User talk:Buaidh/Archive 2008

Awards
Thank you for all your contributions.LanceBarber (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Universities and colleges of Colorado
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I removed one of the items you added today to the "See Also" section. Universities and colleges of Colorado links to the same article as Colleges and universities of Colorado does. I had figured this out last week and removed it then. I wanted to explain my actions before so you didn't think I was just messing with you post. Oh yea, I see you're a part of the wikiproject Colorado. I created the Colorado Portal and would love some help improving it. Later, Rocketmaniac (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:US Census Labelled Map-2
A tag has been placed on Template:US Census Labelled Map-2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I created Template:US Census Labelled Map-2 as an alternative to Template:US Census Labelled Map, but most folks seem to prefer the later. I have no problem with the deletion of Template:US Census Labelled Map-2.  --Buaidh (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mt Williamson elevation
Thanks for that, I got them backwards. I was going to go back and verify the numbers against the NGS app, but you've already fixed it. --Justin (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Highland/Highlands
Sorry for the Highlands delete. To prevent further confusion, you might past your explanatory note to me into the Highland article. In the Highland article there is no mention of the adjacent neighborhood of Highlands. Plazak (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Borders of Colorado
You're my resident go-to guy when it comes to all issues Colorado, being the local expert; I'd like to ask you to take a look please at my new section on Talk:Colorado about the borders. --Golbez (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Colorado-related topics
Excellant list-article !!!!!!!! I award you this unique Barnstar!!

Colorado infobox changes
Hi - Two questions about this edit.
 * 1) What are the numbers for the senators?
 * 2) Why change the timezone listing?  Most states have the timezone(s) listed in the previous format (timezone name, standard utc offset, and daylight offset).

Just curious. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. The State of Colorado elects United States Senators to United States Senate Class 2 and United States Senate Class 3.  Senator Allard is a member of Class 2, and Senator Salazar is a member of Class 3.  Please see United States congressional delegations from Colorado.
 * 2. UTC-07 and UTC-06 are in the international standard format for time zones.  For example, 7:35 P.M. MDT is 19:35UTC-06.  --Buaidh (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there some movement to include the senate class for all senators in state infoboxes, or is this something you're doing just for Colorado? Frankly, it looks a little odd (this is even moderately hard to find on, say, Wayne Allard - i.e. it's not in the senator infobox).  Also, most (all?) other states show the timezone with a string like "Mountain: UTC-7/DST-6".  This uses the standard format (minus the "0") for the standard time offset, with links to the timezone name and Daylight saving time - and avoids the somewhat mysterious looking MST= and MDT= strings.  Again, is this something the other states are being converted to?  Have these been brought up at template:US state or WikiProject U.S. states?  -- Rick Block (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. If Senate Class is hard to find, perhaps it should be included in all state infoboxes.
 * 2. "Mountain" has no meaning for anyone outside of North America.  MST amd MDT are standard abbreviations and UTC-07 and UTC-06 are in standard international format.  I think MST=UTC-07, MDT=UTC-06 is pretty self-explanatory.  --Buaidh (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've brought both of these up at Template talk:Infobox U.S. state. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of country and capital changes
Firstly, I'd like to say congratulations for all the work you've put into improving this article. I think that using the full official names of the countries was an excellent idea. However, I do feel rather strongly that it is redundant to include the native translations of those official names. These can all be found on the country's page, and it really doesn't add anything to the article apart from bulking it up. Frickeg (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects from articles to images
Hello, I came across Flag of the State of Colorado and Great Seal of the State of Colorado redirecting to images. These are article-space redirects; they don't start with "Image:". Articles already exist at Flag of Colorado and Seal of Colorado. Gimmetrow 21:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Buaidh (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect Pages
Are you tired? Running a 40 watt bulb on a 20 watt generator? You put a category on a redirect page, Biscochito. Please don't do that silly pilly. Pay more attention and take better care in adding the categories. I have reverted your edit. IP4240207xx (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I "saw"-clicked on: Bouteloua gracilis and it took me straight to Blue grama never stopping at Bouteloua gracilis, so the category in Bouteloua gracilis is POINTLESS. Has no effect. Worthless fodder. Waste of space. IP4240207xx (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know I can do that. Still: What is the point? It servers no purpose to have a blank-redirect page with categories. Nobody will ever read them. No one will be in bouteloua gracilis to see what else is in that category, they will be in blue grama. You are just taking up space and making "make work". IP4240207xx (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You said: "If you don't use categories to locate articles, there is no advantage in them. For those of us who do, there is great advantage."


 * ARTICLES!!! Exactly. Articles are one thing, redirect pages are NOT articles, they are redirect pages. Categories in articles are great, in redirect pages, pointless. IP4240207xx (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Unsinkable Molly Brown (film)
Can you please expand the plot summary of this article?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NJ Thanks
I wanted to thank you for your organization and cleanup of List of New Jersey-related topics. The more hands working on these subjects, the more thorough and complete we can make all New Jersey-related articles. Thanks again! Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Florida state symbols
On this page, your recent changes added a link to a redlinked list, List of Florida-related topics. It appears that you are doing similar changes to other state pages (apparently you have a masochistic streak, as that is going to be a monumental task). Are you planning to create a list? Not every state has such a list, and Florida is one of the states which does not. If there is not a plan to start an article, I'm going to remove the link, since redlinks for articles which are not likely to be created are ugly and detract from the page.  Horologium  (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A List of Florida-related topics is forthcoming. It will be somewhat similar to the List of Colorado-related topics.  --Buaidh (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I admire your energy, but please don't link to those lists before they exist... (It might be a long time...) Anyway, did you know that topics lists exist in portal articles for many of the states, such as Portal:Tennessee/Topics and Portal:United States/Topics. I have an inkling that the project you are embarking upon would be more rewarding for you if undertaken as part of one or more of the Wikipedia portal projects. Do take a look -- for example, at Portal:Colorado.


 * Also, please don't link to the state article in the "See also" section of state symbols -- the state articles are already linked at the beginning of the state symbols articles. "See also" is supposed to be primarily for articles not otherwise linked. (That advice is in WP guidelines somewhere...)
 * --Orlady (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Hello,

I would like to thank you for your recent edits to Maine, and I would also like to ask that you please remember to provide an edit summary before you save your edits. Doing so is very helpful for other editors.

Thanks,

BMRR (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt reply, and thanks for the improvements you've made to Maine!
 * BMRR (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * BMRR (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Xiaphias (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviation
I'd appreciate your comments on a discussion I've initiated at Talk:United_States_micropolitan_area. --Russ (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oklahoma related topics list
Thanks! It took me a minute to figure out what you were doing by deleting the other see also links at Oklahoma but the new list looks good! Keep it up. Okiefromokla complaints 00:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I ask you to please remember to use edit summaries. It makes things easier for everyone. Okiefromokla complaints 00:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)



Empty categories
Howdy, I noticed you created a bunch of empty categories around June 1st. They are still empty so are eligible for deletion. Can you comment at the deletion discussion about what these categories are for and whether you still want them around? I only mentioned the empty ones without parent categories (since you may have intended these for deletion), but there are many other empty categories from that day. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hoosiers
I don't like to be picky, but do you have a source to substantiate the reality of Hoosierana and Hoosierstan? --Orlady (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You can Google them. --Buaidh (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I could Google them, but Wikipedia requires citations to reliable sources. Do you have sources you could cite in the footnote? --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The footnote is nothing more than an observation of colloquial use. If you find its inclusion offensive, please remove the footnote. Thanks, Buaidh (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not offended by those nicknames. Rather, I have my finger in the dike, trying to hold back the deluge of unsourced colloquialisms (many of which are offensive) in the various articles about nicknames. Reliable sources are everything! --Orlady (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. --Buaidh (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical outline of New Mexico
Wow, what a great idea! Bearian (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope this historical outline is useful. I'm creating one for each of the states.  New Mexico is certainly one of the most interesting!  --Buaidh (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal link
Hi there. Can I ask why you are left-aligning the portal link in the see also section of Oklahoma? Generally, these are placed to the right, especially since it is set up as a table/box and not an in-text wikilink. It also looks better to the right &mdash; at least in my opinion. Okiefromokla questions? 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The portal link is placed to the left when it is a primary link to other articles about Oklahoma.  The portal link is placed to the right when it is incidental to the discussion in an article, as is usually the case.  --Buaidh (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You're referring to the portal itself &mdash; you placed the link to the left because the portal links to other articles about Oklahoma, and is not incidental to the discussion in the article? Sorry, I'm a little confused. Could you humor me and elaborate? :) I spent some time looking around, but could only find the directions at Template:Portal, which don't specify left or right alignment. Okiefromokla questions? 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are only two links in the See also section, one to the List of Oklahoma-related topics and one to Portal:Oklahoma. Both these links are placed prominently to the left.  If the Portal:Oklahoma link was of less importance, it would usually be placed on the right as an additional resource.  --Buaidh (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Crater Peak
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Crater Peak, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mount Powell
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mount Powell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Gallery tag removal
I am wondering why you removed the Cleanup-gallery tag from the page Most prominent mountain peaks of the United States. The page clearly has an image gallery which is discouraged under wikipaedia guidelines. Maybe you should consider improving the article instead of removing the tag without addressing the issue.  Greatestrowerever  Talk Page  22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for a project you can really sink your teeth into?
I noticed you are a member of the Geography WikiProject. I thought you might be interested in this...

A huge collaboration is underway, in which participants all work on 247 pages at a time. That's right, there are 247 pages in the set, and we're all working on all of them! We kind of cheat, by using advanced wikitools like AWB and Linky that let you load or switch between pages quickly (and other tricks).

We're building a geography reference aid for Wikipedia covering every country of the world. Organized as topic outlines (a type of structured list), these pages present maps, pictures, basic information on each country, and links to essential articles about each country on Wikipedia. We have created 247 drafts (one for every country of the world), 28 of which have been completed enough that they've been moved to article space already (so people can make use of them, even though they're still under construction). The rest are getting pretty close.

Each of these pages in turn form part of Wikipedia's outline of knowledge, and when completed, this branch of the outline will be the best general navigation aid for browsing country-related information on Wikipedia.

We're looking for users who love geography, and who use or would like to start using:
 * WP:AWB, or
 * Firefox, with the Linky add-on, or
 * similar tools and/or other tricks

...to edit many pages fast.

While some of us work on completing one country page at a time, most of the work we do entails completing a particular knowledge item on all of the pages. For example, filling in the population figures for each country, or creating redirects to "bluelink" standard link names used throughout the set, or placing a specific type of map on each page, etc. etc.

Working in this way is kind of like traveling around the world, since you get to visit the page of each country of the world to work on it.

Tasks range from the simple (filling in blanks, search/replace, copy/paste) to the more complex (Customizing sections to each country, Google searches of Wikipedia to find relevant articles, etc.).

This project is very important, because information is only useful if you can find it, and these pages show you what's here on Wikipedia without you having to guess at what to type in a search box.

To give you an idea of what these pages will look like when complete, here are the most complete ones so far:
 * Topic outline of France
 * Topic outline of Iceland
 * Topic outline of Japan
 * Topic outline of Thailand
 * Topic outline of Taiwan

If you are interested in joining in on the fun, please drop me a note.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That state shapes book looking less reliable
Over at the Jefferson Territory talk page I questioned the borders and mentioned the book "How the States Got Their Shapes" by Mark Stein, and that the "book seems like a good source on borders". Well, as I've read more of it I've grown to doubt whether it is all that good a source. There are a number of obvious mistakes, some perhaps harmless typo-like things such as getting a year wrong, others more revealing of the author's lack of geographical knowledge. When he writes about the border of Georgia and how it was to follow the Savannah River to its source, he explains why the Chattooga River tributary was chosen instead of the Hiwassee River. But, the Hiwassee River is a tributary of the Tennessee River, not the Savannah. Some mistake was made in the text there. He calls the body of water at the western end of the 49th parallel "Puget Sound" when it should be the Strait of Georgia. And so on with other such mistakes. On larger issues he has some strange and sometimes clearly wrong ideas about history. In explaining how the US-British "joint occupation" of Oregon Country came to influence boundaries he claims that the reason the US and Britain "set aside their bitterness" and agreed to "joint occupation" was in order to fend off the Russians. This is just wrong, in a number of ways. In explaining how the joint occupation came to an end he says the British were willing to fight the Americans in order to keep Vancouver, their "major Pacific port". Vancouver? In 1843? Um... Then there is his whole thing about the origin of the 42nd parallel as a boundary dating to the Nootka Conventions of 1790 between Britain and Spain. He bluntly says that the Nootka Convention set the boundary between between British and Spanish territory at the 42nd parallel. I've looked into this topic before, in some depth, and there the Nootka Conventions (there were three, not just the one of 1790) set no explicit boundary. Stein is just wrong. And he compounds it by explaining the reason for the supposed choice of the 42nd parallel: Because it roughly separates the Columbia River watershed from the rivers of California and the Great Basin. His map shows how it does, roughly. But he's talking about a 1790 agreement. Last I checked no non-native had been anywhere close to the interior at that time. When I read that "explanation" of why a boundary line was chosen (leaving aside that the line was not chosen in 1790), I suddenly doubted everything in the book.

Anyway, I wrote this long story because of our quick exchange at the Jefferson Territory page. And, I suppose, to rant a little about books with misinformation that present themselves as plain truth. Finally, seeing your user page and edits I take it you might argue that Colorado is more beautiful than the Pacific Northwest. Actually, I lived for some years in Denver and explored the Rockies around there quite a bit. It's fairly scenic, I must admit. Pfly (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Boundaries. of the O.C. (Oregon Country)
I know all that, in spades.....your point is?Skookum1 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW the proper terminology re 1824 and 1825 especially is "between the Russian Empire and the claims of th United Kingdom/United States" (and "Great Britain" is the usual term in this contenxt, not the UK). Also the US only bought out Spanish "rights and obligations", not "claims" or "territory" as such; what the US really got from teh Spanish was what the Spanish had signed on to re the Nootka Conventions; they thought it was ownership, but the actual wording of the documents in question tuned out to mean, explicity, non-ownership and hte obligation to leave the door open to other nations/powers.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We need your help...
...at the Geography WikiProject, cuz we're working on something BIG ...

For the past several months, work has been underway to develop a set of country outlines, and now they are getting close to being ready to move to article space. There's over two hundred of them, so when the move takes place it will be a pretty big event.

I and a few others have been working on 3 fronts:
 * 1) On the 28 country outlines that have already been moved to article space to complete them so they will be the best examples that they can be for editors working on the rest of the set.
 * 2) Adding or correcting other data (fixing redlinks, filling in blanks, etc.) in the overall set.  This is the main type of work participants in "the contest" will be doing.  The reason we're doing some of this now is to get a feel for it, to develop the fastest methods for each type of task.
 * 3) Improving the overall design and implenting changes on all 247 pages, whether in article space or not.

The main thing that needs to be done to the outlines so that they can be moved to article space is correct and complete the government branches sections, many of which include incorrect information that was placed there as temporary data by a template when these pages were created (in order to match the most countries and cut down on the work load). But there are plenty of other tasks too.

We're looking for editors who love to work on lots of pages fast, and who use or would like to use advanced tools like AWB and Linky. Most of the tasks entail working on a specific item on all of the pages in the set.

We're having a blast, but we're spread pretty thin and could sure use your help.

If you'd like to join in on the fun, drop me a note.

The Transhumanist 01:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Energy technology
A tag has been placed on Energy technology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

improper redirect, there is , the main article can be translated from de:Energietechnik, engineering is not the same as technology

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mion (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mountain peaks of Canada
I had seen the comment at Talk:Mountain peaks of Canada and was working on restoring the hs template. One weird thing is that the prominace sorts correctly for figures over 1,000m, it's only the Most isolated peaks that doesn't sort correctly. Anyway I should have it fixed soon. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I have it now. I used 1 or 2 leading zeros to force the sort. Check it out. If there are still problems let me know and I'll look again later. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that the page is again over 91 KB. I have a suggestion. Why not expand Highest mountain peaks of Canada and Most isolated mountain peaks of Canada to be the top 100, List of Ultras in Canada is already at that number. Then each of the three sections of Mountain peaks of Canada could be made in a top ten. This would not only keep the size down but also allow the flags to be restored, CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I put the flags back and reduced each list to 50 and the size is now 51 KB. Easy to open for viewing and editing. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla
 * Because the article was not too large I was able to add the coordinates and the GeoGroupTemplate. Take a look and if you don't like it just turn it back. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Set index article
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 04:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Columbia River
After reverting your edit to Talk:Columbia River for violating WP:TALK, I read it myself and I see that altering a link to a moved page is an acceptable revision. In the future, please add an edit summary explaining the reason for your edit. —EncMstr (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. ''Please use Preview in order to avoid multiple edits to the same article. Please also ensure that any significant changes achieve consensus.'' ► BMW ◄  14:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Vandalism edits : here --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Oscarthecat (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I'd thought you were implying Guatemala wasn't in Central America. My wrong.  Apologies. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Great work!
Hello! I was doing New Page Patrol and I saw your new Caribbean-related entries. I wanted to thank you for expanding coverage of Caribbean-related topics on Wikipedia -- you are doing a great job! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC) 

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

See also section at Peru article
Hello, I was wondering about your recent edits to the "See also" section of the Peru article. It seems to me that some of the links you added are redundant or unnecessary. The article already has a Peru topics template which features a link to the Portal:Peru. A link to List of Peru-related topics could easily be added to this template. As for the other links, I'm unsure how are they relevant for this article. For instance, why would someone interested in knowing more about Peru visit the United Nations article or the Main Page of the Spanish Wikipedia or even the Latin America portal (which btw is already linked from Portal:Peru)? Are you sure we need this list of links in the article? --Victor12 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please add an edit summary
Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. It is very difficult and time consuming sometimes to understand the reason behind your changes and even after that, I'm not sure of your motivation. Thanks, Double Blue  (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I'm currently editing all 56 countries of the Americas simultaneously, so I often leave very brief comments.  If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to e-mail me.  --Buaidh (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mount Brewer
I notice that you are the major editor of the article Highest mountain peaks of California. I just created the article Mount Brewer which has an elevation of 13570 ft which seems to qualify for the list. I was puzzled that the mountain did not have an article since it is a SPS Emblem peak. --DRoll (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)