User talk:Hike395/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

RE: {{Include-USGov}}

Well, it is used on over 5,000 pages which is usually when we fully protect them. Requested edits can be made via {{editprotected}}. You can see WP:HRT for more information. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Meta-template Include-USGov

Hi, I noticed that you rewrote a lot of the U.S. government attribution templates to incorporate {{Include-USGov}}. That's all well and good as far as organization goes, but is there any way to incorporate different icons/emblems for each template instead of the standard "no copyright" logo? As it stands now, all the templates look the same, and I feel this makes them more confusing than they need to be. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 06:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

After fooling around with the sandbox, I think there might be one way to do it: If we can add a variable so that the "no copyright" logo doesn't display, we can then add an icon for each individual template. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Certain individual agencies prohibit the use of their logos in a commercial context, or where its use would be misleading. For example, 50 U.S.C. § 403m forbids the use of the Central Intelligence Agency's name or seal in such a manner. Beyond that, each agency usually has its own statute or regulation regarding the use of its insignia, but I know of no policy which would prevent the use of agency logos in a non-commercial context such as Wikipedia. I have never seen any logos removed for such reasons, and I actually created a bunch of the original attribution templates. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, the multiplicity of differing policies on use of insignia might actually be a good reason not to use them. I doubt Wikipedia would get in any real trouble for using them (images of government seals and logos are on the pages of the respective agencies anyway), but perhaps you are correct to play it safe. Perhaps you should ask the admins or bureaucrats? --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 06:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

About the "Madrean Sky Islands" image from the Univ. Ariz.

When I first started Wikipedia, (and knew Nothing!), I used that image quite a bit.(I lived in Tucson, went to U of A, loved the Mountains.) See Mule Mountains. I talked to you possibly, (on your talkpage:?, and the history log for Mule Mountains shows how you verified the Image. Actually, (the talk is not on MY talkpage), but I remember that someone, I assume you, e-mailed the person involved. (It could have been User:RHaworth that verified?). I don't know a lot of people, and I have seen your name a lot, but never talked with you that I remember...(oh well). But I remember that somebody e-mailed and got e-mail verification about the madrean sky island.jpg photo. Could you at least look at the history log of Mule Mountains? Thanx...(And I never saw the discussion on the photo till just now!).. (from the HotSonoran DesertARIZ,USA.. Mmcannis (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Now I remember the name of Mr Radulovich. Thanx much. That sky island map is nice. Now that graphics have come such a long way, future user-composed maps could have all sorts of local variations to highlight Elevation(ally)-important-Areas.... Maybe the Tepuis of south ameerica for example. Anyway, user made maps is what I'm referring to.... And thanx, again. (I find it hard to believe I started what I've been doing in 2006(late 2005). If you want to see someKool stuff i've been doing, look at the commons sections linked to the Egyptian hieroglyphs (it was a 5-month effort)(plus I then continued into the cuneiform: "Category:Cuneiforn on media") check out the "Utcheb-" entries on the hieroglyphs(latest 2-(it answered the question about both, especially the Festival-parade Routes-(Rosetta Stone))). Link it from the hieroglyph page: Harpoon (hieroglyph)... Michael (the HotSonoran DesertUSA-(it's gonna be Hot this year))(and thanx again)... Mmcannis (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you check on the status of that photo, again? (Michael, from the DesertSouthwest, ArizonaUSA)....Mmcannis (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

US Forest Service

Thank you for all your work. I have a question was there a reason why you removed the section on the The Northeastern Area Office for State and Private Forestry? under the org section?? please see link go to page 33 please and thank you

[US Forest Service FY 09 budget http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/budget-2009/fy2009-forest-service-budget-justification.pdf] --Vlarian559 (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is kinda what I thought but I wanted to be sure it was not overlooked. Thank you for your help you more then I created a nice article, much better then what was there before both you and me. Again thank you --Vlarian559 (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Meet-up in early July?

Hi Hike - I'll be driving through Yosemite and then down 395 to Death Valley the week of Monday 6 July to Friday 10 July, camping and hiking along the way. I plan to take photos and gather info that I'll use to upgrade Geology of the Yosemite area, Mono Lake, Mono-Inyo Craters, Long Valley Caldera, Mammoth Mountain and Devil's Postpile National Monument. Would you like to join me for part of that trip or at least have some pointers on some good easy to moderate (no longer than a day round trip) hikes? Any ideas on other people who might be interested as well? Either way, I hope you are doing well. :) --mav (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bodie

Hiya. I just initiated a thread about the population figures on Bodie, California, because you reverted SimMoonXP (talk · contribs)'s addition, and then he reverted your edit. Anyways, the thread is located here if you'd like to participate. Killiondude (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunderberg Mill

While I can assume good faith, so far, you didn't even try to find further sources. Before you undertake to remove any further material from Wikipedia, you should assure yourself that it doesn't exist. Your actions could be construed as vandalism - and any further actions on your part will be so treated, consider yourself warned. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I see now that you reverted all the changes, do you content that all those places "don't exist" as your words? It seems that you do, and now the assumption of good faith no longer holds. Consider this a final warning about vandalism, which is what your revert was. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46 - Hike395 is a very long time and highly valued member of the community. Even mentioning vandalism in reference to actions by a user like Hike (esp by an admin; a group of users who should know better) is highly incivil, does not AGF and is not at all productive. This is especially true given that Hike is not alone, by a long shot, in disagreeing with the existence of many of these articles. --mav (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been civil. You have made an inappropriate edit with a false edit summary, reflect on that fact. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have provided initial sources, GNIS. There is no requirement to find sources to your personal liking. However, as you could read at Dunderberg Mill a second source was easily found. As will no doubt for the others. Have you even tried? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added a second source to each of the ones you have cried wolf on. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote on the template talk, if you have reliable sources (not satellite photos that you interpret) that any of the unincorporated communities belongs in the former category, edit the article and move it into the proper category in the template. The sources I have at hand are gnis which is of variable date, and Durham's book which is dated 1998 - for all any of them know the place could have been nuked and occupied by green-eyed monkeys from Mars since then. So if you have something reliable that says what state they're in now, be WP:BOLD in adding it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, if the place has ceased to be a community, it is a former settlement. If you have reliable sources - go and edit. Using your personal observations is not a substitute. See WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." If you have reliable sources that contradicts the published material which I cite, use it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss it there. If you have census data that show that current residents is now zero, then placing the article in former settlements is correct. Since you have that data at hand, feel free to make the additions to the articles as appropriate and changes to the template by moving the articles from the one group to the other. Currently, all the USGS says is that they are populated places, as distinct from historical places which it deems as formerly inhabited places. If since USGS the population has gone to zilch as shown by reliable sources, then they can be changed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I considered that, but www.ghosttowns.com is not a reliable source; it has no authority behind it; it's not official (i.e., governmental) and it's not peer reviewed either. It is just someone's website. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a point: now we are debating the current status of these various places, but your original contention is that they didn't exist has been conclusively shot down. As I said - if you have reliable sources (which ghosttowns.com isn't) that update the USGS info, edit with it. Can't you do that? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The USGS has consistently been considered a reliable source. If it is outdated, you are free to update articles. Again, you are only quibbling about whether these are still extant, which if you find to be the case by a reliable source, which you still haven't shown me, you can edit appropriately. As you should realize, former settlements meet notability as well - and nearly every place in the prior counties I have done has at least one non-USGS source as well. I am currently adding these to Modoc County - Mono will be next. Why can't you edit with the sources you have rather than continuing to talk about removing things we know were there, and you just debate what their current status is. Like you want to delete all the articles in Category:Possibly living people because we don't know their current status (population =1 or zero)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. I'll probably chime in tomorrow - it's getting late. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Minaret Summit

I think the previous picture was better -- not many people go there to look back at the side of Mammoth Mountain -- they want to look at the Minarets. Plus I liked seeing the old-time Rangers in front of the sceneFordpinto77 (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fordpinto77. When people go to Minaret Summit they look at the Minarets (and take pictures of themselves in front of them). I'm sure that many people who have visited the Minaret Summit would look at the picture now displayed (absent the clue that it was posted on the Minaret Summit page) and not be able to say where it was taken from. Thousands of people have photos of the same style as the photo I originally posted on this page, and I think that having the old-time Rangers there adds some historical perspectiveCorsair1944 (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

problem with {{Mountain index row}}

I just amended the dabs on Granite Peak for the two BC entries; so far, Land Districts have not been used for mountain disambiguations, and after "(British Columbia)" aa the primary dab for the main summit, the custom so far has been to class by mountain range, where possible (otherwise by plateau, as is often the case, or by region if not). I tried to change the "county" field's name as it is highly inappropriate in BC; counties in BC refer to court districts - see Counties of British Columbia - and are somewhat obscure in the public landscape; counties are used within Canada only in southern Ontario, non-Ungava Quebec, and the three Maritime Provinces, and not in Newfoundland & Labrador, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta or BC (or Yukon or the NWT or Nunavut). I don't know enough about template code to rewrite the table so "region" can be an option, but given that most Canadian mountains are in BC, AB, YT, NU or NL, it would seem highly desirable that a designation not used in those areas is provided as an option in the table. Thanks if you can do that. Also while I appreciate the effort that went into making the table, I think a straight disambig is more viable as it provides latitude for locational description/distinctions and also for situations where "XXX Mountain" might be a town rather than a mountain.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with using Land Districts, since both CGNDB and BCGNIS use them as classifiers and they're "primary cites", but they're often not that useful; something in the Cariboo Land District might be in the Peace River Country; of the Coast Land Districts three or four ranges (the Granite Peak is in Range 1, so that dab should have been "Coast Land District, Range 1" or "Range 1, Coast Land District", lots of the Interior is in the Coast Land District, too, most of all Range 3. And whereas the Kootenay Land District is for the whole of teh Kootenay region (East and West), on Vancouver Island there are tiny land districts like Comiaken and Sayward and others; and you also have the geographic absurdities of the Lillooet Land District including Jervis Inlet, and also the southern Cariboo Plateau from 100 Mile House southeast to the middle the Kamloops Plateau; so while they're citable, they're no more useful than using regional districts, which likewise are political-geographic absurdities....Skookum1 (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Further, BCGNIS refs are much more useful than CGNDB refs, other than not having a location-map generator as CGNDB does, so would it be possible to have a column for the parallel BCGNIS reference- they contain name history/origin, history/biography and miscellaneous information, including a locational statement-field; CGNDB only refs by Land District and which map and what the latlong is. Atlas of Canada uses the CGNDB database but has a topo/satellite map-open functionality, but I guess including it as well would be overburden, except that it uses the same primary identifier codes as CGNDB, i.e. that link could go to Atlas of Canada, instad of CGNDB....i.e. the field/colun title could be "CGNDB/Atlas of Canada" and clicking on the identifier codee would take the reader to the Atlas instead of the (fairly useless) CGNDB entry.Skookum1 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cali trip was a blast

US 395 South sign near Mono Craters

Just finished uploading photos from my trip to California. Sadly did not have much time for the Long Valley area other than climbing to the top of Deer Mountain (that was a bit scary, btw, due to all the wind generated from the craters and the steep and loose dirt near the top). Many photos of the Mono Lake area, including some of what I'm pretty sure was an island in Lake Russel - easy to tell that the beach boulders were rounded by water and they formed a beach. Went back to Death Valley as well - that part was not in the original plan and is the reason I didn't have much time for Long Valley. But an old friend wanted to see Death Valley so I showed him the Racetrack, Ubehebe Crater, Mesquite Flat Dunes and a couple other places. Got a flat tire in Death Valley - big bummer requiring me to drive to Pahrump to get it fixed. The new Manzanar Interpretive Center was profoundly meaningful. Also went to Sequoia-Kings, Amboy Crater, Salton Buttes and the lakebeds of Tecopa and Manix. Overall a great trip. Really need to spend more time around Long Valley (climb Glass Mountain, take the gondola to the top of Mammoth and explore the tableland and gorge). BTW, I just found out that The Minarets are theorized to have been part of a pre-Sierra caldera about the same size as Long Valley. Wonder if there is any connection... Interesting stuff. If you have time, please take a look at my photos to see if I mis-IDd anything. I think I'll start expanding Mono-Inyo Craters tomorrow. Later! --mav (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Guadalupe Peak and El Capitan.jpg

File:Guadalupe Peak and El Capitan.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Guadalupe Peak and El Capitan.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Guadalupe Peak and El Capitan.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)