User talk:Hike395/Archive 7

California SR infobox discussion
Hike395, you are invited to participate in the (definitely less structured than WP:SRNC) WT:CASH infobox discussion. Please feel free to share your thoughts and ideas. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured article review/Mount St. Helens
Could you comment about Outriggr's wish to strip out all mention of the 1980 eruption from the history and geology sections to create one section about the eruption? I would like to keep the effects to humans and their response to the eruption separate from details of the geology. --mav 13:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project California

 * Please read the added assessment notes on Long Valley Caldera. it just doesnt measure up to a B yet. there are very specific criteria for B standing within Wikipediia Project California.  mainly long valley caldera needs more breadth of coverage...not just geology.  i have been involved in reviewing and being reviewed for hundreds of Start vs B grade articles; i think you need to read carefully at least a couple of dozen solid Bs (for example California Condor, Caltrain, Mojave Desert, Coachella Valley) before finalizing your opinions. i would be delighted to debate any specific articles and certainly reconsider my findings. also if you have time for assessing, i wouldinvite you to start with the 9500 un-assessed articles in project california, and not just weigh in for the only 900 assessed articles. in any case i hope we can discuss any specific articles, whose ratings worry you. regards Anlace 22:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work with the editing. i have promoted this page to "B". I still think a two or three line synopsis of history of owens valley relative to this feature would be a good touch. This article has the good "bone structure" to aspire to GA. cheers. Anlace 23:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Tundra
Yes, absolutely; that wasn't on my watch list so I didn't notice. Just let me know if I forget to unprotect after a while.

Thanks regarding the photo! If you feel like scribbling an article on Gaylor Lakes, we could use one ... it's one of a thousand things I haven't gotten around to doing yet. You know those ruins up on top of the ridge overlooking the lakes from the northeast? There's some marvelous photo spots up there in all directions ... and you can climb that ridge all the way up to the peaks of northeast Yosemite. The geology is cool there too because of the metamorphic/granite contacts. Antandrus (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing back
I'm looking at it, although it looks like you've made a start. I'm not sure I see the advantage, though, once we have agreement they can all be properly moved (with redirects) to wherever we decide. Meanwhile it causes no real problems, the only "significant" article in terms of links is, I think, the one you've moved back. Rich Farmbrough, 12:27 19 November 2006 (GMT).

High Sierra (Biome)
There was a discussion about moving this to the larger article and it was decided against, as I'm researching and writing an article on the alpine ecosystem of the High Sierra, a very well-researched area due to a couple of High Sierra research stations. Why the unilateral move now with no discussion? Couldn't you have asked people to discuss the issue? KP Botany 17:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But there was no move discussion, either. And that's the discussion to have, tag the page for a move, and suggest you want to move it, then do so if there is no discussion.  There's no reason for me to discuss not moving it when no one has suggested moving it, as I assumed was the case with Will BeBack, he decided not to suggest moving the page.  I pretty much know what I can do, so you don't really need to continue telling me what my options are, I can actually figure it out myself.  I would just like people to discuss changes like this first.  And, whether or not you call it the High Sierra, I work with High Sierra stream ecologists and we call it the High Sierra.  You haven't offered anything to call it anystead, except for just calling it the Sierra Nevada, except my High Sierra information has no relationship to northern Sierra Nevada Yellow Pine Forests, or Eastern Sierra mountain meadows, or tons of other Sierra Nevada ecosystems--it's just relevant to the High Sierra.  That's what it is I'm studying: the ecosystems of the High Sierra, so there's not really a point in calling it anything else that doesn't quite mean that.  At this point, I know longer care, though, so let's just drop it, and I'll do whatever I want, and you do whatever you want, because that seems to be the general trend on Wikipedia.  KP Botany 04:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Methuselah (tree)
Hi Hike - I've added a coor:dms location for it (well, for the visitor center, to be exact!), but I can't get it to format properly in the top right of the page. Can you format it please? - thanks, MPF 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about WikiProject:California assessments
Hi there. You might be interested in the discussion about WikiProject California assessments taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Assessment. I noticed that you have discussed this in the past with User:Anlace. Mike Dillon 06:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mount Rainier National Park
Thanks for moving the text about flooding to the appropriate article. I didn't realize there was a separate article on the nat'l park, as it's not listed on the disambiguation page for Mt Ranier. I'm about to fix that to make things more clear for other users. ForrestCroce 02:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism problems ...
Yeah, I've been noticing that a lot of fairly high-profile articles are being vandalised and it's not being caught with the regularity and reliability of, say, two years ago. Not sure what to do. I think that a lot of articles just aren't on enough watch lists, and also "recent changes" shoot by at 150 per minute now, so even active patrollers miss a lot. I wonder if it is time to revive the campaign against anonymous editing.... sigh. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

List of edible seeds
I've only been through the Featured List process once before, for List of U.S. states by elevation, and didn't find it onerous. I'm very impressed at the work that the WP community has done on that list: I started it the article with a pretty bad list, and I'm delighted at the work.

Are there specific work items you think we need to do to make it featured? Are you a Support ?

Isn't it too late to withdraw now?

hike395 06:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Copying over your comments back here: hike395
 * Well, there are a few things:
 * The links are a bit all over the place. Some point to more general articles (because the specific articles weren't written) others to the specific articles, and it's hard to tell from the text without mousing over the links.
 * The sections don't make sense to me. Some identify how you eat the seeds, others what kind of seeds they are. They seem fairly arbitrary and counter-intuitive.
 * Aside from the leadin - which is quite informative! - there's no extra information for the entries, or even for the sections. It could be a lot more informative.
 * Hardly any references.
 * No images


 * I don't really know if it's possible to withdraw it at this point! Anyway, I hope the comments are helpful. Waitak 07:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The things you've mentioned are useful and good, but they mostly aren't in the criteria for featured lists. WP:LIST doesn't say that we need to have uniform quality of articles linked to, nor extra information for each section, nor even images (although I can certainly easily add images to the article, not a problem).


 * The references may indeed be a problem: I'm going to go to the library tomorrow anyway, I can see if I can find books on seeds and food. Any extra web references would be appreciated.


 * I'm not sure how else to thematically group the seeds: I'm open to suggestions.


 * I hope you are willing to help address any problems in the feedback? Many hands make light work, and I do like the work you did in List of vegetable oils. If you are unwilling to work on feedback at this time, I can try to withdraw the nomination. I was all excited by the goodness of the list: sorry I didn't discuss it at Talk:List of edible seeds. hike395 07:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries, we'll just take it from here. I'd be happy to kick in and help. I see that you're rolling on the images, so I won't get in your way there. What I meant on the links is more the fact that the articles that are linked to don't actually discuss the right thing! Some examples: Oh, and I don't think coconuts are seeds, are they?
 * In the section on seed oils (close to my heart, that!) you link to almond instead of almond oil.
 * In the beverage section, you link to wheat, but there's an article on wheat beer.

But the most serious problems, from my point of view, are the section divisions and the lack of explanatory text. I'll put some thought into the first of these. The second depends on the first, I think. You're right that they're not on the list for FL status, but I'm just not convinced that it'll make it through FL without something more than it's got. Anyway... onward! Worst case is that we end up improving the article, and try again another time.

We can keep the conversation here if you like. I'll add you to my watchlist for the next while. Waitak 07:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, images done. Links to oils: done. Links to drinks: done. Coconut article says it has a seed, so I think we're OK.


 * I'm proud to say that I didn't add a lot of these list entries: this was a community effort. The sectioning wasn't my idea either. But, if you want to improve things, that would be good: but, does major editing of the article count as not being "stable" ? Hope not. :-(. Perhaps we should wait until someone else complains about the headers?


 * Looking over list of vegetable oils, I think we may have a problem with comprehensiveness.


 * hike395 08:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Imported all seed-based vegetable oils from List of vegetable oils. Not sure how to cite this: can we cite another article from WP? I'll look.


 * Also, you may be striving for an overly high standard for a list -- I don't think you need to annotate every single entry.


 * hike395 08:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You may well right - I think I did obsess over set the bar pretty high for List of vegetable oils. That said, I'd at least like to have a blurb under every section heading. Let's not bias it based on my prejudices, then, if that's what they are. How about this for a strategy:


 * Add annotations where they seem appropriate
 * Add a leadin for every section
 * Wait to see what the reviewers think of the sections
 * Do what we can to add some more references


 * How's that sound? (Good job on the images, by the way!) Waitak 09:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that is a wise course: many annotations need references, so the more annontations we add, the more references we need. Adding leadin for each section is probably good: I don't think it would be considered an unstable article.


 * I do appreciate all of the work you are putting into this article! Thanks! hike395 09:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like my net connection's back. Very pleased that it didn't take the expected 2-3 weeks! I think that you're right, though. It's probably best to withdraw the nomination for now, and work on it over time. When we've got a good, solid case, we can go for it again. The article's already much improved. Waitak 03:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of basil cultivars
Thanks, and Happy New Year! Looking forward to working with you in the new year. Waitak 03:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Mammoth Lakes, California
I'm not sure why you consider Mammoth Lakes Visitors Bureau a spammy link. I'm not affiliated in any way with that site, but I've seen it to contain excellent visitor information (town map, weather info, etc.) provided by the Town of Mammoth Lakes Visitors Bureau. It seems like a much better link than that spammish town newspaper link. 208.127.72.228 22:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Images
Hike, I wrote Josh Lowell and received an email back from him with authorization to keep the photos. Please let me know how to rescue the images and if I need to forward the email anywhere Thefleck 05:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the email:
 * Hi, thanks for the heads-up. I am ok with these images being used IF
 * they are credited and include links. Please credit Big UP Productions
 * and make the credit a link to www.bigUPproductions.com.
 * thanks,
 * Josh Lowell
 * Big UP Productions

Edits to Pointing Device
Hi, you left a note on my talk page saying I had removed content from the Pointing device page without a valid reason or Edit Summary. I did leave an edit summary, and I thought it was pretty clear. The information I removed is not directly relevant to the Pointing device page, and included one and only one external link to a commercial company. I am not sure what else is expected of me as I complied with the guidelines for making edits. More specifically, the company information I removed relates to a company who seem to be peppering various wikipedia entries with links to their site and description sof their products. I left a message for the company employee who is making these changes on their talk page as I went through a similar issue with the same person a few months ago. Here's their page with my message. If you can explain how what I am doing violates Wikipedia guidelines I'd appreciate it, as my intentions are quite the opposite, I am a bit of a newbie to editing Wikipedia however.... Thanks 1canuck2 00:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have given up working with Wikipedia because of Stalkers such as 1Canuck2 who spend their time removing us without removing other commercial links. I assume they are a competitor with an axe to grind. Good luck. I hope to stay out of these edit wars, as I do have a job. Tmcsheery 02:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

rm

Kriging
Hello!

I've originally visited the kriging page several months ago, looking for useful information (Specifically, I wanted to implement kriging in a Fortran program to interpolate unordered elevation data). The page struck me as being chaotic and going off at a tangent; little specific information on the kriging technique was provided, but there was a lot of vituperative wrangling against geostatistics.

I complained on the talk page and waited a long time for the article to improve. I revisited the article periodically, read the talk page and related user talk pages closely (JanWMerks and Merksmatrix in particular), and came to the conclusion that the reason the article is so wretched is because it is under continuous attack by a father-and-son team of cranks, who disrupt any constructive work with their own unsubstantiated agenda.

In order to give bona-fide editors like you more breathing space, I recommend that this matter be given due process under Dispute resolution. Specifically, I propose that a request for help be filed under AMA Requests for Assistance, as a first step. Perhaps the Advocate will be able to guide us in the steps that need to be taken to stop the disruptive behavior. My ultimate goal is Article probation. I am fed up with the cranks. Aren't you?

Please let me know what you think at my talk page. I sent this message to Hike395, Michael Hardy, Vsmith, SCmurky, Antro5, Nvj and Berland, as these names appear a number of times in the discussions. Freederick 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Source of the San Joaquin River
Check out my comments on the Talk page at San Joaquin River. The search for the source continues! Griot 02:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Baldy Mountain and Granite Peak lists
No, that was manual text editing, no bots involved. When I realized there were multiple peaks in some counties/states/provinces, I just placed a generic name in the hope that someone with more knowledge about them will come along and alter the article names to be more unique. Cheers Plasma east 10:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lake Tahoe
Hi, The Fannette Island subsection had some good information and a photo before you removed it. Can we put that back? Bob uriel8   (talk)  14:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fannette Island
Fannette Island, the gem of Emerald Bay, is the only island in Lake Tahoe, California/Nevada, United States. The island contains what is left of "Tea House", a building built by the owner of Vikingsholm, Mrs. Lora Josephine Knight.Fannette Island, along with Vikingsholm and Emerald Bay, is a part of Emerald Bay State Park. Emerald Bay has also been declared a National Natural Landmark.

Mount Lyell (California)
Hi, You asked on my talk page if I had a picture of the whole massif of Mt. Lyell instead of just the peak. Here are the pictures I have - feel free to swap what's up there with one of the others if you think it would be better. http://flickr.com/photos/maplebed/254482593/ http://flickr.com/photos/maplebed/446465936/ http://flickr.com/photos/maplebed/446466710/ http://flickr.com/photos/maplebed/446475801/

also, summitpost has a great shot to which I can't find license info here: http://www.summitpost.org/image/55893/150494/mount-lyell.html

Maplebed 21:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MtLyellRange.jpg and released it to the public domain. Thanks for offering to crop it!  I'm sure it would benefit from some light work in photoshop too, if you have the time. Maplebed 04:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sierra High Route
I've hiked many parts of the High Route too. I love it. Does the 395 in your name refer to Highway 395? If so, you're a lucky gent, living near 395 and having access to so many great hiking trails. About the external links in the article, I wasn't aware of any limitations on these kinds of links. I've been including them because they give readers an quick way to expore the route vicariously and they help immensely in planning for a trip and choosing a route segment. Hashaw 16:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mountain disambigs
It seems fairly straightforward... WP:MOSDAB says that disambiguation pages are only for linking to encyclopedia articles. Many of the entries on those pages aren't encyclopedia articles, and are external links instead, so it doesn't seem like a disambiguation page at all. Category:Lists of coordinates may be more appropriate. The table and other formatting are unorthodox as well...  I guess subject-specific disambiguation pages tend to be formatted more loosely....  I don't know. Anyway, I didn't mean to single your pages out, I'm just running a script that highlights disambiguation pages that seem formatted in ways that go against WP:MOSDAB, and use of tables is one feature that makes entries go to the top of my list. --Interiot 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation pages listed at WikiProject Mountains generally seem okay. It's just that for Bear Mountain and Diamond Lake...  if there's a place that likely won't ever become an encyclopedia article, then it shouldn't be listed on a disambig page (it could be listed on another page, but WP:MOSDAB says in the first paragraph "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles").  If there's a place that may become an encyclopedia article (see WP:MOSDAB), then it should be listed as an internal link, not an external link.  Maybe the table of data is useful for Wikipedia (sorry for using a somewhat pejorative edit summary when tagging those), but if it is, it should be moved to another page, since the only purpose for a disambiguation page is to assist in fixing accidental links to an ambiguous term.  --Interiot 18:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There do seem to be a number of disambiguation pages that use tables, so I brought up the question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). --Interiot 09:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cinder cone
Thanks for making this into a real article, and moving the list of "Cinder Cone"s to a separate article.

I was just thinking about doing something similar yesterday, but moved on to other things instead. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 06:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

landform
I do not know where it is at, but there is also a WP convention that categories about instances of objects are kept plural (e.g. Category:Landforms) while categories on the study of the object are kept singular (e.g., Category:Landform). This is what I am trying to follow here. Any alternative suggestions in this case to distinguish between the instances and the types? Hmains 23:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought something was wrong with my analysis. How about now (as a starting point)? Thanks Hmains 01:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)