Jump to content

User talk:Racerx11/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Mount Wuteve

You tagged this article. I once thought that SRTM data, which is public and verifiable, was a sufficient citation, but it now seems that when it comes to the crunch, it loses out to articles by employees of NASA, USGS and CIA. Liberia HP is one of four national HP's that I have just added or revised at http://www.viewfinderpanoramas.org/elevmisquotes.html. It's not up to me to decide if my evidence for Liberia is good enough, but there are so many errors, some of them very serious, in that "reliable" CIA list of national HP's and I shall be very disappointed if the article reverts to 1380 on the grounds that the CIA is the most reliable source. Viewfinder (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry VF, I thought my action was relatively innocent. I tagged the statement more because of the wording than anything else. Let me explain. First of all (and I could be completely wrong about this when it comes to anyone else) when I use a cite needed tag, it is when I believe the statement to likely be true. Otherwise I would consider deleting the statement entirely. Secondly when a statement draws a conclusion from raw data and attributes it to a primary source, it almost screams "where's the source?"
I have inline cited the statement to the link you provided, more specifically to the section on Africa. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit to Wuteve, I would add that 1447m, which has a primary citation on my site, is probably better that 1440m which I estimated from SRTM data. I can upload the Liberian map if necessary. No criticism was intended, sorry if I came across as critical. Perhaps we need to discuss the more general question of the citation of SRTM data. It is verifiable and much more reliable than the CIA, but its verification does require GIS knowledge. Viewfinder (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Viewfinder: Yes, I'm listening, on the broader issue of citation of SRTM data. I'm sure you have read and are familiar with WP:PRIMARY. And since you have mentioned it, I suspect requirements of specific knowledge, in this case GIS knowledge, is one of the reasons why using primary sources exclusively is discouraged. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 01:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I would prefer to be someone who is trusted by Wikipedians as a reliable source of summit elevations. Especially compared to the CIA and authors of NASA and USGS articles in which elevation accuracy is not important. These authors don't check their heights carefully, they often use outdated sources. I can better do this by creating secondary sources on my own site than by editing Wikipedia directly. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can be a fertile place for misinformation and sensationalism to breed. Viewfinder (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
So many times, primary sources have to be treated well. Sometimes the subject itself is better source than anything else. So it is not really formal to remove or avoid primary sources. It just depends upon the subject and its type. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone: Sorry for the late reply. I meant to respond but put it off for some reason and then sort of forgot about it. Yes, thanks for pointing that out. "Primary" should not be considered a dirty word when used with reliable sources. Indeed, sometimes they are the best source. In this case there was no source at all. There was only the internal wikilink to SRTM, the article on the subject of the primary source mentioned, not anything at all that directed the reader to the data itself it was talking about. That's why I tagged it. As pointed out by VF, if the data was cited, it would require at least some specific knowledge, not likely possessed by the average reader, to interpret it fully and accurately. The rules of WP aside, it is common sense that a citation to data only a very few people are able interpret, isn't much use if that's the only source given. Anyway, the problem has already been solved by my addition of an inline cite to a reliable secondary source that VF supplied to me. I am not opposed to adding citations to SRTM data, but I do not know how best to do that. Thanks you. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 13:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I can reproduce and post small sections of SRTM data in a format which most readers should be able to understand. Regarding primary sources at Mount Damavand, I have been arguing that a modern GPS survey by a climber and mathematics professor who has used GPS to measure hundreds of mountains, is considerably more reliable than the older sources that are cited in support of 5670. I don't blame the authors of these sources, no better information was available to them at the time, and for the purposes of their articles, a 1% error does not really matter. But their 5670 figure is ultimately rooted in a 1930's estimate by a glaciologist. Viewfinder (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Globetrotter1918's continued reverts on Eight-thousanders

G'day User:Racerx11,

If I may ask for some assistance, I could use some help with the page on the Eight-thousanders where User:Globetrotter1918 is continually making reverts in the lists, his inability to discuss sources and rationales for climbers to be listed, and the fact that I consider myself more knowledgeable on this subject than a mere n00b that just popped up, as I've been working on 8000er related issues for the last 20+ years; in books, articles, statistics and what not. I'm not yet tired enough to go and retire like UserViewfinder did, but I'm certainly very close to making up my mind about this indeed.

Thanks in advance, Qwrk (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Eight-thousander. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Qwrk (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The above comment is a breach of civility. Viewfinder (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Eberhard just called me to inform me that a user, who goes by the same name as User;Globetrotter1918, has been active on Polish wikipedia, and who is currently blocked "with an expiry time forever (account creation disabled, can not edit own talk page) (unauthorized use of puppets)"
Check;
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wk%C5%82ad/Globetrotter1918 [translation here; https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpecjalna%3AWk%25C5%2582ad%2FGlobetrotter1918&edit-text= ]
When it comes to logical fallacies ["8000ers.com is NOT the authorative source for this!" while at the same time using link to sources on 8000ers.com to be used as a reference], I stand by my view that, even when the basis of wikipedia is a good one, in essence there is something fundamentally wrong with this platform when a contributor with 3,000 edits is given the same weight as a newby with 6 edits to his name.
I thought this is something you all should know.
Qwrk (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, 8000ers.com is the best source for inclusion, right? Sorry I mistakenly didn't check the contents of source when I saw it was cited. Several editors including VF have stated you still need a source until its updated. Please consider the boomerang that VF got hit with before you run to an admin, if by chance this changes your mind about retirement. Thanks for the info. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 18:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
While I do sincerely value your kind words, I really have a difficult time seeing a future for me on wikipedia while this situation of "equal weight" is still in place. That's an essential glitch, in my eyes.
Your explanation for valid sources I do subscribe, while at the same time this would put more work on my plate. The last PDF that has been published names Hirotaka Takeuchi as ultimate climber to have made the "Crown of the Himalaya" so in essence Cchang Dawa, Kim Chang-Ho and Radek Jaros ought to be taken out. Even the "disputed" list ought to be reworked as there is a marked difference between "disputed" and "unrecognized" where now these names are tossed in one and the same bucket.
My list of things that I need to be doing is long, and only appears to be getting longer, and the typing is slow... so I'm not sure whether there will be a change in decision any time soon.
Thans again, and all the best. Qwrk (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mount Taibai may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ], [[China]]. The mount's highest point, Baxian Tower ({{zh|c=拔仙台}}), rises to a height of {{convert|3750|m|ft|abbr=on)) and is the tallest in the [[Qinling Mountains|Qinling Range]], as well as the watershed between

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 02:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Tryfan

Thanks, good solution - you know the template things better than I do. I really wish the UK would fully move into the metric era (though I still have fond memories of being on Tryfan in driving rain and howling wind on a successful 3000s attempt back in the seventies - cheated a little perhaps, by ascending Snowdon the night before and sleeping up there) Neatsfoot (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree about the UK and unfortunately I doubt that we here in the US will move at all into the metric era in our lifetime.
I wasn't sure, but I guess one rationale would be that we use imperial first for the 3000s article because that list is based on feet, but the peaks themselves would still have be SI first in their own articles. We just have to do the best we can to reduce the rounding errors that creep in from converting the same figure twice or more.
Maybe the amount of re-ascent and isolation can factor case-by-case, but generally I would say those are both valid ascents. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 22:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Article was not complete

Selfie Slam is incompelete by Rovio Entertainment games. Please improve this section. Thanks. MandatoryTeaser (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

African continent

Hi RacerX11. I would like to state in regards to your Africa article edits that a continent is not necessarily geographically defined so much as culturally, nationally, and socially. For example, Asia is a continent, even though it is connected to Europe and Asia. Also, Africa is built around the AU, or African Union, which almost all African nations have joined, making them a continental region. Because of this de facto definition that has been accepted by most of the world, I believe it is false to say that Africa is not a sovereign continent. However, I can see your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran P. Clark (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kieran P. Clark: If you are referring to this talk page comment of mine, that was in response to this post, which was about the divisions of the Americas. Africa is culturally and traditionally its own continent and the second largest after Asia. If one insists the Americas are instead the second largest because they are connected, only then must one consider that Africa is also connected to Asia. In which case the Americas would would be second largest after Afro-Eurasia. This is explained in the article continent. See also the continental landmass section of List of islands by area. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 13:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The sun

The sun is a very old word that was coined way before people knew it was just another star. So while "sun" refers to our specific star, I do not believe it is a proper name. Nor do I believe "Sol" is appropriate either, it is not accepted by most scientific nor linguistic groups as an appropriate name for the sun. The sun is the sun the stars are the stars. The sun is a star, it's as simple as that. I would not mind trying to get an official consensus on this, but I'm not sure where to do it, Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dougie WII: Starting a discussion at Talk:Sun would be a place to start if you want to try to gain consensus for a change. You may want to check the archives of that page. The topic has been brought up before. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 11:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually I started this Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Capitalization of "sun" -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Mount Damavand

Hi Racer, thank you for your support re the elevation supported by modern measurements. I think that if reverting to this were likely to be opposed, it would have (and surely should have) been opposed on the talk page by now, and we can restore 5610, citing the Iranian site and Petter Bjorstad. But in view of my history of getting blocked, it would be better if you made the edit. Viewfinder (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done and also made a few other minor changes while I was at it. We'll see what happens. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 21:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Racerx11. You have new messages at Redalert2fan's talk page.
Message added 14:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redalert2fan (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Response from 47.17.194.111

Hello RacerX11. It's me, 47.17.194.111. I tried adding "practical exclave of the UK" in Geography of the United Kingdom, but when I added it, Ghmyrtle removed my edits and called it "meaningless". I feel upset about this edit Ghmyrtle did, and I want it back on the article, regardless of Ghmyrtle's opinion. What do you think of what Ghmyrtle did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.200.92 (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle may have reverted your edit because it appeared to be an obscure fact in this context, didn't recognize the term, or something along those lines. I will ask on Ghmyrtle's talk page. You should consider that most people have no idea what a "practical exclave" is, so there should be a reason, and make sense, to drop something that obscure into an article. On a mobile now so I may wait until later today. RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 18:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have said "incomprehensible to 99.9% of readers" rather than "meaningless". But we shouldn't be giving prominence to unsourced factlets that are incomprehensible to 99.9% of readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
47.17.194.111 again. Ghmyrtle, you should be ashamed of yourself, because what I added to Geography of the United Kingdom is true, and you should have left what I added alone and stay on there. I'm sorry for aggravating you if I have done so in any way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.194.111 (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
No, you haven't "aggravated" me. It's perfectly normal for someone to add some text, and someone else to come along to remove or change it. In that particular case, the fact that your factlet is, in one sense, accurate, doesn't mean that it is helpful to readers for it to be added to the article, or be given the prominence that your edit indicated. Also, where are the sources that specifically state, in so many words, that Northern Ireland is a "practical exclave"? This discussion should take place on the article talk page, not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Ghmyrtle:. I had left a message at User talk:47.17.194.111. At the time, I think I failed to realize what article my revert occurred; and I had mistakenly assumed the mention of "practical enclave" would be going into the article Northern Ireland. I don't think it belongs in Geography of the United Kingdom at all, prominently or otherwise. Northern Ireland seems to fit the definition of "practical enclave", so adding the term was intended to be a compromise between myself and the IP. It is original research however, if it is not sourced. So...
If a source is found, would you be OK with adding a mention of "practical enclave" in the Northern Ireland article, without giving undo prominence to the statement?
If no source is found, should we remove Northern Ireland being mentioned at Enclave and exclave#"Practical" enclaves, exclaves and inaccessible districts, since you have now challenged the statement? --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 00:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
A lot of the article on enclave and exclaves seems to me to be unsourced original research in the sense that it comes from people simply looking at maps, rather than written sources. But, I'm not opposed to mentioning Northern Ireland in that article. I'm also not opposed in principle to mentioning the "practical exclave" idea in the Northern Ireland article, so long as it is brief and gives a basic explanation. But, it's hard to see where a sentence might go - certainly not in the introductory paragraphs as that would give it undue weight. Possibly it could go in the section on Partition. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Another response from 47.17.194.111

47.17.194.111 once more. If I had a Wikipedia account, my username would be something related to Teen Titans Go!. When I mean Teen Titans Go!, I am referring to the Cartoon Network show of the same name previously mentioned. Do you like this idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.204.115 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I strongly recommend you WP:Create an account. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 22:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your barnstar, it is much appreciated, and for your advice regarding the peakbagger template. It will indeed save me time and I will use it. {Huddsblue (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)}

You're welcome. Glad to be of help. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 14:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Racerx, thank you for the barnstar - much appreciated. Don't worry, I'm happy to leave flags out of the geographical infoboxes in future. Best wishes. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best wishes to you as well. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 01:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

ed

There is a one-sentence paragraph in Hunter's lead that could be easily merged with the first. There is no reason for it to be separate from the main one. Please be so kind to merge them please. Thank you! 180.191.69.3 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for Sophie Hunter page

Can you please insert this parameter to Sophie Hunter's page as she has notable family members. You can just copy-paste the one I've coded below and just replace the parentheses with brackets for linking. The sources are in the page's family section. Thank you very much and keep up the good work you do here on Wiki! 89.144.230.37 (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

|family =

  • ((Michael Gow (British Army officer)
  • Michael Gow))
  • (maternal grandfather)
  • ((J. E. B. Seely, 1st Baron Mottistone
  • J. E. B. Seely))
  • (maternal great-grandfather)
  • ((Timothy Carlton))
  • (father-in-law)
  • ((Wanda Ventham))
  • (mother-in-law)
Racerx11, it would seem that this IP is actually a blocked sock wanting to get content readded that was deleted because of his socky-ness. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I was just ignoring it. I have no idea why the IP is contacting my about it. I have never touched the article, I have no interest in the subject, and I very rarely edit articles on people in theater or the film industry. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 03:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
No idea why they chose me, either. Weird. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

47.17.194.111 is now Cyborg the Wikipedian

Hello RacerX11, 47.17.194.111 here. I made a Wikipedia account; my username is Cyborg the Wikipedian. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborg the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 23:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

for the update on Grampasso88. Yes the dude is clearly a repeat offender. The name "Lake Margarita of Savoy" is such a historical nonsense that has never been used in the English language and probably not even in the Italian language. So yes, revert his edit AND don't forget to give him warning - I have already warned him twice. He only needs to be warned a total of 4 times in order to qualify for an outright ban. —Loginnigol (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Loginnigol: I have now warned the user, but it is impossible to revert the move at Lake Margherita of Savoy, because he has blanked the redirect at Lake Abaya. Because a move back to a previous title requires deleting the newly created redirect to make way for the move, it won't delete the redirect if the edit history is non-empty. Thus we need an admin to do that for us. I am still waiting on a response from AIV. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 03:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You better do it separately (one warning for the Abaya lake and the other for Mount Stanley). Each vandalized article warrants its own warning. —Loginnigol (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@Loginnigol: I can change the warning but that's not how it works if it works anything like vandalism warnings. We warn the user when we see vandalism. If the user vandalizes again he gets a second warning, and so on. You can't just pile on a bunch of warnings, one for each offense. They have to read each of them first. The user has not edited since I discovered all this. That's the least of our problems anyway. What we are dealing with here is far worse than vandalism. I can show you an example of how totally screwed up something like this can become if you have a spare day or so to read through the mess. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 03:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Loginnigol: Thanks to User: Diannaa all the problems have been solved. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 03:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Racerx11. You have new messages at Huddsblue's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Grande Casse

Hi Racer quite a bit of work has gone into the Grande Casse article recently - is it possible it is no longer a stub? Would be delighted if it was moved up a class! Many thanks {{Huddsblue (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)}}

I changed it to "start class". Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/Assessment. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 10:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your mistake

Yes, you did a mistake on Alejandro Amenábar's wiki page here's the references (in Spanish): http://www.blogdecine.com/frases-citas/frases-de-cine-18-de-septiembre-sobre-la-imagen-el-cine-espanol-los-referentes-y-la-violencia

http://kwa.blogia.com/2004/090701-el-novio-de-alejandro-amenabar.php

http://www.shangay.com/nota/30520/las-idas-y-venidas-de-alejandro-amenabar

Hi Racerx11, this is my first time attempting to edit the article on Burj Khalifa. While reading the article, I feel one piece of information can be added is the time all the previous buildings were built for comparison and to track the progress over time. If you can add those information, it will be great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.1.106 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, at first your edits seemed like vandalism, but I saw what you were trying to do that second time. There are a couple pages that show what you are talking about: History of the tallest buildings in the world and Timeline of three tallest structures in the world. Personally I don't think that information should be inserted into the Burj Khalifa page. We link to other articles for that reason. For example, if someone wants to know how long Warsaw radio mast held its title, they can click on the link. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 19:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for the guidance

Bro first of all please explain to me what is a stub. And i accept your reverts but i have a question that why is mountains of nepal mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest. Gilgit baltistan is a province of Pakistan, i think country is to be added as k2 is representing Pakistan accross the globe and it is representing gilgit baltistan within the country. When mountains of tajikistan or nepal can be mentioned why is mountains of Pakistan unacceptable to you. Also most of these countries which have mountains have provinces and these mountains are in provinces so why their country is mentioned but not provinces?? Thankyou Saladin1987 19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Saladin1987: Sure. A stub is a very short article, usually just a few sentences worth of content. It is the lowest ranking in the article quality scale. The idea of a stub is just to get a good foundation started for an article to grow from. There are rules-of-thumb to help in the gray area when an article ceases to be a stub and becomes something else, but most of the time it's just an "eye" test. After a while, one "knows" a stub when they see one ((stub example) and one knows a full article when they see it (K2 is rated "B class" for example). Please see WP:Stub.
As for categorization, we sub-categorize articles because if we didn't, some of the categories would be so enormous they would become too difficult and awkward to be useful. When an article is categorized to child sub-category or another category (political subdivision or a larger one) it is proper to only cat the sub-category and not the parent, lest we defeat the purpose of sub-catting in the first place. Category:Mountains of Germany is a good example of a huge category with thousands of pages, virtually all sub-catted under that parent of Mountains of Germany, yet there are only three pages that are directly categorized to Category:Mountains of Germany. Mount Everest is categorized under Category:Mountains of Nepal because Category:Mountains of Nepal has no sub-categories other than Category:Mount Everest. Eventually somebody will create political subdivision categories of Category:Mountains of Nepal and Mount Everest will be categorized in Category:Mountains of Sagarmatha Zone (or something smaller) and removed from Category:Mountains of Nepal; similar to how it is currently categorized under Category:Mountains of the Tibet Autonomous Region and not under Category:Mountains of China. See WP:Categorization for more.
Hope this clarifies everything. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 23:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting edits on my talk page! -- CaTi0604 (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 08:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Racerx11/Archive_5&oldid=1232839857"