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

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

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

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

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 I hope it will be considered more reliable than unreferenced or outdated claims in outdated articles by employees of the likes of NASA and USGS.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check;

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

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

I thought this is something you all should know.

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

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

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

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

Thanks. Hope Qwrk is ok.

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

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

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

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

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

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