems to label two of these summits (it's a bit unclear) as "The Twins". I think it's safe to put in GVII if you think it's appropriate. -- Spireguy 03:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, GVII is shown on the Wala map. Despite the incorrect labelling, the picture is excellent and I thank its author for sharing it with us. But hmm, I wonder if the name GVII is appropriate. The summit (6980m on Wala map) immediately south of the GIV/GV col is easily identifiable on the picture, as is GV itself. The steep summit in between them is presumably the one given 6950m on the Wala map, but it has to be higher than P6980m. It's lower than GV, but only just, it surely tops 7000m and may even top 7100m. Neither the Chinese map nor GE do justice to it either. Its shape is really spectacular. Could this new image have generated a discovery which should by right bear the title of GVI? Viewfinder 09:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to an external image in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Per WP:IMAGES Images on external sites can no longer be linked inline due to several reasons: inline linking to images on other sites is often considered "leeching" and is thus rude; allowing online image linking makes it easier for vandals to post images from shock sites; external images are often unreliable and may sometimes be removed by the webmasters. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information. --JoeSmack Talk 03:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There are very many external links on Wikipedia that point to images. There are also external linksto sites which primarily consist of images. Surely the "inline" rule applies to external links which cause images to appear directly on the articles. To call up the image that I added, it was necessary to click on a link which was clearly identified as an external link. Is that not OK? Also I disagree that the link added pointed to a non-encyclopedic source, it pointed to an accurate topographic map of Mount Ararat. Viewfinder 17:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The height has been repeatedly accuracy measured at 5030m; only after it became a Indonesian colony in 1963 were measurements just under 5km published by Indonesia and associate corporate sponsors. The location of the peak is also in dispute, the United Nations in defense of Indonesia claims the western half of New Guinea is in Asia; a view which is supported by Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., Bechtel Inc., Exxom Mobil Inc., Conoco-Philips Inc., NewMont., and various bodies funded by these corporations. 58.107.10.36 13:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Height - what is the source of your claim that it has been "repeatedly accuracy measured at 5030m"? I have accurate IFSAR data which shows that it is at least 100m under 5000m and that therefore the height given by the Seven Summits movement is correct. Why would Indonesia and corporations want to falsify this? By location I assumed that you meant coordinates. Perhaps its continent is disputed by some but it is recognised by the Seven Summits movement as being outside Asia. Viewfinder 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the map you have linked is no citation of a continental boundary dispute whatsoever. It has a change of colour between USA and Mexico, which are both in North America, and Eastern Russia and China, which are both in Asia. Viewfinder 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your 2 edits to restore civility to the discussion we are part of. May you be rewarded in kind. Nurg 11:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing User:82.110.109.214's vandal tags from my user and talk page. There really wasn't any need, but thanks anyway! –EdC 15:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This IP has been doing the same to me. There seems to be a remarkable similarity with User:82.110.109.208, could this be a case of sockpuppeting? Viewfinder 18:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one resolves to dh214.public.mod.uk, and the other to dh208.public.mod.uk, so they're both Armed Forces computers (see .uk#Second-level domains), quite possibly (from the initials) at RAF Daws Hill. If so, I'd hazard a guess they're shared computers being used by personnel of the RAF and US Navy (who are based at the site). If a particular bored serviceperson has two favourite computers then that would explain the similarity. See also User talk:82.110.109.210 and User talk:82.110.109.212. –EdC 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, external links again. An editor has been adding details of a trip and external links to a site with which sings his praises and may be his own. These are the sort of additions and links that we agreed should not be added. I am told that 480 people climbed Everest in 2006, many for causes. If we all add our trip reports then the article will overflow with them. I reverted him twice but if I revert him again he will add them back again and I will be neutralised by 3RR. He makes no attempt to put the case on the talk page. Other editors of this site seem to be either not around or uninterested. Please advise me, thanks. Viewfinder 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If approximately ~500 people make this journey each year, then it would appear that Trumbull and his party is giving undue weight to their own experience, which would be a conflict of interest, aside from the external links problem. I'll try engaging this person on their talk page and see what happens. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. The site claims that the expedition has the patronage of the Dalai Lama and will be the subject of a documentary, so there may be a case for some kind of mention. But despite requests to do so (via the linked section WP:EL 4.1 and then directly), Lance Turnbull reinstated his additions twice without discussing the matter on the talk page. That was unhelpful and gave me the impression that the guy considers himself to be above Wikipedia policy. Viewfinder 09:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

concerning the coordinate

Hi, the coordinate I updated is based on the highest point (~8830m) I could locate from the google earth. If the google earth data is reliable enough, the point I choose should be within 5m of range from the actual highest point (unless someone provide the GPS record for the exact location). The place you reverted to is, however, about 8790m, and is 130m away from the highest point, which seems to be even more inaccurate. Unless the coordinate before my update is the actual GPS data, isn't it better to use the coordinate I suggested for now then? Liaocyed 5:55, 15 Feb 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with Google Earth's elevation data; for areas where there is no SRTM data, Google Earth have (with my permission) used data from my website [1]. I have examined it carefully. In most respects, Google Earth's terrain is an accurate reproduction of these data, but there is one significant difference: Google Earth have placed the data 3" too far north and up to 3" too far west. Hence the result that you observed. The GE summit image of Everest shows it to be on exposed rockhead, but in reality the summit is within the ice/snow field, as observed by all the summit survey reports. Google's misplacement is slight, but there is an annoying side effect; there are overhanging shadows on the south sides of steep ridges. This can be observed on Everest's NE ridge. Viewfinder 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Do you think Cat:Lists of terrestrial volcanoes should be merged into Cat:Lists of volcanoes. I am supporter of this move as vast majority of articles about volcanoes on Wiki refer to volcanoes on Earth. - Darwinek 23:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such a merger would seem sensible to me, but if you formally propose such a merger and someone puts a case against it, I may be convinced by such as case. Viewfinder 08:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it for merger, you can find it at WP:CFD. - Darwinek 14:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Take a look at Huascarán and Chimborazo, and then please read my comment and add your comment on Talk:Huascarán. See if you think my comments about the geoid are correct, and whether you think there is any merit to the Huascarán claim at all. I probably calculated this some time ago, but I don't remember the details. Perhaps you have good figures handy, or I can redo my calculation. -- Spireguy 03:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imo, the claim may have merit. See Talk:Huascarán. Viewfinder 07:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article Cerro Macá and I have put the elevation given by you. I think you might be interested in the article and explain the issue. Jespinos 01:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I also noticed that you created an article Volcán Lautaro, and note the the sourced elevation you give (3607 m) supports the claim (also supported by SRTM data) that this volcano is much higher than previously thought. But the Cordillera del Paine summits still trouble me. Are there really no accurate surveys? No heights or summit contours are given on official topographic mapping, but it seems hard to believe that the ChIGM did not survey these mountains. Is there any way that you can find out? I wonder if there are any new surveys planned. Viewfinder 15:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted a person with the aim of can use some of their photos on Wikipedia (See Antuco, Copahue, Tolhuaca and Lonquimay). Perhaps he could have more info on this, I will ask him. I also left a note on the talk page of the Cordillera del Paine, I don’t know if you read it. Jespinos 17:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit it. If it's not there anymore it's not my doing. I stand by the case that the "official" height should be reflective of the measurements of several respected groups, and not by calculations that are old and/or from sources that are not as well-equiped as others. My main point, as stated in my message on the Talk Page, is that the article should at the very least not refer to either one as an official measurement, especially when the measurement of 8848 receives almost no attention from more reliable sources, ie. National Geographic. The controversy, as ridiculous as it is, should be mentioned in the article but not heated by preferring one measurement over an other. --Bentonia School 13:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Viewfinder, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | ^Talk 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted text was practically spam. Minor edit. Too busy to write an essay every time I have to delete spam. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not expect you to write an essay, but a brief reference to the edit you deleted would have been better. The text did not look like spam to me. Viewfinder 15:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I checked the Talk page (always do). The final warning was issued on January 26th. With anonymous IP vandals, the assumption is that the address is shared and that it might not be the same person. The anonymous IP needs to be re-warned starting from the beginning unless the editing pattern is similar. In this case, {{uw-vandalism1}} is appropriate, not a new final warning. -- Gogo Dodo 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but how should we handle 165.138.17.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), from where vandalism has been persistent and has resumed after a week long block? Even if it is not the same individual, it is almost certainly an individual from part of the same "team". Soft messages and short blocks are, quite simply, not working. Why can't we place a long term block on anonymous users from this IP? Viewfinder 14:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your edits to this article; it is an occupation, not an annexation. Israel is the only state in the world that recognizes it as an annexation. Please see United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 and Golan Heights. I will wait a bit before I change it back, hopefully you will agree with me. Thanks. Asabbagh 19:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Israel occupied Golan Heights in 1967 and its occupation continues. The article states the Israel unilaterally annexed the Golan Heights in 1980. The emphasis is on the word "unilaterally"; it means that the annexation took place without the agreement of and is not recognised by the international community. UN497 calls on Israel to "rescind its annexation", clearly implying that (i) annexation took place and (ii) that the annexation should end. I really think that the article makes clear what we agree to be these facts. The wording of the lead paragraph was only agreed after heated discussion. If you still want to change it, please discuss the change you want on the talk page before editing the article. Viewfinder 20:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think what you said is valid. Sorry, I didn't pay attention to 'unilaterally', yes that does convey the right meaning. Thanks. Asabbagh 20:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, UN497 does not actually use the term "annexation"; I was quoting the Wikipedia article, not the actual resolution. Israel denies that what took place was an annexation. But the international community generally regards it as an annexation, and it is widely referred to as such. Viewfinder 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: the languages and order in which translations are given seems to generate sensitivity. It is better not to amend this without prior talk page discussion. Viewfinder 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a note in the discussion with just a little data, I had'nt been there for a while, in support of your statement regarding the border. You are correct and the Himalayan Club (an Indian organissation) states the likewise. I've noticed that more Nepali stuff is being inserted at the begining, it is the Nepali name for the mountain (ok thats fine), but I think is should be on the names section in the next paragaraph, where the Tibetan name and other are given.

There is also some qustion about Nepali usage of the word Kangchenjunga, the discussion page has the details of what I'm getting at, have a look and see what you think. Cheers. (Gowron 09:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is usual in Wikipedia to place all local names at the top, as in Mount Ararat, so I don't have any objection to the Nepali insertion. The names listed in the next paragraph are merely alternative spellings, so these are imo also correctly placed. I added a short comment about the spelling on the talk page. Viewfinder 04:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dear Viewfinder! I just spotted the caption "a fat funny man living in bristol" in the info-box. This is not a very intelligent vandalism, is it? Could you please reverse it? Kind regards --88.67.31.155 15:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very happy to revert this vandalism if I could find it. According to the article history, John Prescott was last edited at 01:38, 25 February 2007, i.e. about 24 hours ago, and I cannot see anything about a "fat funny man", or any other vandalism, in the current version. Viewfinder 00:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr Viewfinder, why did you undo my part on George Orwell's Trivia? Have you read Inventing Elliot? Do you know whats in the book? If not gtfo, the book written by George Orwell is CLEARLY stated numerous times in it. Please put on thicker lenses.

P.S. George Orwell's book 1984 plays a big part in the book Inventing Elliot written by Graham Gardener you nub cake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.224.149.137 (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is what you wrote: "In the book 'Inventing Elliot' written by Graham Gardener, the book, 1948 is mentioned numerous times." What book, 1948?? Viewfinder 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stfu, i meant 1984, you could of atleast changed it, nub.

It was not 100% clear that you meant 1984. You could have reinstated the correct edit yourself with an edit summary apologising for the earlier typo. And before you edit another talk page, or any other page for that matter, please read WP:CIV, and sign your posts with four tildes. Thank you. Viewfinder 02:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the contributor (IP 60.224.149.137) was not careful enough to get the title/number correct doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of the content of the contribution. Hence the revert by Viewfinder was pretty defensible. And certainly the lack of civility in the contributor's further comments don't inspire confidence either. -- Spireguy 23:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a wonderful job you have done with Keokradong. Cheers. But, I have just tagged it as {{unsourced}}. I did add a reference and source to it, but those fall far short of the necessity. Will you please take a look at it and see what you can do? Cheers again. Aditya Kabir 14:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]