User talk:Seattle Skier/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Ferry

FYI: You asked on the template's talk page to be kept in the loop. Template:Infobox Ferry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — - Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Joining Volcanoes Wikia

Hi Seattle Skier. i was wondering if you wanted to join my newly founded Volcanoes Wikia?

If so, please click here to find out more information:

[1]

Thanks, --Meldshal (§peak to me) 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, I didn't even know there was a Volcanoes Wikia. Sorry for the slow response. I finally looked at that site today. Unfortunately, I haven't even had enough free time to contribute much to Wikipedia over the last year, so I don't think I could contribute much over there now. I may join at some point in the future if time permits. --Seattle Skier (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Accidentally deleting other Wikiprojects' banners

Sorry about that...I'll be careful next time.Kleomarlo (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind rating an article for me?

You rated Lake Mashū back in 2007. I have made significant changes in the last month or so. Would you mind rerating it for me? Thanks!imars (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you see my reply?

On my talk page? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Mount Abbot

I just finished creating a stub for Mount Abbot. It has and elevation of 13,704 feet (4,177 m), a prominence of 864 feet (263 m) and is a class 3. I notice that you work some on Thirteener article. I don't know if it qualifies or not as there are so many in California. No reply necessary. --DRoll (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

SS Mauna Loa

While you are almost certainly correct in asserting that SS Mauna Loa was named for the volcano, do you have any reference upon which you are basing this? When I wrote the article, I had no source that told me that. And that is the reason that a featured article didn't have information on the namesake. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Belhalla, I'll try to explain my actions. Take the viewpoint of an outside reader, which is what Wikipedia must serve and which is what I was when I stumbled upon the article. It was shocking to find that the words "Mauna Loa" were mentioned 24 times in the article without a single link to Mauna Loa, not even in a "See also" section. Then shifting my mindset from reader to editor, I was (frankly) somewhat embarrassed that Wikipedia would give FA status to an article missing such basic info, and thereby also failing in its need to build the web. So I added the information and links, despite not having a reference on hand. I think that without info about the namesake, the SS Mauna Loa article fails item 1b of the WP:FACR, "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", because the namesake is certainly a major fact or detail, whether for a ship or a mountain or a city. Info about what something is named for must be included in any truly comprehensive encyclopedia article. I think this article now more fully meets FACR 1b, without violating 1c (the article is still "factually accurate"). And the article is now better for the general outside reader and at building the web.

I see that you have a lot of FAs, and I think that perhaps your perspective on referencing may have been affected by spending a lot a time dealing with FAC and its hassles. Is that so? There is no need to put a numbered reference beside every single sentence in an article, especially statements which are non-controversial and certain to be correct (WP:V appears to agree with my view on this). Such completely sewn-up referencing may be needed in articles about living persons (especially for legal reasons) or about contentious historical topics, but it is really going overboard to require it in a non-controversial article about a ship. The probability that this ship was not named after Mauna Loa is less than miniscule, so the info I added stands on safe ground. Does the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) article need a numbered reference in the second sentence, with some "reliable source" verifying that, oh yes, the ship really is named after the former president (and not some other Abraham Lincoln)?? I should hope not (even though such a source might be easy to find in that case). Sadly, someone will probably insist on such a source if that article ever heads to GA or FA. But even the most reliable sources contain errors and are dead wrong some percentage of the time, so referencing to RS is not a panacea guaranteeing that the info included is correct.

I think the final standard for including any statement should always be whether the encyclopedia is improved or harmed by that inclusion. I think that including the namesake info has improved the content of the encyclopedia, without harming its reliability in any way. Just my viewpoint, you may still disagree. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

template:Cloud types ?

Per this - I was wondering if that was vandalism, myself, a while ago. After doing a google search, it seemed like Kelvin-Hemholtz colombia brought up results as well as Kelvin-Hemholtz instability. Any comments? Icy // ♫ 18:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi IceUnshattered, thanks for asking me. The problem with doing a Google search is that all the results for "Kelvin-Helmholtz colombia" are just copies of that same Wikipedia article/template on various websites. Anyway, I know enough about atmospheric sciences and clouds to know for certain that there is no such thing as "cirrus Kelvin-Helmholtz colombia". The proof that it was vandalism is very simple: just look at the following diffs, which are 4 consecutive edits to Cloud made by 69.74.30.4 (talk) way back on 29March2006: [2], [3], [4], and [5]. It's just some vandal randomly inserting words like "colombia" or "COLUMBIA" or whatever. According to Template talk:Cloud types, this info was copied directly from Cloud when Template:Cloud types was first created.

As a wikipedia editor, it is rather embarrassing that such obvious vandalism was not quickly reverted, then was copied from an article to a template, then was not even fixed for 3 years, and has now been so widely copied around the internet. I did a Google search too, for the complete quoted phrase "cirrus Kelvin-Helmholtz colombia" [6], and found that some foolish student even put this phrase in his college assignment. See [7] where Sean Hulings states confidently, "I have classified this cloud as Cirrus Kelvin-Helmholtz Colombia." Ha ha ha, WRONG! I laughed out loud when I saw that. I think that his professor should have failed him. I love Wikipedia, but blind faith in a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit is not wise.

I hope this clarifies why I left that edit summary. --Seattle Skier (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks for clarifying that :-) Icy // ♫ 19:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Loihi Seamount

Sorry to bother you, but I need some help. The article recently failed a FAC because of inactivity; me, Vid, and Mati are fine-tuning it in preperation for the next nomination, which hopefully won't go sour. Could you help us a little? Just a request :) ResMar 14:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)