Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here is the standard welcome information!

• Checkout: Welcome, newcomers

Also these links might be useful:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Grinner 10:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Grinner. You seem to have interests in the some of the same fields as me, so you may come across me quite a bit. If you have any comments or objections to anything I post then please bring them to my attention and they will be addressed promptly. Please do not do a Gillean666 and go into mass destruction mode... (btw during the few hours between the creation of the panorama links by Mark J, about which I had no knowledge at the time, and destruction by Gillean666 the quantity of orders I took was precisely nil). Postings that followed their destruction were in support of the links so I have restored them, I hope they are OK. Viewfinder 11:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm liking the panoramas, so no I won't be deleting them. By the way I think Gillean has relented on the mass deletion mode. Grinner 11:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the panoramas - very interesting. But I can't see the one for An Sgurr, Eigg - it's giving me a 404 error message - can you help? CarolGray 22:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - link typo, thanks for drawing it to my attention. It should be OK now but the image size is greater than A4 so note the paragraph about download at the top of the page. Viewfinder 22:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copying this across from User talk:Mark J#Panoramas 'Spam':

I'd just like to pip in here and say I have trouble finding the usefulness in all those linked panoramas. Additionally the commercial aspect is way off too. Remember WP:EL#What should not be linked to... If the copyright of these images was such that they could be added to WP itself, then... Thanks/wangi 21:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll take it to Viewfinder's page, although you are the one adding the links! Although I am going to remove at least the link from the Forth Road Bridge article - having a panorama of peaks visable from a peak is one thing, but from a bridge!? Thanks/wangi 17:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically if the image itself was licenced so it could be included in Wikipedia then fair enough... However you're using web links as a way of getting round putting the images up for real. Web links aren't a way to bypass copyright. Thanks/wangi 17:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These panoramas have already been deleted once and and the reaction can be found here. Surely to look at the view from a mountain is part of the reason for climbing it, so the images ARE relevant and useful. The mountain pages are in need of expansion. Why not add some more external links?

I do not understand some of the above so I cannot really comment. I have taken no orders at all as a result of the images being on Wikipedia so there is no commercial element. There is nothing advertised on the linked site. The images ARE up for real. I suppose I could put the panoramas on the Wikipedia pages themselves but they would take up loads of space and drown out everything else.

On the copyright issue, I am the copyright holder. It is theoretically possible that the OS could object on the basis that the panoramas were made from their data but so far they have not done so and it would be both destructive and unnecessary for them to do so. Viewfinder 21:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using the {{coor dms}} template in some city articles lately. I am asking you this question because I notice you had made some edits to the template. What it the 9th parameter to the template? I can’t find any information on the talk page. •DanMS 05:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tried editing this template but I was concerned about the effects so I reverted them. I am not sure what you mean by the ninth parameter; there seem to be only eight.

I may try deleting the superfluous spaces between the minutes and seconds, and seconds and hemisphere. What do you think about these? It seems to me that either these should go, or a space should also separate the degrees from the minutes. I did this for the Mtnbox coor dms template, and the change seems to have been accepted. Viewfinder 14:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viewfinder - well done on correcting the caption (was about to do the same!). But what does "30" mean? - MPF 12:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified this, see Andes Viewfinder 13:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - MPF 13:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following your comments in Talk:Highest unclimbed mountain I’ve decided to reply here. In particular the page on your website about the heights of the mountains and the position of the border is tremendously interesting. You’ve obviously done a lot of work and have impeccable sources! A lot seems to have happened in the last few months and I hadn’t kept up. A sad backdrop is http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7598_1583871,000500020006.htm. It does indeed look as if Kula Kangri is not so high as Gangkhar Puensum and this may have ramifications on the border issue.

Clearly, the zig-zag border makes no topographical sense but I’d be less confident that you are that the border is (or would be decided to be) along the watershed! Helping your argument is the Bhutan article http://www.dop.gov.bt/fyp/05/05fyp_01.htm you drew to my attention which says “”The border with Tibet is traditional, following ... the crest of the Himalayas in the north”. I wonder whether, knowing the positions of KK and GP, some committee “pencilled in” the border on the ridge between them and continued east and west from there, generally along the “crest”. If KK is lower then one could properly regard this ridge as a spur (as you do) but this would not have been known at the time.

Steven Berry, in saying that GP is wholly in Bhutan was possibly simply reporting what he had been told. However, my 1992 big Times Atlas is very odd. It shows the zig-zag border but marks a mountain only at the SW “zag”. It marks it “Kula Kangri 7554” but I had realised this must be wrong. The Lat/long are pretty much where GP is stated to be. Even though I presumed the map is wrong I supposed it was just that the mountain is wrongly labelled. However, the mountain is not shown on the zag of the border but a couple of miles west. This makes no sense but I was taking it seriously. Hence, I felt there was “authority” for GP to be in Bhutan rather than exactly on the border.

Your relief map is terrific! However, even if we were certain the border was on the watershed, I think that still leaves doubt. If KK were higher (as it certainly used to be thought to be) how would you draw a watershed passing through KK? Would it pass through GP? There may be a subjective element here.

Two minor comments: on your http://www.viewfinderpanoramas.org/kula.html article, the link to the Japanese map is broken (it is OK on http://www.sol.co.uk/v/viewfinder/kula.html) also, your link to http://gangkhar-puensum.iqnaut.net/ strives me as odd in that is simply mirrors the Wikipedia Gangkhar Puensum article (acknowledging the fact). Thincat 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the above comments. On the relative heights, it is possible that the Chinese may have rigged their figures to further their territorial cause, but this seems unlikely because (a) they would be likely to be caught and exposed, (b) many other new elevations which they have published in their Mountaineering Guide seem to be accurate and SRTM compatible, and (c) their territorial case is not, imo, dependent on these heights. Mountain range "crests" do not have to include their highest points, and in some cases cannot do so without a long detour. Even if KK is the local HP, drawing the border over it would be difficult. Such a border would either have to pass (a) over GP, the NE over KK, then eastwards which would take it north of settlements that all authorities now agree are Tibetan, or (b) descend to a low point well to the north of the pass west of GP, then turn south over KK, south west towards GP, but turn east before reaching GP, leaving GP wholly in Bhutan. Course (b) is shown on large scale (and mostly wrong) maps, but not on detailed topos because they expose its illogic. The case for it would be hard to substantiate, because it would go a long way from the watershed, and it would create a kind of Bhutanese enclave, easily approached from Tibet but cut off from the rest of Bhutan by a high pass defended by glaciers.

It would be interesting to know more information about the locations and nature of recent Chinese border incursions. If high altitude civil engineering work is needed to avoid flooding then this strengthens the case for watershed borders. There may also be military considerations, but this page is probably not the right place to elaborate on these.

The local 1:200000 Russian topography (1980's) of the area can be downloaded here. The summit names and heights are wrong (it gives KK 7425m) but the general relief and border course are correct. As you say, the Times Atlas has Kula Kangri in the wrong place, and its topography seems to be wrong.

Sorry about the slight mix-up over links, my SOL server was down earlier this week so I had to use my other site. I am gradually transferring everything to the new VP site but I cannot do this all at once because of links from other sites. Viewfinder 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you see San Diego and Palm Springs from Mt. Whitney? To the best of my knowledge, those cities are well obscured. I have a similar question about supposedly seeing Reno from Mt. Diablo, all the way across the Sierra Nevada.

Of course you do not see these cities, that is obvious. They are there for reference. By showing Palm Springs and San Gorgonio Mountain in the same direction, for example, I am showing the location of San Gorgonio Mtn relative to Palm Springs. Viewfinder

An interesting observation has been posted here: "A relative height is a fact, and is ineligible for copyright".

It logically follows that a contour line is a fact and is therefore also ineligible for copyright. OK, photocopying maps and selling the copies is obviously copyvio, but what about tracing the contours for the purposes of creating DEM data, whose many applications include the computing of relative heights? That should be OK, and that is precisely what I have been doing for a long time. Nobody had objected, so I assume it is OK. But most maps bear catch-all clauses implicitly forbidding this. It is an area which needs clarification.

For my part, I see copyright as a negative force, not a force for good. Economic theory tells us that the general interest is best served when price is based on cost of reproduction. It follows that if knowledge can be reproduced for free, it should be available for free. But I do not like plagiarism either. Presenting someone else's work as your own is wrong. I can understand concern about the possibility of high volumes of data being copied to Wikipedia from other sites, with the credits removed or watered down. Personally, I do not think that has happened yet in the field of topography, but not all topographic researchers agree.

Comments about the above are welcome. Viewfinder 14:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad to see another user who sees Adkagansu for what he really is, a subtle POV pusher. I really hope that you will help me keep an eye on him and also help stop his POVing. Please get back to me, thank you!--Moosh88 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must have gotten mixed up. I thought Adkagansu deleted the picture that I re-added. Thanks anyways. :) --Khoikhoi 00:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your comment at Moosh's talk page. Check your email. --Khoikhoi 00:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted El C, who else do you suggest I contact?--Moosh88 00:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sedat Laciner is on Wikipedia contributing under two different usernames, please keep and eye on him, as he has already begun his POV pushing campaign. His user name is Slaciner, I don't know the other name he uses. Please contact me if you have any questions or something important comes up, thanks!--Moosh88 23:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i'll edit the Pico Bolívar height back to 4981 untill the url is fixed, i do have the pdf on my computer, it's an article published on the geography school of the Universidad de los Andes, in Mérida, Venezuela. It discusses merida state highest's elevations, and while it acknowledges and even mentions the GPS measurement, they don't seem to care too much for it, and rather rely on topographic maps of the area, which is to date the oficial way to measure elevations. On the other hand, Pico La Concha and Pico Humboldt are completely different mountains separated by several kilometers. Pico Bompland and Pico Humboldt do belong to the same massif, not sure if you mixed them up, the pdf i was talking about has a comprehensive list of elevations higher than 4300 in Venezuela with coordinates, mountain range located, alternative names, etc. I hope this clarifies matters.

It would be good to see the pdf article, please fix the url. I would also be interested to know the year in which the topographic map of the area, on which the article relies, was published. To the best of my information, La Concha is about 3km NE of Bolivar, with an intervening drop of abut 250m, and Humboldt is 5km E, with a drop of about 450m. I think that puts all three on the same massif, although Humboldt qualifies as a separate mountain under the commonly used "Andes 400m rule". If you are interested, we have complete lists of South American summits ranked by topographic prominence down to 1500m, you can call up the page covering Venezuela. But we are unsure of some of the elevations, including Monte Roraima; if you have better information, please tell us. Viewfinder 04:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the URL might have been fixed try this: http://www.saber.ula.ve/cgi-win/be_alex.exe?Acceso=T016300000959/5&Nombrebd=Saber if that still doesn't work i'll gladly send it to the e-mail on your website. Is the "Andes 400m rule" a wikipedia standard? the author of the mentioned article uses a 100m+ prominence rule, i'm not sure which one is more accurate, thanks for the info and links. 0kty

The above link worked fine, many thanks. There is a lot of useful information in the document, and it looks to be fairly accurate. I have saved it and I will use it for reference.

I do not think there is any fixed Wikipedia prominence rule. The 400m rule is used by John Biggar here. I am not further contesting these additional peaks, but there are very many higher and more prominent peaks in the Andes which are not listed.

Still, the pdf article is dated 2001, which means that this page, which is on an official Venezuelan government site, is more recent. And the GPS readings by John Biggar that I referred to, which agree closely with the 4981m elevation, were taken on the summit of Bolívar in January 2006. At the time that the topographic maps were made, it was thought by all that Bolívar was a 5000m summit. It is only recently that accurate satellite and GPS technology has shown it to be slightly lower. Viewfinder 19:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied on my talk page. gala.martin (what?) 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, find my reply on my talk page. gala.martin (what?) 13:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the history of the George W. Bush site and a revert recorded at 17:20 on April 6, which implies that my edit was not rvv (revert vandalism), as claimed, but the addition of vandalism. The words (which I will not repeat here) that it is implied that I added were the words of an earlier vandal. I merely reverted the vandalism of the last editor before me. I could conceivably have clicked on the wrong version to revert to, but that is unlikely because the vandalism of the last editor was, it is implied in the history section, retained (and reverted by a subsequent editor). The alternative possibility, tht I re-typed or re-pasted the words of the earlier vandal, I firmly deny. Is there a Wikipedia bug, or something more sinister going on? Viewfinder 18:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look carefully. You did not revert back far enough. When you see this comparison between your reversion and mine [1] you will notice that while your work was good, there were multiple vandalisms to revert. I'm sorry for the confusion, and I hope you can help fight vandals into the future. Have a great day!--MrFish 18:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but I did look carefully. The editor before me vandalised the Afghanistan section. I reverted this to the edit before that, which is vandalism free, but the effect, which was recorded in the history log, see [2], was not only to RETAIN the Afghanistan vandalism, but to REINSTATE the line one vandalism. Fortunately you were quick to notice this, but it will now be on permanent record that I vandalised the GWB site, when I did not. Btw examination of my contribution log shows that I am a regular vandal reverter, albeit primarily on non-mainstream topography related sites - I someimes visit, but seldom watch or contribute to celebrity sites. Viewfinder 19:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! You are completely right. This article is totally out of control. In fact, I did not fix the Afghanistan vandalism either, and I, too do not know why (it was fixed by Shanes). Fortunately, the article was just put under semi-protection by MONGO. I am not sure how you can erase this from your record, but do not apologize for "bothering me again." I would be glad to testify on your behalf. Still, it's unlikely that anyone will happen to notice this event (unless they read your talk page!). Just leave a note on my talk page, please, so that I will get that New Message bar. See you later!--MrFish 20:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(You ask me to look at this, but it seems like things have been sorted? Grinner 08:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, but I am still not happy about what happened and what remains in the George W. Bush history log, which leaves it open to anyone who wishes to stab me in the back to create a link to "hard evidence" that I am a vandal. OK, perhaps that is unreasonable paranoia, but I think there may be a Wikipedia software bug which is causing errors when several users simultaneously attempt to revert the same vandalism. I think that this should be looked into. Viewfinder 08:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good day.

I'm looking forward to create the Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela. I had the idea of creating it when I first made the portal. The project will have the main objective of centrating efforts into a more complete information and a higher quality of the articles in Wikipedia, other media in the sister projects, and the portal itself.

However, the rules say that I should have at least five to ten members willing to integrate and contribute to the wikiproject. So if some of you guys want to join in, then leave me a message, or in this page. I will be back in a few days to see how things are going on.

The motif of my adress is to invite you to join into the list o interested in order to improve the qualiy standars of articles relating to Venezuela and its history, subdivisions, culture, etc. If you are interested, go toWikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Venezuela and list yourself.

Thanks.

--Alex Coiro 21:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex,

I don't think I have very much to contribute, other than what you have probably already found in the Andes Pico Bolivar section above. But I have a fairly complete digital elevation model of Venezuela from SRTM, so if you have any questions about its topography, feel free to contact me again. Viewfinder 05:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Viewfinder,

I noticed your edit to the Hermon article, where you removed some mentions of Israel, saying "Israeli occupation and annexation is not internationally recognised". Can I ask why you chose international reaction rather than actual control? Isn't the former a bit harder to quantify? For example, how would you quantify "international recognition" about China's occupation and annexation of Tibet? [3] Thanks, Andjam 09:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andjam, if you look at almost any atlas of the world, including those published by the Times of London, and the CIA maps that are frequently reproduced on Wikipedia, you will find that (a) Tibet is shown within China, and (b) the entire Golan Heights region is shown within Syria, although the lines of Israeli control are marked. Also, as I understood it, the original purpose of Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights was for defence, not long term territory. Viewfinder 12:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at these unidentified peaks at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_Karakoram_peaks. If you recognize any of these, please update their description and category and notify me. Thanks! Waqas.usman 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are really nice pictures! I could probably identify many of them with my panorama generator, but I need to know, more precisely, the locations of the viewpoints. "Hunza" and "Karakoram Highway" are insufficient. Lat/long coordinates would be best, but distance and directon from a town likely to be marked on my maps (1:100,000) would probably be sufficient. Let me know if you are able to supply this. Viewfinder 00:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I identified some of these (and changed the category), but the rest are a bit mysterious to me. In terms of viewpoint, 005 and 016 are near Karimabad, since that is where Altit Fort is located, according to the Wala map. I think they are looking more or less east, so perhaps the snow peaks in the background are along the south side of the Hispar Glacier? (With something like Khunyang Chhish on the extreme left of the wide shot??) Or I may be confused. Want to check them out? -- Spireguy 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert of Everest I was working on the assumption that the 2.5 cm figure was a misreading of this sentence later in the article -- "Everest is still growing due to the plate tectonics of the area, adding 3 to 5 mm (1/8 to 3/16 inch) to the height and moving north-eastward at 27 mm (1.06 in) per year." -- since one sentence had to be changed to be internally consistent, and no one replied definitively when I posted on the talk page, I assumed the more precise and specific statement to be correct. 216.207.246.230 21:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, you did correct an inconsistency, and web research seems to indicate that 4 mm is correct. I have restored this figure, I hope this is OK. It would have been better, however, if you had filled in "see measurement section" in the edit summary, or better still, found and cited a source. We get so many vandals in Wikipedia, sometimes sneaky ones deliberately amending facts for the kick of misinforming, and editors do not have time to check them all as well as they would like. Viewfinder 00:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I pretty much figured it was Vandalism, but I didn't want to dig through the article's history to find out. Some people I just don't understand. And don't feel bad about missing it. A few weeks ago I found an edit on the Christopher Columbus page that claimed he had speed boats on his second voyage. I did look that up. It'd been there for just as long. Mister.Manticore 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are not watching my talk page - I have replied there to your query. Kcordina ^Talk 14:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Royal duties, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Royal duties. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Amalas =^_^= 19:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amalas, I think there is a case for a Wikipedia article on Royal duties; it is thought my many (e.g. Deadbarnacle) that they do not have any meaningful duties. The article created by Deadbarnacle was not satisfactory. It should be properly written or deleted, but unfortunately I am not really qualified. Leave it as it is for five days, perhaps I can find someone, or someone will come forward, to write it properly. If that does not happen, then go ahead and delete it. Viewfinder 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note; I'll keep that ip on my talk page and check in on him. Kaisershatner 15:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You state that for "geometric reasons", Merrick is not visible from Snowdon, and yet Snowdon is visible from Merrick (according to your panorama). Does that not mean that the view is also possible in the opposite direction? Aren't the calculations based purely on "geometric reasons" (topography, curvature of the Earth, etc.)? I dare say there's something I'm not aware of, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Perhaps you could clarify that statement. I also dispute how useful most of the external links are, not least because some are now listed twice. A painting of Snowdon is relevant to an article about the painter, but not to Snowdon. To show what Snowdon looks like, we have a photograph; the history of art is of little importance to Snowdon itself. Similarly, maps can be reached from the infobox; they needn't be repeated in the external links. Pending compelling reasons why not, I have removed them again. --Stemonitis 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stemonitis. To give an analogy: if we were in neighbouring rooms, and I were at a desk but you were looking through an empty keyhole, you would probably see my clearly, but I would not see you. The "keyhole" is Lamachan Hill, which is much closer to Merrick, so an observer on Merrick would see Snowdon much more easily than vice versa. Infact, Merrick would be impossible to observe from Snowdon other than with a telescope, and then only if there were a suitable contrast with Lamachan Hill (e.g. snow or sun on one but not the other). That is why Merrick is not shown on the Snowdon panorama. I am concerned that readers may look for it but be confused when they do not find it, or look for Merrick from Snowdon in exceptionally clear visibility. So if the intervisibility superlative is to be mentioned, the keyhole question arises. But explaining it in detail on the Snowdon main page would not be appropriate. A link to the above explanation on my site may be the best solution, but I could reproduce it on Wikpedia if a suitable place for it could be found (Line-of-sight?). What do you think?

The Wikipedia links to my panoramas were originally created by Mark J without my knowledge. They were subsequently deleted because of a commercial paragraph at the top of the linked page, but other Wikipedians voted for their retention. The links seem to me to be both useful and relevant; intervisibility is a frequent discussion topic. So I moved the commercial on my page, then restored the links. It seemed odd that you created a link to the Merrick panorama on the Snowdon page, but deleted the Snowdon panorama link, which is more relevant. As for the other links, these also seemed relevant, but I follow your duplication argument so I will not further contest these. Viewfinder 07:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's all clear now. Merrick is theoretically visible from Snowdon, but you'd probably never recognise it at that distance. As for my deleting your Snowdon panorama links, you're probably right. I was on a links cull, and perhaps went too far. You will notice that I retained those links in my last edit. They do belong there and are useful (I'm not so sure about the index page, though; that could more easily be seen as commercialising). --Stemonitis 08:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The index page links are up on most other mountain pages and seem to have been generally accepted, although there is occasional dissent. The linked page contains useful and relevant information about the panoramas. The panoramas enterprise is not profit making; infact I have sold very few panoramas, and prices reflect only reasonable reproduction costs. Viewfinder 08:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Viewfinder. Thanks for your help reverting vandalism of Oundle School. School articles seem to attract vandals, this one particularly. I don't think it's a good idea to reference vandal edits in the actual article though. It doesn't contribute anything to the subject and it's likely to encourage the little mongrels if anything. I think the best approach is to revert as quickly as possible, issue appropriate warnings for repeat offenders and recommend blocks for persistent efforts. I've removed the reference. Feel free to discuss though and keep up the good work. - Gimboid13 02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Gimboid13 from "up over" and thank you for your message. I did not expect or intend my edit to have a long life and I would have removed it myself soon if you had not.

The occasional isolated jokey edit can be a giggle but serial vandalism damages Wikipedia, which I regard as a medium within which I can get a good feeling from freely sharing my knowledge with the whole world. Vandalism to Wikipedia is the virtual equivalent of driving a motorcycle over public rose beds. The Wikipedia policy of reverting, warning and block recommendation is policy which I generally agree with and am happy to apply. But in this case, despite three blocks, this policy was not working. It is a case of sustained long term vandalism, and its source shocked me. English private schools, of which Oundle is the third largest, are expensive. I know that better than most, because I was a pupil at (according to the article) the largest and my daughter was a pupil at the second largest (or maybe vice versa), and some of my daughter's friends went to Oundle. I would have expected Oundle to have the resources to extinguish this vandalism within days of it starting up, not months. I do not know what effect my eccentric little stunt (in keeping with my eccentric personality) would have had on the mongrels. Its purpose was to expedite the real solution to the problem - for someone in authority at Oundle to see my edit, or have his attention drawn to it, and act swiftly. Yes, I could have e-mailed the school instead but in my experience such e-mails elicit only inertia. We'll see whether or not the vandalism continues; if it does, then perhaps you can offer alternative ideas for dealing with it. Or do the authorities at Oundle School, in their hearts, believe that if you want to acquire knowledge, your parents should have to pay the likes of them for it when you are a kid, so stuff Wikipedia? (I seriously wonder sometimes....) Viewfinder 11:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you could comment on the spelling of the name of this mountain, at Talk:Kanchenjunga. Gdr 21:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment; I moved the page accordingly. Gdr 19:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi---I'm not sure that I agree with your edit to topographic prominence. Everest is a unique special case, since it is the global maximum of the height function: one cannot use the definition used for other peaks. However for any other island/continent HP, the usual definition applies, with the ocean as the "col", giving the height above sea level as the prominence. I made this clear (I hope) in the paragraph following the one you edited. So I would not say that the fact for islands "follows" from the case of Everest; they are logically distinct. Your phrase suggests that we need to apply the Everest convention artificially to any island/continent HP, which is unnecessary. I would suggest taking out the phrase you inserted. Let me know what you think -- Spireguy 15:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits by the previous editor because they were not in good English and were mostly unnecessary. I then decided there should be at least some mention of islands. The paragraph now runs thus: For all peaks except Mount Everest, if the peak's prominence is P metres, to get from the summit to any higher terrain, one must descend at least P metres, whatever route is taken. The prominence of Mount Everest is considered to be equal to its elevation, so it follows that the prominence of any high point of an area wholly surrounded by sea is equal to its elevation.. The phrase I inserted at the end follows from the entire paragraph, not just the immediately preceding Everest phrase, and seems to me to be both correct worth pointing out. It may be best re-worded, but if you delete it, I will not try to re-insert it.

I agree that your reversion was quite appropriate, thanks for that. Take a look at my new version. I think it's clearer. Let me know what you think.-- Spireguy 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that it's a bad idea to clutter these pages with details of disputes that few people will be interested in. I feel however, that adding a ref-style note, which just adds a superscript number on the main sentence, and puts the explanation on the bottom, shouldn't distract an uninterested reader too much, and at the same time conform with NPOV. Simply saying these peaks are in Pakistan/India without any hint of the dispute (well, even "dispute" is somewhat POV because India maintains there's no dispute, just illegal Pakistani occupation), will be too much of a POV. Also, we have to put the disclaimer on all these articles simply because most readers will only be landing up on one odd article, leaving with the impression that there's no dispute about the concerned mountain being in Pakistan/India. We can't expect the reader to somehow reach the sole page with the explanation. Looking at it this way, I don't quite know how to avoid the repetition of this note. deeptrivia (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, someone did act on your previous posting. I blocked him for just 3 hours because I'm pretty sure this isn't all the same user. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I assumed that all blocks appeared on user talk pages so I did not check the block log. I now realise this is not so and in future I will check the block logs. Viewfinder 16:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC) (cat owner).[reply]

82.198.250.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been very active today. Viewfinder 18:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC) and is still vandalising and should be blocked indefinitely. Viewfinder 11:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

you did revert an external link clean up on the Mount_Chimborazo article i did yesterday. in my opinion (and also in line with the wikipedia external link guide WP:EL) wikipedia articles should not be clutered with external links that:

• do not contribute significant amount of additional information not included in the article (which information should better be inlcuded directly in the article anyway)
• are commercial
• blogs and other perosnal sites

detailed reasons i deleted the links:

• Mt. Chimborazo on Peakware

in my opinion a very cheap and inaccurate website which does not provide any additional value to the article (go to their homepage, select southamerica, select the andes, then you get a list of hundreds of summits, most of them not in the andes to my knowledge) i will delete this link again

I do not have a high opinion of this site either, but it does sometimes contain useful information and it is not commercial or personal. But summitpost is better so OK we can leave peakware out in this case. Viewfinder

• Chimborazo on summitpost

compared to peakware a very good website, with interesting information for and from mountaineers, i still think that it does not really extend on the articles information i will leave this link, but will change the link description

This is a good site. Most of its pages contribute more information and photographs than Wikipedia and the Chimborazo page is no exception. We could copy it all into Wikipedia but that would be pointless and may also be copyvio. It is better just to create a link. You should definitely not have deleted this link. Viewfinder

• Chimborazo, tour 2003
• Chimborazo, Nov 2004

this two links are personal logs about climbing chimbo, the second one is not even chimbo specific but a log about a whole 2weeks mountaineering tour. to justify linking to such pages from wikipedia they would need to provide some really special information or be of much better quality than these are. i don't think that it would be a god idea if everybody who visited some spot on this earth would add links to his personal photopages to the respective wp articles i will delete thins links again

These links contributed some nice photographs. If pages get too cluttered up with links like these, that merely duplicate eath other, then they should go, but I do not think the Chimbo article has reached that stage. Viewfinder

• Chimborazo: Etymology

ecuaworld.com is a commercial travel agency site which is spamming each and every ecuador related article, again i don't thin it would be a good idea if every travel agency would post their links on wikipedia articles. in this case the page is really providing additional information regarding the etymology of chimborazo, allthough in my opinion and to my knowledge this information is partly wrong. i will do research on the chimbo etymology and include this information into the article with the respective sources. afterwards i will delete this link again

For me this issue is not so much the commercial element, but whether the link provides additional useful and relevant information, and I think this one does. But if you can add the information yourself without breaching copyright, then it will become superfluous and should then be deleted. Viewfinder

i hope you agree saludos --Ma xyz 17:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your position. I will not contest this further, but see my comments above, and please do not delete whole blocks of external links. Viewfinder 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments aswell, you're rigth that i was wrong in deleting the summitpost link, but luckily this is wikipedia and such mistakes get corrected immeadeately by the commuity. I believe that the part of providing additional nice photographs and travelogs is very well covered by summitpost aswell. Regarding the etymology part i have taken care in the mean time. saludos --Ma xyz 03:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi viewfinder, sorry to spam you again regarding this topic. But just today 2 of the links i deleted earlier have been reestablished by the original poster (no account, just an ip:65.170.71.138). the "etymology" link was reestablished allthoug much more extensive etymology info is now included directly into the article. and the ecuador365.com link got added again. you did then not reestablish this one, i assume because you checked it and did not find any webpage at this address, in the mean time there is a page there, which tells me that this company even posts links to wikipedia befor they finishe their pages, why would they? if you check for contributions of 65.170.71.138 you will see that they only add their links to ecuador articles, nothing else. on the ecuador365.com they have pictures of cotopaxi, alta, cayambe, but still posted the link to chimborazo, illinizas, pichincha etc. i agree that the commercial element is irrelevant when the links provide relevant additional info, but what these are doing is really spam in my opinion. if these people really would like to contribute information to wikipedia, they would put e.g. the eymology information directly into the article and post their pictures to wikimedia commons. sorry again for spamming your talk page, just wanted to make my point of view more understandable.--Ma xyz 01:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not spamming me. These links now contribute nothing that is not either wholly commercial or already in the article. As far as I can see, ecuador 365 does not mention Chimborazo at all. If I see them again I will remove them myself. Viewfinder 10:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

it's me again. i was trying to find a reference for the corrected chimborazo elevation (6267 m instead of 6310 m). all printed resources i could get hold of are still refering to 6310 m (also newer editions of guides, maps etc.). what confused me also is that a lot of sources do atribute the height of 6267 m to the veintimilla summit. There is some information regarding the "1993 GPS survey by Mike Jenkins" on peaklist.org, i listed this currently as reference for the 6267 m elevation. i could see on your webpage that you have experience with such questions. perhaps you have knowledge of some reference you could add? reason i'm asking is, that i would like to merge information between ecuador related articles on different language wikis to get them more or less inline. and for mountain articles height is probably one of the facts you would really want to be consistent. but before doing such thing i'd rather be sure about what i'm talking. i hope you can find some time to look into this.

thanks, saludos --Ma xyz 03:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Printed resources - and websites - copy each other and many still claim that Ulugh Muztagh is 7,723 m, 21 years after it was accurately measured. There is another Chimborazo reference here: [4]. Scroll down to Puna de Atacama. (Aside: the article is quite old, re Pissis, at least three modern GPS surveys, including one by the author of the above link, has shown that Pissis is 6,795 m not 6,882 m and that the Argentinian claim about accurately surveying Pissis is false.) In further support of the Jenkins elevation is local SRTM data. (3 are seconds is about 90 metres). Viewfinder 07:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC). There are several other references on the web, where 6267m seems to appear as often as 6310m. I hope this is sufficient reference for you; if not, you can point out that the 6310m appears more often in print, and I may be able to find more information about the Jenkins survey. Viewfinder 11:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi viewfinder. thanks a lot for this answer and explanations. very interesting. unfortunately the IGM (instituto geografico militar) did not really adapt the height from the jenkins survey into their new maps yet, this could probably still take some time. i find this srtm data is very interesting. before i asked you i downloaded some of this data files from the nasa server but did then not know nor find out what to do with it :-) your representation of the data helped me a lot in understanding this. perhaps you could include chimborazo into your wrong elevations list? then this could serve as very good reference for this question. i will also try to contact the igm to find out what they use currently as "oficial" elevation. i will leave the part regarding the elevation in the article as it was, i think its a good explanation and it mentions allready that the former used number was 6310. saludos --Ma xyz 01:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why I did not put Chimborazo on my errors page. Perhaps Ididnot think the margin was sufficient, or perhaps at the time I was not sure about the mountain accuracy of SRTM, or perhaps I assumed that Ecuador had recognised 6,267 m so it did not qualify. I will now add it. In my experience, South American IGM's are (i) difficult to contact and (ii) have little reliable information about major peak heights. Perhaps they do not think peak height are important. I would be very surprised if EIGM disputes 6,267 m, but it would be interesting to see what they have to say. Viewfinder 10:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you please not respond to all of these comments seeking to turn this Talk page into a forum on players and racism, etc. rather than a discussion page about the Wikipedia article. Thank you. —Centrx→talk • 02:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I have contributed anything irrelevant to the article. Some posters are of the view that the provocation by Materazzi was normal football field behaviour, in which case it should not be mentioned at all in the article. Others are of the view that it was much more serious, in which case it should be mentioned prominently in the article. There has to be some discussion and debate. I don't think you were correct to delete such discussion, at best that was unnecessary, at worst it could be construed as censorship. Viewfinder 08:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean that I think you have been doing anything wrong. What I mean is that several anonymous/new/random users have gravitated to this Talk page to use it as a forum to discuss general topics that are only tangentially related to editing or improving the Wikipedia article. This is not the purpose of the Talk page. See also my comment at Talk:Marco Materazzi#Discussion points. Responding to their comments does not help keep this purpose, even though your comments are rightly brief, whereas the other comments are long-winded and go off on long tangents irrelevant to making an encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 19:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that really, they renamed Peak/Qullai Lenin to Avicenna Peak (Qullai Abūalī ibni Sino) and Peak/Qullai Revolyutsiya to Independence Peak (Qullai Istiqlol). At least that's what the decree says as far as I understand (I understand Russian fairly well, thus am able to read Cyrillic, and have a VERY rudimentary knowledge of Persian). Anyway, the order of name changes is obvious from the very sentence structure.

Unfortunately, www.president.tj reported on June 30, 2006 that Peak Lenin was now Peak Independence, and then posted the Decree on July 4, which states the opposite. So which peak is which?

--Holger Finken 15:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Russian alphabet but I am not able to translate Russian into English. If possible, could you translate the full text on [5]. I would like to move the article to its correct name but I want to be sure of getting it right first. Viewfinder 16:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see the problem is that this is not Russian but Tajik (= largely Farsi written in Cyrillic script). I think I understand the text correctly but cannot be 100% sure. I asked the site's (www.president.tj) webmaster for clarification yesterday, let's wait for the answer. --Holger Finken 16:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I had not realised that the rename back to Lenin had been reverted. I have put in a formal request; I think it should revert to Lenina until the situation is clarified. Viewfinder 02:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for clumsily editing your userpage, please see Talk:John Prescott. Zargulon 21:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Please see the Adultery Category talk page. I think you should nominate the cat for deletion, and I think you should not object to me expanding it in the interim. Zargulon 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am going to de-list your Independence Peak → Pik Lenina move request. The steps for requesting a page move were not followed so no one else had a chance to see or vote on the request. Those steps put the article in a category and make a convenient place to vote. Feel free to re-list the request. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page back to Pik Lenina because it is not clear that Independence Peak is the correct name. A Tajik presidental web page contradicts this and was cited on the talk page. I think that Lenina should be retained until the situation is clarified. I thought it was OK to move pages (back) in this manner but the move was contested (unfortunately I overlooked this on my watchlist) so I will look into and probably take up the proper procedure. Viewfinder 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Fitz Roy's summit defines the Argentina/Chile border. See: 1998 Agreement between Chile and Argentina (Spanish).If you have problems with Spanish, see the following link: [6]. Towards the north of the Fitz Roy's summit, the border is defined. You can see it in the next map: [7] Jespinos 01:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]