User talk:Hike395/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Barnstar

		The Geography Barnstar
		Your work hasn't gone unnoticed...thank you! MONGO 23:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also to let you know, Grand Teton National Park is my main push right now, so I have lots of work to do on that as I try and bring it to featured article level..but your cleanup is much appreciated!--MONGO 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

SJR barnstar

Thanks a lot! I think the page is still disorganized and needs work, but yes, I did work a lot on it. :D Shannon^talk _contribs 22:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mountains of the Sierra Nevada

I noted that you removed Category:Mountains of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.) from Red Slate Mountain. I figure that's because Category:Mountains of Fresno County, California is currently in the Mountains of the Sierra Nevada category. It turns out that there are other ranges in Fresno County including a part of the Diablo Range. See this data. If you have no objection I'll remove Mountains of Fresno County from Mountains of the Sierra Nevada and add Mountains of the Sierra Nevada to the appropriate articles.  –droll [chat] 21:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! My mistake. Please go ahead. —hike395 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

OK.  –droll [chat] 21:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

New mountain categories

I'm thinking that it would be good to split Category:Mountains of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.) but I'd like to have your opinion first. How about Mountains of Sequoia National Park, Mountains of Kings Canyon National Park and Mountains of Yosemite National Park. This would also reduce the number of categories for each article since they should already be in the appropriate park category.  –droll [chat] 22:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Those three national parks are well known, but only cover 10% of the area of the Sierra Nevada. You may need to include some of the larger wilderness areas, like John Muir, Golden Trout, Ansel Adams, Carson-Iceberg, Domeland, and Hoover, to bring it up to about 20%. Hopefully that will cover most of the charismatic mountains that have articles. :-) —hike395 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I'll start on it tomorrow.  –droll [chat] 06:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Peak Eight

I came across what may be a CA peak mistagged as a community, I was wondering if you or the folks at WP:tall things would get a kick out of taking a look. There's been a wandering set of Oregon IP's trying to PROD Peak Eight, California, five times in the past few days. GMaps has that east of Klamath, CA, I looked further knowing that area, that led me to a few articles on the arguably notable Gasquet-Orleans Road (Google Maps calles it the G-O road), which lead me to, well, sources that Peak 8 appears to refer to a mountain (in addition to? instead of?) a community. Or perhaps it's just, as some sources suggest, a "rock outcropping." Dunno if this is relevant to your interests, but cheers in any case. --joe decker^{talk to me} 03:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, there's some discussion at the Peak Eight talk page I'd missed. --joe decker^{talk to me} 03:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a backstory here. A couple of years ago, User:Carlossuarez46 create a very large set of sub-stub articles, apparently one for every "unincorporated community" entry in GNIS in California. One amusing example of this is Dunderberg Mill in Mono County, which photographic evidence and satellite imagery shows is just a pile of rubble. There was an interesting discussion that had most people agreeing to a list-based compromise. However, Carlossuarez46 was giving me "final warnings" for "vandalism" for deleting Dunderberg Mill from the Mono County template. It is somewhat distressing to see that these sub-stubs are still being debated and vigorously defended even two years later. Frankly, I just don't care enough about them to get blocked. So, no involvo por favor. —hike395 (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating, I think I'll enjoy wrestling this to the ground in any case. There's certainly enough info on "Peak 8 as a summit of importance to local tribes" so I've added that, but it's very helpful to have the backstory, who'd think that a large complex database might occasionally have errors? Boggles the mind, it does. Cheers, and thanks!! --joe decker^{talk to me} 04:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider using {{infobox mountain}} on that page? Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Not sure I can answer all the questions (e.g., a more specific range than the Siskys), but I gave it a shot. --joe decker^{talk to me} 04:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections at Peak Eight BTW, the GNIS folks were happy to change their database when they realized they had an error. Go me! --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm having problem with Firefox

I if access to Firefox I would like you do me a favor. If you do please drop me a note.  –droll [chat] 09:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I use Firefox 4 now. How can I help? —hike395 (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This concerns the search engine linked to on the {{Cite bcgnis}} documentation page. Click here to open a BCGNIS search page. Search for Fairweather Mountain or some other feature in British Columbia such as Burnaby. I get an error message when I use Firefox but not with other browsers such as IE. I need to know if you get the same result.  –droll [chat] 15:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I get "Search failed. Unable to communicate with the BC Geographical Names Web Service." —hike395 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps. I noticed my first request was was a bit garbled. I got to quit working late at night.  –droll [chat] 15:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Cordillera

Thanks for moving the talk page, I forgot to do that. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"repairing" dead links

Hi, I noticed your edit in Glacier National Park (U.S.), where you claimed that you repaired a dead link. If you look at it again, do you see why it created a problem? You switched one link for another to a completely different article on the same topic, but let all the other information in the template untouched. Now the link text still claims it is linking to the Great Falls Tribune, a well established newspaper in the vicinity of the park and an excellent source for issues of Glacier National Park, credited to a staff writer of that paper, while in reality it leads to an AP piece you took from HuffPost. You even left the access date in place. Please don't do anything like that ever again. You are compromising the integrity of sources and links. A dead link to a respected source is much better than some random Google result. If you find a serious replacement for the loft link, please adjust all the data in the template. TIA --h-stt !? 14:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. This isn't a random Google result. Take a look at [1]. Around April 7, 2010, a spate of very similar articles appeared in newspapers across the country. They appear to be AP copy (per attribution of the physorg.com link). It's very likely that the Great Falls Tribune article was simply AP copy (given that it has the same title at the same time), although I cannot prove that. I checked: there is no archive of the original article at the Tribune, at Internet Archive, or at WebCitation.org

Given the residual uncertainty about whether it was AP or not, you're right that I should have changed the citation to AP or HuffPo. Instead of treating it as finding a copy of the AP source article, I have treated it as a re-verification of the fact (because a dead un-archived link does not help with WP:V). —hike395 (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The articless had different headlines: Glacier National Park loses two glaciers for the Great Falls Tribune and 2 more glaciers gone from Glacier National Park for AP (and the HuffPost). Karl Puckett is on the staff of the Great Falls Tribune, while Matthew Brown was with AP at that time. There is no indication that the Tribune just took this piece from AP. I checked the Tribune at Lexis Nexis, they don't have a copy either. It seems to be lost online forever. OTOH any library with a print copy will do. So it is still a valid source. Just not online anymore. greetings --h-stt !? 17:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

:File:Polychrome Overlook Denali NP.jpg

I put the buses category back on; I'd be glad to switch it to a bus transport category it you think that is better. Dankarl (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Polychrome Overlook Denali NP.jpg is in both Category:Buses in the United States and Category:Unidentified buses in the United States. However, the latter is a subcategory of the former, so I removed the former (because an item is not supposed to be both in a category and a parent category). If you prefer, we can take it out of "Unidentified buses in the United States", but it shouldn't be in both. —hike395 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 28, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 04:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Mono–Inyo Craters are a north–south-trending volcanic chain in Eastern California that stretch 25 miles (40 km) from the northwest shore of Mono Lake to south of Mammoth Mountain. The chain is located in Mono County in the U.S. State of California. Eruptions along the narrow fissure system under the chain began in the west moat of Long Valley Caldera 400,000 to 60,000 years ago. Mammoth Mountain was formed during this period. Multiple eruptions from 40,000 to 600 years ago created Mono Craters and eruptions 5,000 to 500 years ago formed Inyo Craters. The area has been used by humans for centuries. Obsidian was collected by Mono Paiutes for making sharp tools and arrow points.Mono Mills processed timber felled on or near the volcanoes for the nearby boomtown Bodie in the late 19th to early 20th centuries. Water diversions into the Los Angeles Aqueduct system from their natural outlets in Mono Lake started in 1941 after a water tunnel was cut under Mono Craters. Mono Lake Volcanic Field and a large part of Mono Craters gained some protection under Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area in 1984. Resource use along all of the chain is managed by the United States Forest Service as part of Inyo National Forest. (more...)

Peak mistake

Thanks for catching my mistake on Mount Humphreys. I was using WP:AWB to cleanup little stuff and then pasting the result in the edit window and doing some additional stuff. I gotta be more careful. I usually don't like to use USGS for summit elevations but in cases like this it is the best we can do I think. Take a look at {{vertcon}} if you get a chance. I'm going to be using it a lot of the Sierra Crest peaks where the elevation have been converted. Any comments are welcome. –droll [chat] 03:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

leave no trace vs Leave No Trace

I saw your message. I am the one who separated leave no trace (the philosophy/principle) from Leave No Trace (an organization founded in 1994 that espouses the principle. Prior to my edits all uses ended up at the organization's article, which in most cases isn't the correct one. I believe I am taking care to leave alone any that truly refer to the organization. Thanks. 67.100.125.146 (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If I saw two articles, one on the organization and the other on the philosophy, with the same name but different capitalization, I would immediately suggest a merge: they seem inextricable to me. I recommend not proceeding with the substitution until you've got consensus, since it seems controversial to me. —hike395 (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize that the current leave no trace article is a disambiguation page. I did it that way to establish a starting point for the philosophy, which I knew from many of the article I attempted to fix, predated the organization. I am happy to discuss this at Talk:Leave No Trace or anywhere else, but I request that you start the discussion so that I understand what your issues are. 67.100.125.146 (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

started the discussion at Talk:Leave No Trace —hike395 (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Sampling variogram for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sampling variogram is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sampling variogram until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. (leaving this notice because you were an early editor) Melcombe (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Molokini

Dear friend, regarding your last edit of Molokini, here is my input. I saw your reference that gives an area of 1.5 hectares only. You thought the census area of 9.3 hectares was too large, and that it can contain water. However, the census page about Block 9000 lists 93,169 square meters of land area and 0 (zero) square meters of water area. This Census Map of Molokini also shows that the block refers to the land area of the island only. Independent of this, you can measure on the satellite image that the arch-shaped island has a length of more than 900 meters along the arch, and you might gauge an average width of perhaps 100 meters. This makes the Census Bureau area figure very plausible, and at the same time the other source (1.5 hectares) totally implausible. Greetings--Ratzer (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast revert. Meanwhile, I came across this document which gives an area of 22.4 acres (which would translate to 9.07 hectares).--Ratzer (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing! Your sources were very sensible: great work! —hike395 (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of HTML comment

I just seen you removed my comment about Devastator Peak. Without that comment I bet Seattle Skier will remove it again because he thinks its minor - he also hasen't given any sources on what is and isn't a major volcano, just his opinions. Same thing with Franklin. Volcanoguy 19:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for Hike395, but I've removed the comment again. Comments about other users and disputes don't belong in Wikipedia mainspace even as hidden comments. The discussion belongs on the talk page and even there should not include negative comments about other users. Vsmith (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Grand Teton National Park

Thanks for catching that. I was working late at night again (actually early morning). I really have to stop doing that because I miss stuff. I worked on my regular expressions for a couple of hours today and really couldn't find anything. I'm not sure what the problem was but AWB seems to get corrupted sometimes. I started a fresh instance of the program, restored the defaults settings and then I copied my rules in. It's working fine now. I'll go back over last nights edits and see if anything else is wrong. It's really embarrassing when stuff like this happens. Best wishes. –droll [chat] 20:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternate name in K2 infobox

I know many users no longer read article talk pages anymore, so I copy/pasted my comment below and I am "forwarding" to you. It concerns a recent edit of yours in which you more or less reverted a previous edit, but chose to leave the sourced addition of an alternate name:

I've heard the name Qogir and of course Mount Godwin-Austen, but this is first time I've seen the name. Chhogho Ri. I have read the source article and I'm still left wondering if it deserves to be so prominently displayed in the infobox. One thing that shakes my confidence in the source article is that the author doesn't even get the commonly accepted modern name right: He renders it as "K-2"—hyphenated with a small numeral 2—again, something I don't recall ever seeing before. Racerx11 (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Genny Smith for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genny Smith is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genny Smith (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DreamGuy (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mont Blanc and flags

I'd appreciate your input – as a regular contributor to mountain articles – to this discussion. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Little Yosemite Valley

So what's the deal, a page lies fallow for years and when someone else begins to work on it, you decide it is now time to hack at it uncooperatively? Kindly take time to familiarize yourself with the source material and work collaboratively on developing a page instead of razing it unilaterally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.83.221.188 (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I very much like how you've expanded the page, and I'm trying to get it in shape for a DYK nomination. Please see my comments at Talk:Little Yosemite Valley. I did a Google Books search of Matthes' monograph, and found nothing about a staircase. When I did a broader Google Books search, all of the hiking guides said the Giant Staircase was the area around Vernal and Nevada Falls.

I am reasonably familiar with WP guidelines, styles, and customs. I'm trying to make the article fit into WP style, to make it even better. My intent is not to "raze" it. —hike395 (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

/test map

Pinus ponderosa

I was deleting this for the same reason but you beat me to it. Then I thought to look for sources and there are multiple sources for a vanilla scent! I'll suggest the editor use those. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked around for sources a while ago. I found hiking guides said that Ponderosa Pines smelled like vanilla, but I couldn't find a botany or ecology book that confirmed it. I'm not sure that hiking guides are WP:RS in this case. Perhaps you had better luck... —hike395 (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a balance between vanilla/no scent to the article. —hike395 (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

/SuggestBot

List of U.S. states by elevation

I reverted your changes to the Gallery of the List of U.S. states by elevation for the following two reasons:

1. Both Mount Mitchell and Mount Washington are higher than Mount Caubvick in the Arctic Cordillera. The rest of the cordillera is located on the islands of the Canadian Arctic, not on the continent of North America.
2. The Rocky Mountains are usually divided into four major subranges:
   1. The Southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado , New Mexico, and Wyoming,
   2. The Western Rocky Mountains of Utah and Idaho,
   3. The Central Rocky Mountains of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, and
   4. The Canadian Rockies of Alberta and British Columbia.

Your changes were completely correct. I just used the larger area of distinction. Yours aye,  Buaidh  03:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Hike395/Archive 15! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Help needed at Shishabangma [sic]

Could please visit Shishabangma and try to fix the mess I helped to create. I was trying to revert a undiscussed page move and long story short, we are at a stand still with a srewed up page. Thanks in advance--Racerx11 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hikers and natives

As can be seen, you are a hiker, so you may know even the most non-popular concepts about hiking. From a hiker's viewpoint, one will eventually find a "most common" term from the hiking field. However, form a native's viewpoint, they hope every non-popular term about themselves to be endonym, and even the popular ones (but impractical). So different people may have different opinion about common: for you, one may find a most common one from 4 results hits about thousands of results only, but from a native's viewpoint, if several result hits only several thousands results, there's no "most common" one. I think that's the disagreements between us. I cite a "most common" to prove no "most common", while you cite a "most common" to prove a "most common". P.S. Even though I'm not a native of Tibet, I stands on their field. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think our disagreement is about hiker versus native. I'm trying to do my best to interpret the article title policy in a neutral and objective way. I understand and have sympathy for your argument about endonyms and Tibet, but I don't think it matches our policy.

I am in the middle of doing more research on this topic, which you may find interesting. I will post my results to the Talk page shortly. —hike395 (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

1. The Wikipolicy actually partially represent the native viewpoint (it's a compromise between native viewpoint and "common" viewpoint), since it says the common-test works only for those widely accepted result. Plus, it emphasis the importance of official names, as an addition of "most accepted name" (Xixabangma is official).
2. Unfortunately, it's too late in Beijing Time (1:12AM), and I can only be back tomorrow night. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 17:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Rocky Mountains Photo

I think it would be nice to have a different picture for a change. Yours has been up for years, and I think you should give someone else a chance. Do you just sit in front of your computer on wikipedia all day? I just ask because I've uploaded photos before and you change them back within two minutes every time. Anyway think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogs555 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I got your message and that's fine. I don't understand your point though, as all it translates to is that your opinion of which photo is better matters more and is somehow a fact. Anyway it doesn't matter

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogs555 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Hogs. Just to explain: it was not just my opinion. A consensus formed at Talk:Rocky Mountains around the picture choice. Wikipedia does have a method to select high quality images, it's the featured pictures process, where the best images are chosen.

You are more than welcome to restart the discussion at Talk:Rocky Mountains, if you want to. —hike395 (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)