User talk:Hike395/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Mystery on Index Row Mountain

Hi; I was trying to add an option for non-county regions of Canada, or wherever (if any, but translated names may show up at some point) but maybe it would have been simpler to just make the county field county/region and not try to add a new row. But I noticed the code error - and it's that I only saw the one instance of "county" in the row, to supplant "region" with, and didn't see the second instance; so it causes some kind of myseterious glitch in wikicode, huh? "County/region" is probably the way to go; I'm not used to this kind of table, I use wikitable all the time.....thanks for fixing; if you read the talk page you may know, if not then you don't know, I tried twice to undo both my edits, and neither would show....now that is a mystery...Checked the history each time to see, knew it wasn't "taking" and was gonna write about it later, but I was on my way out the door after dinner...but I would like to know why my attempted undos didn't take; maybe I should have just done regular edits, but I know I hit the right button etc....very strange.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

List of peaks named Olympus

Hi Hike! I re-shuffled the disambiguation page Olympus (disambiguation) a little, and I saw that you had created a separate page titled List of peaks named Olympus. Was it your intention to have a distinct space which you could fully include in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains ? Otherwise, all the info in there seems to me to be potentially incorporable into the disam page. Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Error on coords for Sierra NF

Hi Hiker! Just a quick note to let you know an error is displaying onscreen with the more accurate coords you put in. Since you know what you're doing, I thought you'd want to handle it. Been meaning to drop by and say hello for awhile now. Oh, and I used Bishop as I thought that would be the largest city that is nearby. Maybe I am reading the infobox too literally. Cheers, Marcia Wright (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Max age of Sequoiadendron

Hi Hike395! As you restored the statistics table to the General Grant tree article, I suppose you have got the Wendell Flint's book. Bradluke22 has written to the Sequoiadendron article "The oldest known Giant Sequoia based on ring count is 3,500 years old" (in Description chapter) and "Examples in Converse basin, Mountain home grove and Giant forest - 3500 years or more" (in superlatives chapter). Reference is to the Flint's book. Could you confirm this from the book. To the Tree artice Bradluke22 had written 3800 years (but I undid that). http://www.conifers.org/cu/se2/index.htm gives the max age of 3,266 years.Krasanen (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I've just nominated Julie MacDonald for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Julie MacDonald

I appreciate your message, but I now realize that it was foolish to try to improve the article after the AfD. I am not interested in putting forth the effort while other people continue to butcher the article with insult and without discussion or the consent of others. I'll check it out in a while, but for now, I'm done. Cheers!Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a mess of editors overall, I think, but my frustrations were definitely not your doing. No worries! I'm still going to wait a bit until I look at it again--I don't feel like having my time wasted again by someone who reverts an hour's worth of editing without looking at the article, and I don't feel like getting into an edit war.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I made an edit and created a new section on the talk page. I did not really add or remove anything, but really cleaned it up to make it easier to read. If you have further content to add, I am suggesting that you do so on the talk page so that editing remains low-key.Athene cunicularia (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Diarrhea Getting Killed

Dunno, but it seems remotely possible you'd be interested in this. Wilderness Diarrhea is getting merged into Travelers Diarrhea by a couple of zealots who seem to have no concept of outdoor interests and a narrow, clinical definition of medicine.

I get around a lot in the outdoors and rarely treat water, but WD article had some good stuff.

After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer want to participate. Rational voices might help.

These guys have irrationally convinced themselves that WD isn't a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article.

I've pointed out several bomb-proof arguements to no avail. I'd say the strongest is the vast number of published articles that discuss WD as a separate concern from TD. They are both environmental health topics, and obviously the context of each are far different.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve Fossett

FYI, I reverted your change of the wreckage location for a few reasons. In the edit summary, I noted the most obvious, that the name was wrong. The Minarets article you referenced doesn't mention a "Minaret Range", but describes them as peaks in the Ritter Range. I could simply have corrected that, but I didn't because I felt that 1) that level of detail was inappropriate for the lead section (which is already too long) and 2) that level of detail is too obscure for most readers, offering two levels of of "nearness" (e.g. near the Minarets and near Mammoth Lakes), instead of simply saying that it's in Inyo National Forest (Granted, that's still obscure for most, but less so. Personally, I think it would be even less obscure to say it's in the Ansel Adams Wilderness, but the news articles aren't saying that.) Generally, I appreciate your contributions. Thanks. —Danorton (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You put your change back without discussion. Please let's discuss this on the article's talk page. Thank you. —Danorton (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Inyo National Forest

Feel free to remove your comment in Talk:Inyo National Forest (and, of course, this section in your talk page). I only intended discussion if there was objection to my edit. Thanks. —Danorton (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Summit elevations

I reopened the discussion regarding summit elevation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#Summit elevations. I hope your can participate in the discussion. Thanks. DRoll (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

{{cite bivouac}}

I created this template to standardize the appearance of bivouac.com citations. I borrowed from {{cite gnis}} which I just found. Please take a look at the new template and let me know what you think. --DRoll (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and created {{cite NGS}}. It is a little different and calls for the data sheet designation rather than a title. Sometimes these designations seem irrelevant to the mountain in question but are the correct sheet. The new templates differ considerably in the way they are coded from older versions. The new templates uses {{cite web}} internally as does {{cite gnis}}. Coding this way will insure that the the new templates will always generate the same kind of output as cite web. Anyway let me know what you think. I'm always open to input. Thanks. --DRoll (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought about your idea of a generalized citation template but I'm not an expert at that sort of thing. So I'm probably the wrong guy for the job. --DRoll (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

License for Image:Little Lakes.jpg

Thanks! --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Now Commons Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

List of U.S. states by elevation

This is nominated for for removal as a featured List. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of U.S. states by elevation.—Chris! _ct 06:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Pine photo removal

Just curious as to why it was necessary to remove these relevant and high quality photos from the entry. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kman627 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mountainbox is geobox

HI there, the mountainbox is geobox. i.e., mountainbox is a specific kind of geobox. The old version of mountain infobox was derived from geobox1. The new version is from geobox2. See Template:geobox "This new version, Geobox 2, supersedes the old geobox template, Geobox 1." Here's the actual new mountain infobox: Template:Geobox/type/mountain. The new version has a more utility, although there is a slight learning curve one has to get used to in order to use it, and the box looks a little different. Let me know if you need any help with the new version. .--Pgagnon999 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S., in particular, the locator map displays more reasonably; it is gigantic and out of place in the old version. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: I added information on the new mountain box to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains. Let me know if you have any questions about use; I won't be around for the next week, but I'll be glad to help out when I get back.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Please bring your objections to the new mountain infobox template to the project page or broader forum. I'm heading off on a wikibreak for a week or so, but I'll be glad to contribute then. Note that although Wikiproject Mountains editors have say in what material is sanctioned to appear on the project page, the template itself belongs to Wikipedia users in general; its existence appears to be supported by general consensus. Thus, if your objection is with its existance or use by editors, the discussion should occur in a more general forum. Please let me know where you bring it. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've said my piece

I've said my piece on my own talkpage, and I'm going to recuse myeslf from what is becoming too much grief for what should be a fairly simple article on topography/toponymy. I don't even want to read his last word as it will just set me off again, he's not worth the bother. My opinion of what's happening to that page is "sandbox becoming mudbath and playpen". I may add some boundary/topographic descriptions to the various BC subranges, since I know them so well (in ways he cannot imagine; I literally went over the BC topo maps with a finetooth digital comb in my work with bivouac in order to define the official boundaries precisely...) and have some reading in Holland to do; but if I see too much eco-fluff or "bad geography" or "too much geology" I'm just going to delete it without comment....BT's particular interest in volcanic geology defines all articles he works on, also, as if glaciation and other forms of erosion, or discussions of biogeoclimatology ("biogeoclimatic zones" as the BC Govt works up its own ecological terminology, in part avoiding the term "ecology" which in BC has POV assocaitions for right-wing bureaucrats....). I'm also going to try and straighten out the Ecoregion/ecozone categories/names, as I already did with the contents of Category:Ecozones of Canada, and pls see Talk:Arctic Cordillera about the same subject....I'm back working on the history and historical geography articles, I don't have time to argue with overqualified but undereducated sophomores....Skookum1 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I should learn not to look at that talkpage....his latest edit wants to zero on in lower-tier, albeit well-known, ranges in the Snake/Clearwater area. What he doesn't understand, and should (but will patronize me if I tell him and equivocate as to reasons why his sources indicate his choices are more important) that if we included all mountain ranges at that "tier" of the system hierarchy, the page would be in the 500kb range; small-area ranges just can't be included as there's enough material on nearly all of them (due to mining studies, as well as park adn environmental studies) if you wanted to start digging up refs; and some Amerian ranges get a lot more "print" like the Sawtooths but the array of ranges within the Rockies (Canadian and American), or the subragnes of the Coast Mountains or the Interior Mountains and the Selkirks, the Vancouver Island Ranges. If "we" give coverage ot the Sawtooths, and someone wants equal time for the Gallatins or Bighorns of Wasatch or San Gabriels or Garibaldis or Dicksons or Chilcotins or Skeenas or ..... (and anyone one of another twenty-five to two hundred twenty five other ranges I could easily rattle off) then the article will no longer be a summary, but an exhaustive report. It's my same problem as giving weight to geology over other fields; it would make tha article too unwieldy and would predicate it in only one academic direction, not allowing room for others, and also focus on certain "popular" areas that have their own sources. If he's so interested in these ranges, let him fill out those range articles. But if I try and tell him he'll tell me that I'm wrong and that he's right, and will trot out more specious logic to justify his position. I'm sticking with history; but I will come in there with a lawnmower at some point and move all his newly-installed dross to sub-articles where it belongs. For now I'm done with his juvenile and half-informed approach to a mountain system whose physical scope I know all too well. Just have a look, would you, at the subrange info on Interior Mountains and Coast Mountains, plus Canadian Rockies and you'll get an idea where I'm coming from. it's too vast for him to comprehend, especially because he's interested in only one kind of source...(well, two - ecology and geology). The fact of the matter is the many potential subarticles haven't even been written up yet and he's wanting all of them to be in this one place. I'm going back to my Spanish naval history of the Northwest, Hudson's Bay po;litical intrigues with Russian America, and trying to bring order to the First Nations/native American articles and making sure those perspectives are all given balance. I'm sorry to laod this onto you; I have no other half-sympathetic ear to tell it to, and nobody at WP:Geog or WP:Mountains has taken an interest.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider - take what he's suggesting space-wise, and multiply it by 100....teh Sawtooths etc are only a small fraction of the American Rockies, and while the Rockies (because of their size and length) can be divided up into four-five major sections). There's just no room to elaborate or even mention smaller ranges (as for example had had done in the intro based on teh small De Long Mountains being in some paper he liked....).Skookum1 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)