User talk:Pepeleyva

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Jon Krakauer appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 17:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Jon Krakauer, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 18:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The changes I made Jon Krakauer are based on facts verifiable on books, which I supply to the specific pages. Wikipedia is not about providing promotion or commodity texts, if you Lhb1239 doesn't like it is not enough to change those texts. I see you (Lhb1239) have an history of turning down uncomfortable comments for Krakauer ¿are you Krakauer or an employee?

Personal attacks against me aren't helping you win friends and influence anyone toward your point of view. Wikipedia has very strict guidelines for how articles that are biographies of living persons are to be written. Please familiarize yourself with the policy on WP:BLP and WP:POV. While you're at it, you might want to also look into the Wikipedia policy on WP:3RR. Regards, (talk→ LesHB ←track) 18:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You describe your account as open to discuss, here I go before changing anything: I assume you are Jon Krakauer, no intention to be personal. Just describing facts I am aware years ago. Not every body has the same point of view, and regarding wikipedia I am total aware of Conflict_of_interest my text has neither vandalism or personals attacks, hope you support someone else's criticism on a public matter. This is not Jon Krakauer web site, that place will be your territory not wikipedia.

It doesn't matter what you or I think of Krakauer, what matters is that anything you put into the article on him or anyone else remains neutral. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag. Encyclopedias contain neutral information, gossip rags contain libelous crap. See the difference? Read the highlighted articles in my previous post, and you will likely have a better understanding of how things work here. And when you submit comments to a talk page, please be sure to sign by inserting four of these ---> ~. Happy New Year, (talk→ LesHB ←track) 18:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise. It is your POV and is respectable. If you do not like what I wrote, propouse an edition including some text, there is evidence that the true stroy has flaws, I will accept that, otherwise you will be converted on the keeper on Jon Krakauers bio. Pepeleyva (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jon Krakauer. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. WikiPuppies! (bark) 18:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiPuppies, thank you on your advice I am trying discussing How my text should be added with the aproval of Lhb1239, we will come with a better collaborated text as a comunity. It looks as Lhb1239 is working for the New York Times or TV, that's his line of work on wikipedia. RegardsPepeleyva (talk)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. You may view and comment on this report here. Thank you. (talk→ LesHB ←track) 20:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Writing from the neutral point of view is essential

Hello, and welcome back to Wikipedia,

Please familiarize yourself with the neutral point of view and let it guide all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Your repeated attempts to insert unsourced POV opinion about Jon Krakauer is not acceptable. Please do not edit war to add this material. Any contentious material must be based on what reliable sources say, not your own interpretation of how you think people were portrayed in his book. Speculating without evidence that another editor is Krakauer, works for Krakauer, the New York Times or TV is counterproductive and inappropriate. Propose any changes on the talk pages of the various articles, and add content only after gaining consensus. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not acceptable

Adding material such as this: You said:

Although well written, the author aims for commercial success presenting as well heroes and villains rather than a real life story. Jon was the fit client watching them making mistakes, and Krakauer choose a Russian guide (Anatole Boukreev) from the rival expedition speaking little english: The perfect fit for a villain stereotype in the USA market.

is quite inappropriate.

We have standards for the type of material that can be added, and a need for reliable sources to support additions. You are not meeting those requirements, and you will be blocked if you persist.

If you have references to support your planned edits, post them on the talk page and we can discuss.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I have no idea about the other ip editor someone mention. Anyway I want to cooperate, and realizing my mistake, here are the changes I intend to add in the 'Criticism of Into Thin Air' section of Jon Krakauer, the objective is to give a wider view about the book, I have used 3 books and 6 references to support. Please note me anything unacceptable in black what will be included:

a) Complete the NAME (Martin Adams) of the guide helping Krakauer and reference for 'CITATION NEEDED' it is not my edition but I have the book in my hand and page 156:

In his own book The Climb, Scott Fischer's top guide on the ill-fated 1996 Everest expedition, the late Anatoli Boukreev quotes Martin Adams as having witnessed an exhausted, oxygen-starved Krakauer collapse and nearly tumble off the mountain to his death in an unroped section between the Hillary Step and the South Summit. Krakauer's account contains no mention of such an incident.

b) Krakauer actions on that day and the way the book is written to blame Boukreev instead of the mountain, himself and his surviving teammates:

In the book Krakauer blames Boukreev for the tragedy. Controversy was centered on what experienced mountaineers thought about the facts, as explained by Galen Rowell from The American Alpine Jornal wrote to Krakauer "...the fact that every one of Boukreev's clients survived without major injuries while the clients who died or recieved major injuries were members of your party. Could you explain how Anatoli [Boukreev]'s shortcomings as a guide led to the survival of his clients?".

On his way down Everest Krakauer found and an ill Beck Weathers on the mountain before the storm and before Beck was frostbitten. National Geographic book Everest mountiain without mercy included these words from Beck Weathers who suffer several frostbite and amputations: 'I told Jon that I really couldn't see very well and that I needed to descend, and might need him to downclimb close enough to be my eyes'. Beck said Krakauer respond 'Beck, I'm not a guide'.

The day after, when Yasuko Namba was discovered and still breathing, what was left of Jon and his team took decision it was better to left her to die alone, 300 meters from his tent.

What do you think of the text now? Make it short if it is too long Regards Pepeleyva (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

References

Arghh, unfortunate timing. I am just now logging off for the evening. I am quite interested in this incident, and will address it in the morning, although I'll have to do it on breaks, as work starts again. Sorry.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I briefly scanned it, and it sounds like progress, but let me review it in the morning.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'm glad to see you are working things out with your editing ideas, Pepeleyva - it's a much better solution than getting mad (like many who come here and have their edits reverted) and not doing what's necessary so your contributions are acceptable and appropriate. Kudos to you! (talk→ LesHB ←track) 02:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It may help for those getting mad, if you explain the unacceptable the text. I know it is more work for you, just an idea Pepeleyva (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Basaseachic Falls

I reverted the edit you made to Basaseachic Falls. My guess is that English is not your native language. The edit would make more sense if you used the word "measurement", but even that begs for a source. If you can point me to a source, I will work on improving the wording.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Based upon the Spanish Wikipedia, it looks like you have a good point. However, it would be nice to have a reliable to source for the claim that the Cascada de Piedra Volada has been known about for some time, but wasn't measured until 1994.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've found enough to support your point, so I changed the wording to "measurement" and added a source. If you know of a better one, please let me know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I've made a suggested rewrite. Let me know what you think. Your first sentence was awkward, because it sounds like you are talking about Fisher, not Boukreev. I don't like my wording, because it breaks up the thought. Maybe we can work together to do better. Maybe it should be parenthetical? In his own book The Climb, the late Anatoli Boukreev (Scott Fischer's top guide on the ill-fated 1996 Everest expedition) quotes Martin Adams as having witnessed an exhausted, oxygen-starved Krakauer collapse and nearly tumble off the mountain to his death in an unroped section between the Hillary Step and the South Summit.

I changed 300 meters to 350, isn't that correct?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Into Thin Air

In his own book The Climb, the late Anatoli Boukreev quotes Martin Adams as having witnessed an exhausted, oxygen-starved Krakauer collapse and nearly tumble off the mountain to his death in an unroped section between the Hillary Step and the South Summit. Boukreev was Scott Fischer's top guide on the ill-fated 1996 Everest expedition. Krakauer's account contains no mention of such an incident

In the book Krakauer blames Boukreev for the tragedy. Controversy was centered on what experienced mountaineers thought about the facts. Galen Rowell from the American Alpine Journal wrote to Krakauer "...the fact that every one of Boukreev's clients survived without major injuries while the clients who died or received major injuries were members of your party. Could you explain how Anatoli [Boukreev]'s shortcomings as a guide led to the survival of his clients...?"

On his way down Everest Krakauer found and an ill Beck Weathers on the mountain before the storm and before Beck was frostbitten. The National Geographic book Everest: Mountain without Mercy included these words from Beck Weathers who suffer several frostbite and amputations: "I told Jon that I really couldn't see very well and that I needed to descend, and might need him to downclimb close enough to be my eyes". Beck said Krakauer respond "Beck, I'm not a guide".

The day after, when Yasuko Namba was discovered and still breathing, what was left of Jon and his team made the decision it was better to leave her to die alone, 350 meters from his tent.

References

• DeWalt, Weston (1999). The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest (2nd expanded ed.). New York: St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-0-312-20637-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Krakauer, Jon (1999). Into Thin Air: A Personal Account of the Mount Everest Disaster. New York: First Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-385-49478-6.

More suggestions

You did a great job! Distances are not exact so 350 is ok for me. I do not know how to write this, I would like to put in one sentence the reason for incluidng this information: to settle that the book is based on true life events but the author POV is biased to blame many people. Krakauer was blaming Boukreev while Boukreev was not his guide at all, and all clients of Boukreev did make it up and down with all fingers & toes. At the same time Krakauer was involved in 3 events resulting in 2 dead people (Namba and Andy Harris) and a very hurt Beck.

By the way, if you want to read something exciting you have this book INTO THIN AIR even if you are not mountanieer, is very well written despite efforts from Krakauer pointing fingers to divert his guilt, then you can read THE CLIMB, that is the best order.Pepeleyva (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the late response - I have a visitor, so am spending some time away from my computer.

I counsel against putting in the explanatory statement - that is not consistent with the style of Wikipedia. In short, we try to avoid editorial type comments, made by editors.

There are two options, either you can move this material into the article, or I can. If you want to, by all means go ahead, but if you want me to do it, I would be very happy to do so.

I do have Krakauers book, and read it a number of years ago. I have my copy somewhere in the house, but was unable to find it yesterday. Are you a mountaineer?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what time zone you are in, nor when you are likely to edit. FYI, I have to leave at 21:30 UTC (in about an hour) and may not be online again today. If you would like to do the edits yourself, feel free to do so; however, if you were to do so at a time when I am online, I could help clean up if there is an need. Alternatively, if you want to let me do the edits, just let me know, and I'll do it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sphilbrick, Sorry! Yesterday I was far from computer I am central time, I am not familiar with the way you are putting the references, the page already have the traditional, but you added a way to add multiple notes to the same book, that is neat but not sure where they goes. If you do it, I will learn how next time by watching it. I love mountains also fly hang gliders, check my last mountain view on youtube 'Nevado Colima 360°' under same user Pepeleyva (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem that you were away, this project will never be finished, and there is no rush. I went ahead and made the edits. It may now not be controversial; Wikipedia editors are very concerned about adding criticism if it isn't referenced, and may even have concerns when it is referenced. I think we've done a decent job of providing a neutral wording of the ccriticism, but we’ll soon see what other editors think.

On the Youtube, I won't have access until tomorrow evening, but I will check it out then.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I just checked out the Youtube, very cool. Wish I were there.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)