User talk:Hike395/Archive 8

Citations within an article
I've been trying to follow the procedure followed within many of our meteorology and tropical cyclone articles. After re-reading the Manual of style, it appears several variations are possible, but that it needs to remain consistent within that article. If a certain type of citation is needed for an article to become GA or FA class, why not do it early on in an article's life cycle to save a lot of work later in the article's life? I can tell you that a lack on inline citations will generally keep me from updating an article because of all the extra work it would entail to upgrade its class. Thegreatdr 03:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Longmire, Paradise and Sunrise
Hi Hike395, I would value your input in a discussion about merging some articles into Mount Rainier National Park. See: Talk:Mount Rainier National Park. Thanks Patleahy 20:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Geology of the Lassen volcanic area
I was wondering if you could take a look and comment. :) --mav 14:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Coor dms mountain
Template:Coor dms mountain 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. — Andy Mabbett 22:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for supporting speedy deletion. Andy Mabbett 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy tag
Image:Schematic long valley caldera.gif was tagged for deletion because there was no source information. Sure, there's a copyright tag saying it's UGSG, but all images on Wikipedia need to explicitly say where they came from.

I have added the information to the image page and removed the deletion tag. If you find any images without source, please could you do the same to avoid them being tagged for deletion. I could not find the original image on Commons, so I have tagged it as a move candidate. If you know where it is on commons, please can you either tag the wikipedia copy, or let me know and I'll do it. - Papa November 1 07:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's all OK now. When I tagged the image yesterday, there was no source specified at all.  I found the source and added it to the image a few minutes ago - that was the piped link you just unpiped!  Either way, it's fine! - Papa November 1 07:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mount Shuksan picture
Thanks! I was really surprised when I searched for the article and a similar picture wasn't already there! I always heard it was the most photographed mountain. Hmph. -- Siradia 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mount Baring
Yes, feel free to upload any flickr pic I have. Sometimes I browse through them looking for ones of possible use on wikipedia, but I have trouble keeping track of all the photos! So yea, go for it! Pfly 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going to offer to do it myself, but as I wrote the above comment there was a minor baby-crisis so I cut it short. But reading your reply just now, I have some time, so I uploaded the photo and added to the Mount Baring page (oop, just realized I called it "Baring Mountain" in the caption). I'll see if I have any other flickr photos that could be useful for mountains and whatnot. That Baring photo is all full of glare from the sun, which was in exactly the wrong place for a good photo. I tried to make the glare "artistic", but there wasn't a lot to work with. I suspect the view of Baring from Barclay Lake would be quite stunning in the early morning or perhaps near sunset. Anyway, you wrote about the "Flickr upload bot" is broken right and how it uploads with correct provenance. Is the Flickr upload bot the Commons upload tool you get when choosing "image from Flickr"? (I haven't used it before, being a little shy about asking people, esp if their photo is copyrighted and I'd have to ask them to change that...) Anyway, all good I hope. I even used the Commons geocode "location" template for the first time. Fun fun.. Pfly 19:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks
I thank you very much. I appreciate this award. Hmains 03:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute
Hike, since you have a good relationship with Hmains, can you help settle a disagreement we are having? Please see the bottom of Talk:Natural history. Thank you. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, I support the compromise offer you initiated as it represents the easiest solution to the problem. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Twin Sisters Mountain
Wow, fast on the draw adding that photo, less than one minute after page creation! Pfly 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (Are the Twin Sisters the two bumps to the left of Baker as seen from Seattle?)
 * I'm not sure, ..maybe. They seem to be the highest peaks west of Baker, except Black Buttes and Seward Peak, which appear to be subpeaks of Baker. I had just expanded Nooksack River and since the Middle and South forks kinda go around Twin Sisters (and I had time to kill) I figured I'd make the page. But as I did I realized it's one of those cases where the "mountain" has multiple summits, but is not really a whole "range". I figured North Twin and South Twin probably don't warrant their own pages, so might as well put them both on one page. Not sure how well worded the page is-- time to kill rapidly running out. Pfly 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * wrt geology stuff on Mount Shuksan and Twin Sisters -- I was just going off info from the book "Geology of the Pacific Northwest". But I imagine the USGS is a better source. Personally I'm almost completely ignorant of geologic stuff like this. Pfly 06:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Waterfall Infobox
Has there been an official decision about the waterfall infobox vs. template? I noticed you'd already changed a couple of North Carolina waterfalls. 5minutes 01:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, but you may have jumped the gun. I just hadn't seen too many others say anything about it. The WF Project members are occasionally pretty slow to respond to anything. 5minutes 09:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

External link on Belmont Shore article
Can you not remove the link to Belmont Shore Now from the Belmont Shore page? It is not spam, but it is a resource for users! Just like the business association! --- Thopunk —The preceding  signed but undated.

ya, definitely not a spam link. it is a community website... similar to Yelp, where people can rate and review businesses in the area. there does happen to be forums, but that is not the main purpose of the website.. the ratings and reviews are. there is also a real estate section. i made the site because the current "business association" website (which for some reason is not being counted as spam), is terrible and unmodern. this town is hip and they need a hip website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thopunk (talk • contribs).

check out the links on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Heights%2C_Long_Beach%2C_California

same thing. you should just let them all be lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thopunk (talk • contribs) 05:37, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Wikiclimb?
Based upon your username, I assume you live near HWY 395. In case you live in the vicinity of HWY 2, let me invite you to join a party of Wikipedians that's forming to climb a little 3rd-class peak some time this fall. RSVP ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Higher res version of your Carbon Glacier pic uploaded to Commons
I just said on my talk page that I don't mind at all, PatLeahy (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Just like to say thanks for filling in the document at Infobox Mountain with the definition of parent peak. I couldn't figure out how to do it. I'm adding it to British peaks at the moment (which are the only ones I'm sure about.)

Cheers - Mark J 09:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Geobox 2
Hello, this message is sent to you because you've shown some interest in the Geobox templates in past. There is now a new version (aka Geobox 2) which supersedes all older Geoboxes (aka Geobox 1). The major difference is there are no feature specific templates (Settlement, River, Mountain range etc.) but just one master template which can handle all type of data. There are a couple of new features and many new fields making the template much more versatile so now it can be used for virtually any geography related feature without the need to create a specific template.

The switch to Geoboxes 2.0 is highly recommended as the new template has a much more effective code, which renders faster than the old one (with much smaller pre-expand size, it can be one third to one fourth of the pre-expand size of Geoboxes 1). To convert aa page from Geobox 1 to Geobox 2, there are two ways:
 * By changing the template header: {{Geobox Settlement  becomes  {{Geobox|Settlement  Although some field names have been changed in order to be unified, the old names are accepted too. For any settlement Geobox use  {{Geobox|Settlement  and set the settlement type (city, borough, town, village) in category field. Calling e.g.  {{Geobox|City  will work as well but it's not the recommended way (from technical reasons).
 * By a semi-automated tool which reorders the field names in the Geobox 2 style and also renames the few changed field names.

There are several unresolved issues at the Geobox talk page, please add your comments and of course any other ideas you might come with as well as bug reports. – Caroig (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

List of peaks named Bear Mountain
Hi Hike395. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but I don't see the notability in having a List of peaks named Bear Mountain. Could you add some citations or anything that proves the encyclopedic value of this list? The can of worms is that there may be dozens more of these lists. Could you enlighten me as to the relevance herein? Thanks. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡ ) 20:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No way, I don't touch agreed-upon conventions. I was just hoping this wasn't a bad precedent that could be avoided. Happy editing. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡ ) 02:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Geolinks
Hi, I see you weighed in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. I just noticed the change yesterday when I came up with several empty external links sections in articles I looked at. It seems we're in agreement that having the links at the bottom is a good thing. I'm not an expert on coordinates like those who are proposing the changes, but I agree with you that having the minimalist links is a service to our readers. Is there someplace we can take this to a larger venue? I dread having to clean up all this sections if this change sticks, and it seems only a few people are aware that this is happening. I'd hate to see this great tool go away. Katr67 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was going through removing "a few" empty section headers today and realized that there are probably hundreds for Oregon alone. I have a feeling they won't budge on this, and I was ready to just grudgingly accept it (and unfortunately not use the tl anymore). But your suggestions of where to bring it up are good. I mentioned it at WikiProject Oregon because I know a lot of us use Geolinks. You might mention it at the mountains project too, though I know you have mountain templates with coords in them also. The casual reader may not know that s/he can click on the coordinates and find maps. I don't see why having a few in external links is such a bad thing. And it saves a click. Katr67 03:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now what?
How do we get the geo project folks to move on this? Is an RFC the next step? It's not quite an "incident" yet. Katr67 16:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Mount Pinatubo/new material
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mount Pinatubo/new material, 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. Whpq 20:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, I shouldn't have put the temp page in the Main space, moved to talk, requested speedy deletion. hike395 01:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Mount Pinatubo/new material
Sorry I deleted Talk:Mount Pinatubo/new material by mistake, I've restored it. Resurgent insurgent 02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Modern Sierra Origins, clarity
The Sierra didn't become a mountain range until about 4-5 million years ago. Components such as the batholith at its core, and various associated volcanic mountains pre-dated the Sierra, but the range itself is very young. I thought the language referring to Sierra origins in the Jurassic was very unclear on this distinction. No Sierras in the Jurassic, but certainly a batholith was forming. (see discussion w/article) Tmangray 23:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin
Hi. I just wondered if you'd consider letting me nominate you for adminship, as you seem experienced enough. Thanks. Epbr123 10:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LOTD
Congratulations!!! List of U.S. states by elevation has been selected to be a February WP:LOTD. If you have any particular date preferences please contact me by January 24th. Note that since it finished in the top six will appear twice as a WP:LOTD during the month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

deja vu
This is an old one for you lol, but please could you add sections to the article Ecology of California? I just go random articles and just make stylistic suggestions if I know nothing about the subject. It would take me much longer than you lol hope you don't think this is too cheeky.  Merkinsmum  23:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hirofumi Nohara
An editor has nominated Hirofumi Nohara, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NGS elevations
Sorry if I changed elevations derived from NGS data. I did not intend to do that. If you can remember which articles are involved I do the leg work and get them changed back. I only became momentarily disenchanted with their data just before I wrote the comment on project told page I went back and worked on Mount Jefferson (Oregon) some more. I would be interested in your opinion. I really don't like the appearance of the coordinates in the infobox. --DRoll (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tundra
I saw your request at RFPP regarding Tundra and the vandalism issues. I wholeheartedly agree, and have placed the article under indefinite semi-protection. Thanks for the report, and, as always, happy editing! :) Jmlk  1  7  05:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dumb Question
I just saw your picture and it got me wondering. How can it be that high levels of CO2 can kill trees? I thought trees would benefit from high levels of CO2. The Mammoth Mountain and Lake Nyos article prove beyond doubt that high levels of CO2 kill plantlife... but why? --One Salient Oversight (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah probably right. While researching after giving you this message I read that the sugar which trees create must be burnt up for energy... and that is essentially an aerobic process that requires oxygen. Cheers! --One Salient Oversight (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of White Mountains (Middle-earth)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article White Mountains (Middle-earth), 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. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)