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 modified the Golan Heights map that you had earlier modified. I agree with your reasoning for modifying Golan_heights_rel89.jpg - which was itself a modification of the original CIA map. My modification to your work retained the neutrality of the disputed Golan Heights territory by leaving the tags for "Israel" and "Syria". The only change was to restore the names and locations of the villages and settlements that were included on the original CIA map but had been (inadvertently) moved or erased by relocating the country titles. The territorial "ownership" of these settlements is not indicated or inferred, and for cartographical purposes is irrelevant. On the other hand the existence of these villages - and thus their inclusion on the map - is relevant. dp_roberson 15:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dp roberson (talk • contribs)

No problem, but my modification moved or removed no villages. They must have been removed by an earlier modification, evidently to make room for a larger font for the word "Israel". Viewfinder 02:52, 22 September 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've found a (possibly) reliable source [2]; see my comment at Talk:Huascarán. 64.81.149.135 20:14, 1 October 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]

Lautaro volcano has a summit elevation of 3623 m according to GPS readings [3]. Jespinos (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the above link, which I have forwarded to my research colleagues. Viewfinder (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2008 (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]

Oops. You got there before I did. But, this is a not an encyclopedia for topographers or whatever. Can you, please, state where these Russian and other sources are? And, of I forgot to ask - will you take a look at the article Bandarban? Keokradong is quoted in it. Aditya Kabir 14:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I was looking into the Official NASA SRTM site and Worldwide shaded Topography based on SRTM sites, but am not making much progress. Can you tell me where to find the data? Or, is it some journal something that publishes these kind of things? Please, don't get annoyed with my ignorance. Aditya Kabir 15:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You congratulate me on my edits but then, in contradiction, implicitly criticise them with your tagging! You have added a link to my site, which I was not able to do myself, but my site only quotes the same sources as as this article. I have added two screendumps from 1:200,000 Russian mapping, which include the latitude and longitude at the centres, see [4] and [5]. You can add these links to the article (I can't). Are they enough?

The FTP site containing SRTM data is downloadable via an external link on the SRTM page; so is software that can read SRTM data. I have been citing SRTM data on many articles and this has been accepted. SRTM data can be verified by anyone with some knowledge of topography, an atlas and a knowledge of latitude and longitude. The topographic maps I cite were published by the Soviet military in the 1970's and 1980's. For the Chittagong area they accurately match SRTM data. They are now generally available.

If I cannot improve the citations, what happens? Revert to the ludicrous CIA claim that Keokradong is 1230m? I hope not.

The information at Bandarban is not correct. Tazing Dong and Mowdok Mual are separate ranges, albeit in the same part of Bangladesh. I was not aware of this page. Viewfinder 17:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging is implicit criticism? That was new. I think you haven't checked the Wikipedia policies that tell us to attribute everything and give verifiable sources for all information we provide. At least one thing is very clear - tags are not criticisms. No one owns an article (See: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles), no comment, tag, reference to an article is directed at a certain editor. If you need to direct something at a specific editor, you have to say so in as many words.

That tag is not just for you, it is for all Wikipedians who may care to add citations to the article. You may be the most knowledgeable person on the subject here, but you may not be the only one. Besides, Wikipedia is not about just writing whatever is true (See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), it is about writing whatever can be verified as truth. See Wikipedia:Attribution for the policy of attribution, Wikipedia:Citing sources for why we cite sources, and Wikipedia:Citation templates for ways of citing sources properly.

BTW, no one is trying to make you revert back to the mistaken CIA claim. Personally I have been to both Keokradong and Tazing Dong, and have taken a look at Mowdok Mual from a distance, and have taken a look at GPS surveys run by my friends here in Bangladesh. That is exactly why I was happy to see your version of the article. I only wish that you or someone could add some more verifiable citations to it.

I have more comments to make, but those are general I would prefer to make those comments on the article talk page. Sorry for the long answer. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC) - can you, please, answer to my my talk page[reply]

As I made the claims which your tagged, and went to some length to support these claims, I have to say that I was rather unhappy about the tags. If my citations are inadequate and cannot be improved, then the claims must be withdrawn, which in turn implies that the CIA claim should be reinstated. I have only been able to improve the the citations by posting a link to the map. Sorry, this is to my site, but I see no other way. But I really do think that the citations are adequate. SRTM data is verifiable. I hope you are now happy with the article. Viewfinder 16:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for causing unhappiness. My intention was nowhere near that. All I wanted to see was data available to non-experts. If that is not possible, I'm fine. The support you have provided should be valid (I'm putting the article on my watchlist to protect the references as much as I can). May be you could cite some published article, book, gazette or something (with date of publishing, publisher, place of publishing etc.). Not all citations have to be available online. Now, a proposal: Since you are quite knowledgeable about matters mountainous, can I ask for your support in building a directory for top Bangladeshi peaks and mountain ranges? Aditya Kabir 16:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC) - can you, please, answer to my my talk page[reply]

You're a dedicated editor who fights vandalism and has improved many, many articles in Wikipedia. To honor your contribution, I present you with this barnstar.

		The Original Barnstar
		For making Wikipedia a better place for all. Yanksta x 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of mountain ranges in Bangladesh, and the tallest peaks of these ranges. Unfortunately I can't neither verify nor cite (or, for that matter present further information). I need help. Can you suggest anything? Maybe a collaboration of 2/3 editors, including you and I? Maybe posting the problem on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains? Please, let me know.

• Phoromain range (Phoromain, 463m)
• Dolajeri range (Langtrai, 429m)
• Bhuachhari (Changpai, 611m)*
• Barkal range (Thangnang, 735m)
• Muranja range (Basitaung, 664m)
• Wayla range (most of this range is in Myanmar)
• Chimbook range (Tindu, 898m)
• Batimain range (Batitaung, 526m)
• Politai range (Keokradang, 884m; Ramiu Taung 921m)
• Saichal-Mowdok range (Bilaisari, 669m; Mowdok Mual 1,003m)
• Saichal range (Waibung 808m; Rang Tlang, 958m; Mowdok Tlang, 905m)

Did you see the image I posted on the Keokradong page? Aditya Kabir 14:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC) - please answer to my talk page.[reply]

Hello Aditya, sorry not to have responded. It was not easy to find mountains in Bangladesh, the mountains in the area all seem to be outside Bangladesh. Could you possibly add approximate geographical coordinates to the above list, then I can more easily check them out. Thanks. Viewfinder 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you contribute to the merge discussion at Nanda Devi East? Thanks -- Spireguy 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions on the highest point of Novaya Zemlya? The commonly-quoted figure is 1,070 m (which is what the page here gives), but peaklist.org makes it 1,549 m. — ras52 22:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The commonly quoted figure is nonsense, as commonly quoted figures often are. I corrected the article. I am not sure where peaklist got 1549m but it's near enough correct. Viewfinder 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Semo3.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 04:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Semo2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 04:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Semo1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 04:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page is semi-protected till 2nd of June. I look forward to your contribution towards introducing the suggested material sensibly. BillMasen 18:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the ball is now in the court of 84.159.109.23, to provide better source material. Otherwise I don't think the material is suitable. Let us see what he comes up with. Viewfinder 20:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Viewfinder. I noticed you changed the elevation of Mount Cameroon in that article. However, you didn't cite any sources. Would you mind going back and adding a full-form reference for the source for your data? Thanks, — Brian (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian. I don't think your claim that I didn't cite any sources is correct; I cited SRTM data and a GPS reading. Following your comment I added the top 3" cell, which is verifiable, see [6]. 3" SRTM data is public domain. I have been citing SRTM data on loads of Wikipedia articles and no one has objected. The top 1" cell was supplied to me directly by NASA. The GPS reading was supplied by Ginge Fullen. He has not uploaded this, so I suppose it's not strictly verifiable, although he would probably allow me upload it myself. Viewfinder 05:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but nothing has been added in the way of a "References" or "Notes" section, so it looked odd to me. I, for one, had no idea what SRTM stood for, and if NASA has supplied information, we should cite the publication. Sorry if I sound ignorant of the field, but I am. How can I or other laymen go about verifying the information in the article? — Brian (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have added a link to a reference section. See the mountain infobox at the top of the article. Also, am I right in guessing, from your name, that you have something to do with the Smithsonian Institute? If so, you should get into SRTM data; I am surprised that you do not seem to have heard of it. The SI elevation for Cerro Macá is more than 600m too high. The Wikipedia SRTM page has links to software that can read SRTM data and convert it into formats that can be read by many applications. SRTM data may not be verifiable by laymen with no knowledge of GIS at all, but its acceptance as evidence by Wikipedia has become established. Your comments above may imply a threat to challenge this. If this acceptance were to be successfully challenged, scores of elevation edits will have to be reverted, and the archaic elevations that have been updated will have to be restored. I must therefore resist. Here are the relevant SRTM 3" (90m) cells, which, for Cameroon, which has fairly gentle slopes, are not compatible with 4095m. I hope this is sufficiently reliable. I can add this link to the reference if necessary, although it is on my site. I could be accused of amending these cells, but then I would likely be caught by a GIS expert. Viewfinder 06:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't understand what prominence parentage meant (and that's quite understandable!) - given that's it's used on several pages, I've tried to expand on the notion of 'prominence parentage' myself and give it a clearcut and unambiguous defintion, using the territory concept, which might nevertheless take a bit of thinking about. Please talk to me if you don't understand it or think it can be made simpler for the masses! Thanks for all your work on the various prominence pages btw, you work real hard. --Mark J 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your definition seems to be rigid, but I am not sure that it matches the US definition. User:Spireguy may be able to comment further on that. I am also not sure that your detail about 150m cut-off was necessary, I found it rather confusing. I was about to ask how a map of all the 1554 Marilyn domains would give me Snowdon's parent; it was only near the end that I realised I need only draw the run-offs from passes belonging to higher prominence peaks. Viewfinder 18:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well at least you understood it. Thanks for replying. I just wanted to define the concept of a 'parent marilyn' since this is how a lot of minor hills in the British Isles sre categorised. See ya around. --Mark J 15:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say that: "Wikipedia has been criticised for being anti-elitist. Yes, I think it does have an anti-elitist streak, but I see that as good. I oppose the control of information by elitocracy." Fine, then please stop calling me a troll for adding my own deeply felt opinion to a talk page. If I was a troll I would start vandalising the main page, not adding a comment to the talk page. As an explorer (Papua New Guinea etc) I dont think discussions about man-made objects, the difference in height between mountains on different continents, and the Panama Canal are encyclopadic - in fact to most observers this looks like nit-picking self-indulgence. If I cant express that view on a talk page, then where exactly can I express it? Elitist....yes, completely. Please stop controlling, and learn to listen. Excalibur 22:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is what you wrote at Talk:Topographic_prominence: Do any of you realise how silly this all looks to anyone except people who spend their time doing pub quizzes?? Don't you have anything better to do with your time?, and used the edit summary: Not trolling -this whole page appears to have been written by trolls. Sorry, but I regard these comments as inflammatory attacks on those Wikipedians who take an interest in this subject, and in breach WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Commenting on what you see as the triviality of prominence is one thing, but derogatory comments about Wikipedians who contribute to the concept have no place in Wikipedia and imo amount to trolling. Expressions like "nit picking self indulgence" and "learn to listen" are also unhelpful. Could I suggest that instead, we contribute to two new sections in the main article on prominence, entitled "Merits" and "Criticism"?

There is enough interest in topographic prominence to justify a place among the million articles on Wikipedia. Imo, ranking peaks by prominence is sound and encyclopedic and many advantages over ranking than by height. Compare the widely spread List of peaks by prominence with the List of highest mountains; the latter are all in High Asia and beyond the reach of most hikers. Even among topographers who do not regard prominence as an appropriate metric for ranking, its use as a "cut off" is generally accepted; otherwise the length of lists of mountains would be indefinite, or its contents would be subjective. The List of mountains has become unstructured, with contributors adding their own personal favourites; I don't think that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Viewfinder 23:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72.234.109.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s last warning was 6 months old making it very possible that the editor making those edits was not even affiliated with the previous ones. I provided a strong cease and desist warning and, as of when I wrote this, there has been no vandalism past that final warning, which is when a report to AIV is appropriate. I too dedicate a great deal of time to fighting vandalism on Wikipedia, but blocks are at administrator's discretion and in this case policy and precedent are clear. With one bad edit and no warnings in months, a new warning, not a block, was called for. I apologize for any confusion and hope it doesn't discourage you from continuing to help out by making reports to AIV. I encourage you to take a look at WP:BLOCK and Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism if you have any further concerns, or contact me. Thanks! Goodnightmush^Talk 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For cleaning vandalism off my userpage. GoodnightmushTalk 23:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A similarly obnoxious first person singular edit was added to my user page a few months ago. I would have done the same for any other user, regardless of any past differences. Viewfinder 13:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...in the effort to disseminate knowledge. I saw your edits to Lookout Mountain and checked your userpage. Good edits, fascinating how you probably got there. Happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 05:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you. I was tipped off by a contribution to the prminence e-group and checked it out. See also Rock City and my panoramas page. Viewfinder 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facsincating stuff, it really is. I took the Lookout Mountain images with the idea of its prominence as the focus. Keep up the good work. Keegan^talk 06:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I have now added the necessary information. Viewfinder 14:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing my edits from my talk page as you just did - if you have a problem with it, raise it on one of the noticeboards. It's nothing to do with you. MarkThomas 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA and WP:CIV apply throughout Wikipedia to all edits by all editors. Please stop making personal attacks on other editors. Viewfinder 14:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you haven't applied that to Hughsheehy, who falsely accused me of "libel", itself a breach of various policies. Could it be that you are taking sides? If so, I will ask that you be included in the current Arbcom on the subject. Thanks. MarkThomas 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly it would be a lot better for all concerned if you confined your contributions to verifiable facts and content, and ended your serial practice of making serial personal attacks. Viewfinder 15:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Hughsheehy did that first to me. He also accused me falsely of libel and I was robust in rejecting such an absurd legal threat. I have also had to endure an avalanche of abuse and personal threats from Irish editors recently and have show really quite colossal restraint in the face of that. My only offence was trying to challenge the tricks and subterfuges of these editors in pursuing their extreme POV, something that appears to be working in a positive and NPOV direction in a number of articles. You appear to me to be taking sides against me for POV reasons and therefore should in my view be added to the Arbcom; I will request this with the arbitrators. MarkThomas 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been fopllowing the detail of these exchanges but this is what you wrote: One day the article will be rendered NPOV and you will be forced to back down. I suggest you get out of the way sooner and save us all a lot of trouble and emotional strain from your constant whining. Not only does that contravene WP:CIV but it is unhelpful regardless of the circumstances. Viewfinder 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's a tough chap - I'm sure he won't be offended. He may however sue for libel. Not. MarkThomas 15:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page for a response to your commentary/debunking back in April. We really need to this to be grounded in someone's published, reliable account, not your own personal research. Thanks. 64.126.24.11 22:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the above mentioned talk page. Viewfinder 01:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Viewfinder! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule groups\.msn\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 13:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. The offending link was one of a block of several external links that had been deleted without explanation, so I added back the block. I realise that there are good reasons for the blacklisting of external links, I will check each one before adding it back again. Viewfinder 14:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:111 Dejen.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Barbados reverted good faith and correct edits. Please be more careful! Viewfinder 04:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: although this edit was neither appriopriate nor encyclopaedic, it was not vandalism, read the vandalism link carefully and see also WP:NEWBIES. Viewfinder 05:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I really screwed up on the Barbados one. From the first edit I reverted, I figured that the user wasn't editing in good faith -- and he changed information to something totally different, so I figured it was purposeful error insertion. Obviously I was wrong.

But as for the other edit -- doesn't it fall under "silly vandalism" on WP:VAND? What else would you call it, then, if not vandalism? Gscshoyru 11:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a personal opinion expressed in an unencyclopedic manner by a new editor who has not yet grasped the rules but who does appear to be editing in good faith. Don't let me discourage you from removing vandalism and other inappropriate material, but I thought it right that I should advise you that you went over the top. Viewfinder 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, gotcha. I should rein myself in a little bit, and label things properly. Thanks for letting me know I screwed up. Gscshoyru 21:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can do that: Barry Buzan, one of the foremost scholars in the field of International Relations theory, says that:

Achieving great powers status is less demanding in terms of both capabilities and behaviour [e.g. than a superpower]. Great powers need not necessarily have big capabilities in all sectors...Great power status rests mainly on a single key: what distinguishes great powers from merely regional ones is that they are responded to by others on the basis of system-level calculations, as well as regional ones, about the present and near future distribution of power...After the cold war it [e.g. great power status] was held by Britain/France/Germany..., Japan, China and Russia. India was banging hard on the door, but had neither the capability, the formal recognition, nor the place in the calculations of others to qualify. (pp. 69-70)

Is Buzan not referring to Britain/France/Germany collectively, rather than any one of these countries in its own right? I am not convinced that this is a legitimate citation.

The other source, by a group of young academics at the University of Cambridge, says:

...Britain's revived global standing in recent years has seen it emerge as the world's second most influential nation...We must, therefore, maintain, reinforce a more proactive and assertive foreign and security policy, which takes advantage of the areas where Britain already has leverage. (p. 30)

Imo this is POV with a touch of jingoism. There is only one great power today - the USA. When it comes to clout in the world, Britain is in effect little more than state #51; recall that without covert US backing we could not have re-taken the Falkland islands. Also, I assume that you are part of this Cambridge young academic commentary, in which case there may be a WP:OR and/or WP:COI issue here.

Finally, there are two other sources, which can be located here:

[7] [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperium Europeum (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These sources push the defence expenditure argument. But remember that the UK has no conscript military. Many countries with lower defence expenditure measured in pounds or dollars have considerably more manpower

Thank you for your response. I am not, at present, minded to contest the great power claim, provided that it remains presented as a point of view rather than hard fact, although I may oppose the inclusion of the Buzan citation. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes. Viewfinder 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. In academic literature in the field of International Relations (of which I am involved), there is much discussion on what constitutes a 'great power'. It cannot really be measured objectively (although the Correlates of War project at the University of Michigan has certainly tried. Equally, one of China's leading government think tanks also conducts an annual survey of the world's top ten powers, in which they normally put the US first, then Britain, then Russia, then France, and so on, normally ending with Canada. Both these surveys use economic might, military power, population size and political cohesion as measures. However, other academics in the field contest these seemingly scientific approaches, and suggest that defining and categorising a 'great power' also includes subjective things like historical legacy, cultural attraction, popularity and democratic procedures, and these are harder to measure.

But in any case, what is clear is that the United Kingdom does rank exceptionally high in almost every key area, which gives it the weight and reach of a global power or great power (the two are effectively coterminous). To take a few off the top of my head:

(1) Britain has the world's fifth biggest nominal GDP/GNP/GNI (fourth if we exclude China, which is still a developing country), and sixth if measured by PPP (or fourth, again if we exclude China and India (developing economies)).

(1a) Britain has more Fortune 500 multinational companies than any other country other than Japan, Germany and America.

(2) Britain has the world's second biggest defence budget.

(2a) Britain has the world's second largest navy, with the second strongest fleet of aircraft carriers and nuclear attack submarines (these two types of vessel are considered paramount for any country claiming 'great power' status today. Other than the USA, only France has a comparable amount of firepower to Britain.)

(2b) Britain's military operates in 88 countries and territories around the world, more than any other country bar the USA.

(3) London is the world's premier financial centre, and continues to gain ground on Tokyo and New York every year.

Premier? London is not above New York, surely. The FTSE indices respond to the DJ closely and predictably. When America sneezes the world catches cold, but if Britain sneezed it would be business as usual elsewhere.

(4) British culture is magnetic and far reaching (e.g. the spread of English, the BBC, British music, British product brands).

(5) Britain's historical legacy is unrivalled. Much of the world has been in contact with British power over the past 500 years.

(6) British technology and scientific accomplishments are rivalled only by the USA. We have more Nobel Prize winners than any other country other than America, and more universities in the world's top 100 rankings than any other country other than the USA.

(7) Britain is a member of more international organisations than any other country bar France, has a permanent seat on the UNSC, and is a member of the G8 (considered as the two ultimate institutions for great powers).

(8) Britain is a major Member State of the European Union, with the bloc's second strongest economy, and third biggest population.

I can provide references for all of these statistics, although they are also provided on most of the relevant Wikipedia pages.

I see you mention the importance of the USA in two instances. First, the USA is universally recognised as a 'great power', but it is also understood to be an exceptional 'great power'—either a superpower or a hyperpower. The means needed for 'great power' status are quite diverse. In the nineteenth century, when the term was first used, 'great power' was deployed to label anything from the British Empire (even stronger than the USA today, relatively), to Austria-Hungary (which is like comparing America with Canada today). But both were considered to be more than just regional or 'middle powers', so there was quite a lot of variation accepted for 'great power' status. Second, I think you overstate Britain's reliance on the USA. Your example of the Falklands War is insufficient: you might remember that Britain's fleet arrived in the South Atlantic before the United States gave the operation its 'blessing'. That war was going to take place with or without American approval—indeed, the fact that Washington eventually sided with Britain shows that Washington was compelled to side with its most important ally.

In the 19th century there were several great powers competing for global hegemony; the term Great Power was coined at that time. I agree that the UK was #1, particularly on the high seas, but the UK surely did not possess the global domination that the US has today. Several other countries at the time (most notably Germany) had military budgets rivalling the UK, but no country competes with the US today, see List of countries and federations by military expenditures. Could the UK prevent the trench carnage of WW1? No, and only US intervention succeeded in stopping it. Ditto WW2. During the Cold War there were two superpowers (possibly three including China). Now there is one. The term "great power" is no longer applicable to any other country, although it may become applicable to the EU, China, India and possibly (on account of its vast territory) Russia. British forces suffered heavy losses in the South Atlantic and would probably have lost the Hermes - and hence the war - without material covertly supplied by the US (for which Cap the Knife got a knighthood). It was shown that the UK was dependent on the US for its ability to defeat Argentina; that's not a Great Power in my book.

Washington was not compelled to side with the UK, but had the UK lost the war the Thatcher government would probably have fallen and Michael Foot would have taken over; that would not have served US interests. In practice the pro-US Thatcher emerged strongly, primarily on back of the non-UK owned Sun. Aside: could the entire Falklands episode have been stage managed by the Reagan administration, with remarkable success? Right-wing French elements (who have cooperated consistently with the UK since the aftermath of Waterloo) and Pinochet were also involved, although the French also wanted the world to see demonstrations of their Exocets.

I've only listed a small section of the Buzan source. I simply do not have the time to copy down any more. Rest assured that the book is a 200+ page survey of the world's great powers past, now, and potentially future, and very much recognises the UK as a great power, although points to the ongoing integration of the EU, in which the UK will perhaps merge, to form a new superpower (e.g. part of a larger and another exceptional 'great power'). Imperium Europeum 00:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a Buzan sentence that makes the claim, unambiguously, that the UK is still a great power in its own right? Otherwise, I don't think this should be cited as a verifiable source.

Thank you for your further comments. I agree with many of them, but we are also agreed that the term "great power" is subjective. That is why these sort of terms are discouraged by WP:AWW and WP:PEACOCK. Many of your above claims are already in the main article, where they are not disputed. I have removed much of the puffery that accompanied them. Although this is an interesting discussion, it is Wikipedia policy to let the verifiable facts speak for themselves. Viewfinder 06:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the term "great power" should be avoided, especially so in an introduction. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term was removed by this unregistered edit. This edit was not accompanied by an edit summary or talk page contribution. It should have been. Still, given the volume of opposition to the term, it should not be restored to the introduction. Regarding the Buzan citation, this needs a better relevant transcription than has been supplied, and regarding the Cambridge University citation, there is a touch of WP:OR and WP:COI here, as mentioned above. Viewfinder 04:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noted that you warned 217.34.177.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with blocking after any further vandalism. Well, he did it again. I just undid the edit, but what happens about getting someone blocked? --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report the offender at WP:AIV. It is then up to admin to decide wither to apply a block. Viewfinder 20:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done so, but it is a few hours since I had last checked Wikipedia so I am not certain that a block will be applied. Imo these sort of vandals should be blocked indefinitely; they are free to apply for an unblock if they mend their ways. Viewfinder 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I cleaned up the vandalism by 165.234.184.32 that you reverted before on the George Orwell article --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reported him at WP:AIV. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've fallen into his clever trap and now we're reverting each other! ;) Acroterion _(talk) 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I corrected my mistake as soon as I realised I had made it. Thank you for pointing it out all the same. Cheers. Viewfinder 19:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that - no worries here. Acroterion _(talk) 19:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two different mountains. See [9]. Do you have any additional info about this? Jespinos 23:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for another interesting link. There is not very much topographic data available for this area. The only topo I have is a Russian 500K map that is not very accurate, and SRTM data is incomplete. But there are SRTM cells rising to 2562m, so the 2488m elevation given appears to be too low, and there are many subsidiary summits. I will try to find out any more, but I would be interersted to know if there are any Chilean topos covering this area. Viewfinder 14:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched on the Chilen IGM website but get no results. The coordinates given on your site for the highest point on the island are consistent with the following NASA image [10](see inferior left corner of the image). Jespinos 18:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, okay, understood. It was (as usual in such moments) everybody editing at the same time and parallely... Looks like things calmed down a bit now. Regards, --Mbimmler 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Dejen misura da cima W.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a good call to take him out of Ludgrove School. I wasn't sure, as he looked plausible enough on the face of it and there is a suitable Gage family, but I couldn't find a racing driver called Edward Gage. Xn4 01:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling Edward Gage showed up nothing so if he is real then he cannot be notable. I'd bet on Edward Gage being the name of the pupil who contributed the edit. It is one of several inappropriate edits contributed by pupils at Ludgrove. Previous abuse has come from Oundle School, Radley College and Harrow School. Why cannot or will not these expensive outfits stop this behaviour? All they have to do is block anonymous editing. As far as I am aware, there has been no abuse from Eton College, although I continue to watch it closely. Viewfinder 04:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

You seem to have a rather highly developed interest in mountaineering articles. I fail to see how my addition of a cultural reference to the Matterhorn article was, as you so casually put it of "doubtful relevance" (as a prelude to your removal of my small, humourous, and I believe accurate addition), compared to say ... any of the other humourous cultural references in the article (including a reference the hilarious Bugs Bunny cartoon about the race up the Schmatterhorn, and yet another to a Simpson's episode).

You may have this tiny patch of Internet turf; it is not worth further argument. I would request you leave this response on your page for the enjoyment of others that you no doubt spar with in this venue in its defense. Although I'm sure you will not oblige me in the previous request, please do me the favour of keeping clear of any further editing of my tiny contributions to this site.

Enjoy your serious task of insuring that the content of articles of interest to you meet your refined criteria of relevance. I hope this special role comes with a suitably embroidered t-shirt!

J.A.Ireland, BA (IHPST) (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the irrelevant personal attacks from the above contribution. Please go to WP:NPA. Here is the edit in question. That a Monty Python sketch involving twins on Kilimanjaro, which seems to make no mention of the Matterhorn is relevant to and appropriate for the Matterhorn page, is at best a point of view. You might also like to go to WP:TRIVIA. Viewfinder (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if you want to make the case for the reinstatement of the Monty Python reference, then the right place is at Talk:Matterhorn. Viewfinder (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi View, I noticed you participated discussions on this topic before, could you comment on the situation here [11]? Thanks.--Miyokan (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- OK, I will do this on the talk page. Contrary to claims on that page, there has been no breach of WP:3RR. Infact, if you revert again you will not be blocked as it will be your third revert. However, I think that the article as it now stands is OK. Viewfinder (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your recent message, I was not the author, but could you advise of the page to which you are referring? --193.130.13.113 (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But I used that source only as a reference for the height. In the Statistical Yearbook of Croatia Mount Wilhelm is indicated as the highest peak of Oceania because Papua New Guinea is an Oceanian state and Indonesia is clearly Asian state (aslo that peak is the highest peak in Indonesia) so it makes the entire Indonesia an Oceanian state (which it is not). I will not revert your editing but would like to reach a compromise which will list Mount Wilhelm in the article together with Jaya (peak). -- Imbris (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit came across as claiming peakbagger as a source for your central claim, which is not supported at Oceania or Australia (continent). Nor is it supported at Seven Summits, although there has been some debate there. If Russia and Turkey can cover two continents, why can't Indonesia? Viewfinder (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I have not deleted all mention of Wilhelm; sources can be found which claim it as a continental HP. But it has never been formally listed or recognised by 7summits. So I oppose its listing at WP. Note also that Indonesia is no more "Asian state" than Turkey or Russia; West Papua is not Asian. Viewfinder (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I value your contribution excellent. Mount Wilhelm is mentioned and it is enough but the highest mountain in Indonesia (an Asian state) cannot be the highest point of Oceania. But I will not insist on this position which is not only the position of many statisticians but also the position of the Geographical Department of the Faculty of Science of the University of Zagreb which is the source for that Statistical Yearbook of Croatia 2007 reference. -- Imbris (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep repeating that Indonesia is an Asian state? West Papua is in Oceania. Indonesia has territory in two continents, Asia and Oceania. Viewfinder (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:CulMorPath.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 16:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:CulMorPath.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 16:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I did infact add a PD tag but probably forgot to save it. Viewfinder (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi---could you please comment on Talk:Shiprock#Reiteration? You don't need to read the whole discussion; the issue right now is whether the First Ascent/Easiest Route info should be in the infobox, or should be censored because climbing is currently illegal. You can guess my position. -- Spireguy (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my mistake in List of Central Asian Ultras. Could you possible give me a source where Mayakovskiy's prominence is actually shown? I have miserably failed in my Google searches in this respect. Thanks again. --Zlerman (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayakovskiy is not listed at peaklist. I checked my DEM resources and found that it was connected to higher mountains to the east by a ridge that drops no lower than 4,800 metres. Viewfinder (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK first, sorry about the (admitted) copyright violation - I didn't think anyone would pick it up! Second, thanks for defending my cause on the prominence group (which I'm not a member of but perhaps should be). Third, Ras52 (is he a member of the prominence group? Spireguy is) has already deleted the text in question and agreed to give it a rewrite, so that fixes the problem. Fourthly, I hope this can all be forgiven and doesn't detract too much from what is probably a considerable increase in publicity for the ultras and all your, Adam's, etc's work. Fifthly, please could you tell the guys on the prominence group all this? Many thanks - Mark J (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear example of the need for Wikipedia at the highly prominent Sgurr nan Eugallt, to whose trig point I climbed on Tuesday armed with Ordnance Survey and Scottish Mountaineering Club information that it was the summit. When I got to the top I thought the ground to the north west looked suspicious but I rechecked the OS map and found only an 881m spot height and another 880m contour ring. Relieved - only two hours of daylight remained - I descended. When I got home I found Richard Webb's site and ... oops! I created a wiki page - with hard evidence - immediately. Viewfinder (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my note on Mark J's talk page. Your reaction will be most welcome. --Zlerman (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at User talk:Mark J. Viewfinder (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it’s acceptable to disagree with the widely published elevations, it’s unacceptable to change information based on mere speculations (e.g.; loss of tourism). If you do have a source that states otherwise on the specific elevations that you claim to be inflated, please, feel free to include them on the article’s discussion page. Nonetheless, if you do not have any related information that can support your claims you should leave the article as it is.

Likeminas (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the information that was deleted and supplied reliable sources. While I was the researcher who initially challenged these elevations, I was not the author of either of the sources given, so that research has been appropriately peer reviewed and therefore does not contravene WP:OR. The issue has been discussed at some length on the discussion page.Viewfinder (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there is a problem with these disputed footnotes being dotted all over Pakistani mountains but seem to disappear from indian mountains thats why im adding EXACTLY THE SAME footnotes on mountains in indian administered kashmir im not doing anything extra just making sure theres equal amounts of these disputed footnotes on location on both Pakistani and Indian mountains reply when you get time cheers86.154.151.159 (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was some inconsistency; I agree that mountains in Pakistan administered Kashmir and Indian administered Kashmir should be treated equally. The international community is neutral on the issue. But please do not revert good faith edits without supplying an edit summary or talk page comment; when you started doing this to me, it turned me against you. There seems to be a consensus developing around the footnote at K2, if you entered this for mountains in Indian administered Kashmir but substituting "east" for "west" then I think it would stick. Viewfinder (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there must be a mistake.

I would like to thank ACamposPinho, Lorenzop, - Izzo, Hadrian1, Philip Baird Shearer, Kayac1971, Chanakyathegreat and many others for the important research material produced in these discussion's pages - Great powers. I would like to thank Viewfinder too for your reason.

Thanks anyway to everybody – in particular UKPhoenix79, Nirvana888, Colliver55, Deavenger (in Italian Language Commarelle) – for the kind assistance. I go to work.

Poti —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I am concerned about your contradictory edits to these two mountains. You insist that Nanga Parbat is in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and that Saser Kangri is in India. Infact, both are in the Kashmir region, all of which is disputed. Viewfinder (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been tracking socks of User:Nangparbat. IP lists are located at User_talk:William_M._Connolley#The_User:Nangparbat_case._I_think and User:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader. None of their POV edits are valid, so I have been reverting them all, so has admin User:William M. Connolley. These IPs are guilty of ban evasions to the nth degree as a result none of their edits are valid. They never follow WP:CIV nor do they sit down and talk in civil manner. If someone seconds their edits and sits down and talks, I would be absolutely will to talk and find some common ground. Soon I will be finishing my WP:SSP report on this user.

As a side note, in case you wish to know, my personal view on Kashmir is that all lands identified as the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947, should be returned to the people native of the region and a country of Kashmir should be formed. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the socking situation, there should still not be inconsistency. I have amended Nanga Parbat to the version that has been stable at K2, and will do the same to Saser Kangri to ensure consistency.

lol my edits are POV greyanomoly is a nationalist indian who hides behind admins to get his india pov across all articles look at my edit history and compare it the filth hes been adding to articles like pakistan occupied kashmir hes a hypocrite all my edits make sense and could this indian editor tell me where my edits are POV or is he just lying again 86.158.178.83 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you are happy with the current versions of these two pages. If you are an IP hopper, editing Wikipedia from multiple IPs, then you should stop. You should also read WP:CIV and WP:NPA; the tone of the above paragraph is not helpful. Viewfinder (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks veiwfinder in happy with both pages however the page was not a issue it was greyanomoly putting the indian POV term Pakistan occupied kashmir onto the article what worrys me is that he doesnt seem to understand what being biased is and he acts as a upholder of NPOV he needs help cheers anyways freind86.158.237.147 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it might not be OR it reads like it is. If i didn't know anything about the topic and just happened to read that section it would sound like it was someone having a rant about prominence. Also the sectoin on the merits of prom is equally poorly writen in my opinion, they just sound like someone having an argument. I just think both sections could do with rewriting in a more encyclopaedic style. Have there been anything written on the merits/critisism of prom or is it just in blogs like you say? I might do myself a google search in a mo and see what i can find. - ----Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you think the sections are poorly written, they still seem to me to be a correct application of WP:YESPOV. But by all means overhaul them if you think it would improve them. There are sources supporting prominence, including mine. Criticism has come from blogs and forums, which we do not accept, but you may be able to find some indirect ciriticism on the pages about the spire measure alternative. Viewfinder (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking that one. Please see my answer there.--11:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert Pupkin (talk • contribs)

Hi, I uploaded a corrected version. BTW, I'm not very satisfied with the layout of the 8000ers-article. Especially the paragraphes about the climbers (many blank space). But I'm afraid I don't now much about tabels, so I can't change it...--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore the material, but please feel free to raise this issue on the article's talk page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not threaten to block me. Explain why the material in question breached WP:BLP instead. Viewfinder (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a BLP-violation magnet, and I have been monitoring it for such violations for months now. If you, or anyone else, persists in inserting BLP-violating material into it, I will indeed block you (or them), per policy. I hope that's clear. I've responded to your specific question on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, I have reproduced the disputed material at Talk:Mark_Steyn with two more sources. It is properly referenced by an article by Steyn himself. Therefore it does not breach WP:BLP or WP:NOR, so I regard your blocking threats as unreasonable and ask you to stop making them. Viewfinder (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be making all further responses on the article Talk: page, please don't bother posting to me here as well. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viewfinder, would this source be a use to you?--70.22.151.175 (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, if you can state what it says about the incident and on what page. Viewfinder (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi veiwfinder another pov pusher is vandalising k2 just letting you know to keep and eye on it i deleted his edits 86.156.210.144 (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnut is not vandalising. He just thinks that the K2 article does not do justice to India's claim, an issue on which the international community is neutral. It would have been better if he had raised the subject on the talk page instead. Frankly the use of Wikipedia to push nationalist POV ****** me off. Viewfinder (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Viewfinder. You have new messages at Marsa Lahminal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi there. I understand that you remove the Mount Kinabalu ranking as to avoid edit war, but I propose to keep it there for clarification. I don't mind putting it as 6 / 7 position as long as it is being clarified to what reason and why. Mount Kinabalu has long been listed as highest in South East Asia in terms of geologist (which boundries is clearly define), however now there are some people advocating political boundries (also clearly define) and accusing those who listed Mount Kinabalu as highest in SEA as cheating. By puting both side / ranking this article hopefully clarified this issues to those who are looking for clear explanation. For those who persist, there is not really much anyone can do for them. Regards Yosri (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs at Talk:Mount Kinabalu. Viewfinder (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP that has been causing trouble on the Great power page and Middle power page is back. So I decided to report him here. If the case is not completely solved yet before you get this message, please come and give your two cents. Thanks. Deavenger (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC) It's been moved to [12]. Deavenger (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot abide by editors who edit without supplying edit summaries or talk page reasons, or who use multiple IPs to avoid WP:3RR. The last offending edit was yesterday at 10:25 yesterday. Be sure that I will keep watching. Viewfinder (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The report has been deleted, but can still be found at here. Viewfinder (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a topic at the Admin notice board about the IP user that keep on removing content from the Great power and Middle power articles. I was wondering if I could get you to comment about the situation so that we can get this situation resolved. Thanks. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my comments. Is this a bored student with nothing better to do, or some kind of self-styled British patriot who cannot live with any suggestion that the UK may no longer be a great power? If admin will not block all these IPs indefinitely then long term semi-protection seems the only way, and we should request this at WP:RPP. Personally, I have no problem with long term semi-protection; it has been applied effectively to the biographies of most high profile figures, for example. Despite previous differences, the article's regular editors now appear to be agreed on the current content. Great power has long been a magnet for nationalist POV pushers. Significant changes can and should be discussed on the talk page first. From time to time, a non-registered or newly registered editor appears and is willing to do this. Viewfinder (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess its a Franco-British person since (s)he seams to be constant on removing any comments about both countries. But what is weird the user doesn't want any suggestions that after WWII either country declined in power... It seams to be rather apparent that both did, but did they ever really loose the title of Great power? That is not for me or anyone on wikipedia to say... But we can sure show that the experts were debating this. I really like the way the article has come along and after this I am thinking about seeing if it will re-qualify as a good article. I think after my last round of major changes it answered a lot of concerns that got it delisted. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, excluding the IP vandal, the article has now stabilised sufficiently for GA renomination. But first we have to address the IP vandal problem. Do you agree with me about semi-protection, or should we continue to press admin for some other solution? Viewfinder (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any solution will do but its already been protected for a month. As for GA I think I will start working on that. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, me and phoenix renominated Great power here. As of the moment I posted this message, I don't think they started looking over it yet. But, I think they might be looking at it soon. Deavenger (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ViewFinder. Do you think the link to Humps is okay? It's just that the url allows registered RHB only members access. I'm not sure whether or not there is a policy on links to restricted sites. --Eddie | Talk 11:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not aware that access to RHB files required RHB registration. It would be better to have an open source. I will try to find one. Viewfinder (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about England & Wales and Scotland? —ras52 (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no prominence data on the above site - or am I missing something? Viewfinder (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does list all the HuMPs; I'm not aware of any other publicly-available site that does. Is the prominence essential for an external link on the Marilyns page? I agree it would be on relative height. Anyway, I expect it will gain prominence data soon as there is on-going work to merge Simon Edward's database and Graham Jackson, John Barnard and Chris Crocker's one (which doesn't currently list HuMPs), and by May or June (i.e. very soon) both are expected to have HuMPs and prominence data. —ras52 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the prominence fields have been tagged and a source of the prominence values was required. See Talk:Marilyn (hill) re a temporary solution. Of course, when prominence datas is added to the above links, they should be added. Viewfinder (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After over a month of protection, the Middle Power vandal is back again. This time, he's going after the new map. I added a new map with UK, France, Germany, and Japan in a dark color to say that those countries are sometimes comsidered Great Powers. However, he's back and adding that they are often considered great powers. And, I can't revert anymore otherwise I'll be breaking 3RR, and I'm probably going to report him. Please come and add your two cents. here Deavenger (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been away and out of e-mail contact for the last 7 days, and have only just got back. I note that Middle power has got its protection extended. Viewfinder (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Golan_Heights#The_Neutrality_of_this_Article_is_Disputed --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see what other editors have to say. There does not appear to be any consensus for the changes that you want. Viewfinder (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sinking with this Granville guy, what can I do? (Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Was this edit - your fourth revert today - really necessary? Is there a problem with Granville's most recent version? Despite his ongoing soapbox behaviour on the talk page, I think that he has compromised sufficiently in the article. Viewfinder (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edit, there was no emergency meeting at all. That was another opinion and I had left the resignation statement in ..but he just wouldn't leave it alone ..so I took that back out as well. I see no compromise from him at all. No care about discussion and no care about any of wikipedias guidelines.(Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

There is material which Granville had inserted but not re-insserted when reverted. It would have been better if you had not breached WP:3RR and made the above point about the emergency meeting on the talk page. Were it not for Granville's soapbox antics on the talk page, I might have reverted you or even reported you for breach of 3RR. Viewfinder (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for your comments over that. I really appreciate them. Very best regards to you. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding the repeated Soapboxing and uncited POV pushing both here and on the brown talk page by granville, you have warned him enough now, how much longer are we going to have to suffer it? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Can't he see that by using WP - including this page - as his own personal soapbox and providing no citations whatsoever in support of his claims, he is turning other editors against him and making it harder for him to get his edits to stick? I hope you are happy with the article as it now stands. Viewfinder (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As happy as I can be..It is a balance ish. I added the silly extra detail one percent and was glad you removed both. The article is being reviewed the link to the previous assessment is on my talkpage have a look, I imagine it will lose its status but lets try to asses the reviewers issues and keep it good.

Regarding our friend..I had a look at his edits and it is a pattern.. I don't think talking to him will be helpful. He is here to push his ideas and cares less about wikipedia. Never mind..but it puts other editors off. Thanks for your intelligent controlled editing on the page.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You seem to be struggling on the brown page...hehe.. the long list of cites is coatrack and pov pushing.. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I assume you mean the contributions by User:Thekoyaanisqatsi. I was not sure about these. At least he added cites as opposed to pure personal POV, and the claim that the election results were the worst since WW2 appears to me to be solid. If I were to revert everything I was not sure about I would soon be in breach of 3RR. Still, if you and Gavin are not happy with these contributions, you can revert them. Per WP:BRD, the onus is then on the contributor to justify them on the talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the Labour Party denies it was an emergency meeting it was still important in ending the immediate threat to Brown and should be mentioned. But yes, it WAS an emergency meeting after the truly disasterous results. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

FYI Granville, the Wilson and Callaghan administrations suffered massive poll and electoral reverses in 1967-8 and 1975-7 respectively, but by 1970/1978 had moved into poll leads. (Aside: the Wilson administration was eventually brought down by a much hyped trade account blip which subsequently turned out to be false, and the Callaghan administration lost in the wake of the winter of discontent.) Viewfinder (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson and his unelected successor Callaghan were brought down because they were terrible Prime Ministers and very bad for Britain, just like the unelected and unelectable Brown (who will soon be gone). (GranvilleHouston (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Gordon Brown has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This..[[13]] edit was brilliant. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. On the same theme, you might like to comment on my idea for purging the lead section. Viewfinder (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All we see are two Labour supporters trying to suppress balanced material being added to the article. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I am not a Labour supporter. I do the same when I see POV pushing at David Cameron. Viewfinder (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing at all POV about stating how serious the situation is for Brown. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

It is POV to repeat ad nauseam your personal opinion of Gordon Brown's premiership without contributing a single citation. This is a neutral encyclopedia. Go take your POV pushing to Guido Fawkes. Viewfinder (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I have no desire to fall out with you at all...Edit the Brown article to your total satisfaction...Try to make it a really good article...coz we are in a reassesment there.. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)) (Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I appreciate your desire for reconciliation. But, like another editor who is now blocked, you insist on editing the lead section of a high traffic article, and adding your personal analysis to its talk page without adding reliable sources in support. Viewfinder (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not edit the article until we have consensus. Perhaps we can sleep on it and try again tomorrow. Viewfinder (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good job at the Mount Hermon article at a similar thing so it would be nice if you maybe could say something at the druze article about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=300873716&oldid=300867852 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't see the problem with the above edit because as far I know there are Druze within internationally recognised Israel also. Viewfinder (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes but the numbers in the infobox are including Golan.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Idi Amin/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I definitely had a sneaking suspicious about the stubborn and unremitting additions against consensus. I suggest we keep a close eye and if it becomes more clear we let an admin know. In the meantime could you do me a favour and please ask an admin project the page/block Lear 21 for a while. Hopefully, he'll stop reverting and cool down so we can all discuss. Thanks. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ILear appears to be an experienced editor who is aware of the 3RR. I don't think I can put a case for blocking him, and full protection would be needed to prevent him from editing. Viewfinder (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your sigh of desperation on yet another 'Karakoram' edit in the Eight-thousander‎ article. Thanks for monitoring that page, and other pages, and rest assured; there's others - including myself - that try and minimize these small vandalisms. Would articles like these be better off with limiting activity of the IP-only contributors? If so, how is one to go about requesting such form of protection? Anyway, thanks again for your efforts. Qwrk (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The offending edit was made on July 12 but I had only just noticed it. The edit summary was completely irrelevant so there may be a sneaky side to this one of very many Pakistani nationalist POV pushers. You can request semi-protection (blocking of unregistered editors) at WP:RPP but I don't think admin will apply it in this case. Viewfinder (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted several content extensions backed by a number of academic references at the article Great power. The references have been laid out at the discussion and are not answered by your account. You recent reverts are disruptive editing and violate Wikipedia policy. This is a first warning. Do not revert multiple, scientifical backed additions without discussing. Lear 21 (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect you will continue to be reverted so long as the personal attacks from you and Johnansson continue and you continue to unilaterally impose material without consensus. The best course would be for you to start dispute resolution proceedings. Viewfinder

This was a neutral warning and a reminder of official Wikipedia policies. The content which has been added has been backed at different times by 4 editors. The content was also backed by several high quality references and academics. Your account and others have cited not one credible academic to proof the opposite. This is a neutral assessment of the reality. Lear 21 (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect the content that you are adding has been supported by one other current editor and opposed by four current editors (BritishWatcher, Nirvana, Phoenix and myself). I will not reconsider my position so long as the personal attacks by you and Johansson and your attempts to close discussions without consensus continue. Viewfinder (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are fantasizing, I have not conducted any personal attacks. Its an illusion of your mind. And honestly, Wikipedia in my eyes is a place of arguments, facts, reality and reliable sources and not not a place of personal vanity. I can fully understand KJohansson who seems fed up by the massive ignorance of the fundamentalist deniers of reality. If imagined personal attacks are the only arguments you have to justify your reverts, than goodnight Wikipedia. Lear 21 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not helpful to accuse other editors of "massive ignorance" and a real lack of competence, and it is surely not helpful to try to steamroll discussions before allowing other editors time to respond to your positions. And the personal attacks by Johansson (example) were definitely not imagined. Viewfinder (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another set of disruptive edits by Lear and KJ. Sigh.... Nirvana888 (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye on the Gwenllain, Princess of Deheubarth page about Maurice of London! I resolved the issue. There were two Maurice of Londons, the Bishop which it somehow was linked to, and a Maurice of London/de Londres, son of William, Lord of Kidwelli. I corrected the page but have not created a Maurice, Lord of Kidwelli page yet. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now getting more concerned that Lear and KJ are actually the same person. I know that is a bold accusation but the consistent meatpuppetry and similar editing interests have a strikingly suspicious feel. On top of that a new account User:Wegos posted on their talks and accused me of being a sock of another editor which I view as a possible attempt at getting back at me. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry at Wikipedia are contemptible, regardless of which side they come from. By all means file a report. Viewfinder (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viewfinder, it would be very helpful, to see you taking a clear stance toward the G8 image, as you already proposed a compromise. Right now even a fourth editor supports the image. It would be also apreciated to see you taking a clear stance toward the disuptive edits of the accounts Nirvana/Phoenix. These two block every major change and acceptance of high quality references. A socketpuppetry can not be ruled out. Nirvana already had a longterm block on that. For the future, I can only support a version with the G8 or without many images that currently have no references including major parts only referenced by non accessible books. I highly prefer version with the G8 as there are hundreds of evidences supporting the status. The image image, the G8 is of course in line with all other historic images at the article and underlines the introduction. I´m not commentating the behaviour of the two/one editors anymore as it stands for themselves. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouls have helped if you had supplied specific academic passages in support of your G8 case, not just a list of references which have to be searched carefully for relevant material. Frankly I think that the best solution for all concerned would be to delete the current great powers section in its entirety. The term "Great Power" is archaic and seldom used except in a few academic circles. Viewfinder (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I could get your input on if there is a sufficient source for the addition of the G8 image to the Great power article or if it is WP:OR. Follow the link to the relevant conversation Talk:Great power#G8 Solution x2. Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lear 21 Nirvana888 (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I found these two "threats" quite amusing and not favorable to helping his cause: [14] [15]. What's your take? Nirvana888 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed. Looks like we we're both right. I suppose I do have an ability to sniff out socks and sort of regret not having reported them earlier. Surely would have saved us some grief :) Nirvana888 (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! -- Phoenix (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]