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 I hope it will be considered more reliable than unreferenced or outdated claims in outdated articles by employees of the likes of NASA and USGS.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]

Regarding this accusation of bad faith, I have already engaged you on the whole alleged "cabal" issue, but you erased the discussion. Assuming you had a right to bring this up in the past, as I see it you lost that right in deleting further discussion of the issue. The next reference you make to an unseen "cabal" I expect to be at WP:ANI. I am even willing to kick off the discussion there if you wish, but as I have no desire to be prejudicial in the matter I heartily suggest that you take the first step. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page you quote another editor: Those who are committed to accuracy are effectively encouraged to create tight-knit, ever-vigilant cabals to edit war against the ignorant. Viewfinder (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have also serially accused me of incompetence, ignorance and tendentious editing. Still, in the interests of cooling things down, I have deleted the word "cabal" from Talk:Jacob_Barnett. Viewfinder (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi Viewfinder! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 14:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)

Hey, just a little more detail into my revert of your revert.

Common member's of the Privy Council are permitted the use of 'The Right Honourable' but not the use of the post-nominal 'PC'. Peer's of the Privy Council, having already the use of 'The Right Honourable' or higher use the pre-fix use the post-nominal 'PC'. Baron & Broness, Earl & Countess, Viscount & Vicountess, Use of PC, ^[1] Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue this discussion at Talk:John Prescott. Viewfinder (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of elevation extremes by country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cat Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latest IP edit, although from a different IP address, is no doubt from the same person. I have blocked both IP addresses for 48 hours, and left messages on their talk pages asking them to discuss the issue. It is possible that may get through to the editor, but it is very likely that it won't, for several reasons. Apart from anything else, editors who keep changing to different IP addresses are quite likely to never actually see talk page messages, because by the time the message comes they have moved on to another IP address. There are other things which could be tried, but for the moment let's see if this block makes a difference. As you know, you could be seen as edit-warring, but as far as I am concerned, the important differences are that you have tired to start a discussion, and you have tried to offer a compromise, so I don't see that blocking you under present circumstances would be constructive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]