User talk:Spireguy/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!.-- Dakota ~   °  03:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Baltoro Glacier/Concordia
Waqas---regarding the Baltoro Glacier article, here is what I wrote on that Talk page: I notice that the reference to the "Concordia Region" has been put back in. To my knowledge, Concordia only refers to the the point of confluence of the Baltoro and Godwin Austen Glaciers. (Sources: multiple maps of the region, climbing literature such as American Alpine Journal.) It is not the name of a region. That's why I changed the reference in the first place, and why I changed the Concordia, Pakistan article as well. So I would suggest reverting back to the version which describes Concordia just as the confluence, not a region. If there are definitive sources to the contrary, please comment; otherwise I'll revert or re-edit this eventually. I don't want to step on any toes, but I do want it to be correct. -- Spireguy 14:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing it out, I did not know it was the name of the confluence. I've been searching for material to expand the articles of mountains, valleys and glaciers in the Northern Areas, and although I've been very careful about what I write, I still made a mistake, I thought "Concordia" could be referred to as a "region". (I now see in the revision history that you mentioned it on 18 April, I didn't read it until you referred me to the issue). Please rephrase the sentence on top so that it mentions Concordia at the top. Waqas.usman 16:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fourteeners--spam revert
Replied on my talk page -- Mwanner | Talk 21:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblock me!
Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Johntex for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Vandalism" Your IP address is 207.225.62.126.
 * Hello Spireguy, I just received your e-mail and I am about to review the circumstances related to your block. Please wait a bit. Johntex\talk 19:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like you share an IP address with one or more vandals. I have removed the block - which was set to expire soon anyways.  I don't know of any fool-proof way to prevent this from happening in the future.  To my knowledge, you did the best thing you could do by posting the unblock template here, and for including your IP.  That made the investigation very easy for me.  Sorry about the problem - happy editing! Johntex\talk 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it won't happen often. Looking at the talk page for your IP address, there are some prior warnings, but not a huge set of them compared to some anonymous IP's.  It could be much worse.  Also, administrators know about the general issue relating to shared IP's, so we tend to keep IP blocks down to short time increments if possible - long enough for the vandal to get bored and leave the computer.  If problems do persist, we could add a note there listing the contributing editors who use that IP address.  Personally, even though some people think it is some sort of a sacred issue that we have to allow anonymous IP's to edit, I am in favor of a 100% log-in policy.  It is just not that hard to create a username.  There is a policy discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Restrictions on Anonymous Editing from Shared IPs. Johntex\talk 20:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Spireguy!
Is that David Metzger by any chance? Spireguy tag sounds familiar; this is Mike C formerly of bivouac.com; saw your comment about prominence in the Boundary Ranges and figured it must/might be one of youse guys.Skookum1 21:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Metzger->Metzler. Sorry.  It's been a while, and I've got permanently fuzzy grey cells.  Gave up working with bivouac when RobinT started revamping the organizational system underneath me without telling me, then expecting me to catch up and do even more work (prominence, infrastructre, edits, various ongoing policy bumpf docs that no one pays attention to) and then finally had the last straw when he started wantonly throwing around made-up names on the thousands of unnamed peaks I'd plotted; what value I had seen in the project got thrown out with the bathwater, as I'd spent 3-4 years working day and night only to be told my opinions didn't matter and the site administrator was boss; so I quit.   His reorganization of the prominence region system I established - a reorganization done not to make things more scientific, but to justify the inadequacies of his database's many calculatory issues, and his own seat-of-the-pants definitions of what was and was not important in prominence (mind you, I was the one doing all the actual plotting, calculating and studying....); Wiki of course is consensual which is how I wound up here; and I'd started out as a historical geographer at Bivouac in the first place......Skookum1 22:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Picture/name for Passu Sar
Waqas--thanks for creating the Passu Sar page and finding the nice picture. However, as I noted at Talk:Passu Sar, it's really a picture of the nearby peak Shispare (with Ultar Sar in the foreground). I'd like to move it to the Shispare page (which needs a picture anyway) and recaption it, but if I do that I would also like to tell the originator of the picture that I have done that. I thought you might prefer to tell him, since you contacted him already. Or I can do it, it's no problem---I just didn't want to step on any toes. Let me know.

Also, most references I have for the peak use only one "s", i.e. "Pasu Sar". These references are various reasonably authoritative maps, plus climbing literature such as the American Alpine Journal. If you have a better source that gives "Passu", let me know; otherwise it might be best to switch it back to "Pasu". -- Spireguy 21:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Spireguy, this message was burried under the load of other messages and went unnoticed until today. Thank you for the correction. Have you notified the originator of the picture?
 * As for the spellings Pasu vs Passu, I have always seen it spelled as Passu by the locals (although I don't claim that most locals use this version of the spellings, because I didn't research it). If you compare Google search results, Google Search Pasu gives no relavent result in top 9, and the 10th is also in some other language, which mentions "Khunjerab Pass" as "Khunjerev Pasu", whereas Google Search Passu gives several relavent results on top. Waqas.usman 22:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Waqas---thanks for moving the picture. I added a more explicit caption. -- Spireguy 16:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the caption! I'm adding the pic to Ultar page as well (because it doesn't have a pic yet). Waqas.usman 06:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ladyfinger Peak
Thank you for expanding the article and adding the pic. I did not know that the peak is the same as Bublimotin or Bublimuting. Is the Hunza peak same as the Ultar peak? A suggestion about adding images, whenever you add a pic, please put it under some related category so that others can find it and use it. Sometimes it's hard to find a related category, but you should put it in at least some category that might even be undirectly related. (I've put the image under Mountains of Pakistan and Karakoram). Waqas.usman 12:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, about "disputed" location, since the articles on the Indian-controlled Kashmir mention their location as "India" rather than "Disputed: India/Pakistan", I think it's fair to mention these mountains as part of "Pakistan" rather than "Disputed: Pakistan/India". Waqas.usman 12:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the category tip. Hunza Peak is a rather minor peak on the SW ridge of the Bojohagur Duanasir/Ultar massif, definitely not the same as Ultar itself. Regarding location, I haven't been sure when to mention the disputed status and when not to. Lately I've only been putting it in for peaks very near the line of control. It would be nice to have a consistent way to do this that recognizes the de facto situation but also mentions the dispute, since that would be (I think) the most NPOV way to do it. -- Spireguy 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the Indian users outnumber Pakistani users, you'll hardly find a mention of "disputed" on articles related to India-controlled Kashmir, and you'll find it mentioned on several articles related to Pakistani Kashmir and Northern Areas, especially on the important peaks etc. When I tried to add a conspicuous "disputed" note to Srinagar etc, my changes were soon reverted back. For NPOV, I'd say that "dispute" shouldn't be conspicuously mentioned on any important articles of Pakistani-administered Kashmir and Northern Areas. Otherwise, if someone feels it must be mentioned, then it must be mentioned on the Indian Kashmir articles as well, in the same way, in an NPOV tone (the articles created by Indians have a strong Indian bias, but Indian users far outnumber Pakistani users). Waqas.usman 15:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point, that it is frustrating to have the Indian articles not mention the dispute and the Pakistan articles mention it, since that seems to contribute to an overall POV. Ideally there should be a consensus on a consistent description of the whole issue, but I guess that's unlikely to happen. It's not a big deal to me. -- Spireguy 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So, the NPOV would be not to mention the dispute on Pakistani pages :) Waqas.usman 21:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please review these pages
I've recently created these new pages (mainly from other wiki pages, your texts), please review them for any mistakes, and expand them if you have more info:
 * Bojahagur Duanasir II
 * Hunza Peak

Waqas.usman 21:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved your BJ II page to Bojohaghur Duanasir since BJ II is actually another name for Ultar. (The I and II got switched, presumably because an earlier survey mistakenly thought BJ I was higher.) See Talk:Bojahagur Duanasir II and Talk:Bojohaghur Duanasir.

Didn't get a chance to look at Hunza Peak yet, but I will. -- Spireguy 22:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction. Waqas.usman 23:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you identify these peaks?
Please take a look at these unidentified peaks at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_Karakoram_peaks. If you recognize any of these, please update their description and category and notify me. Thanks! Waqas.usman 23:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was able to identify some of the peaks, take a look. I might be able to figure out some of the remaining. -- Spireguy 04:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I had been busy for the last few days and didn't wiki much. I'll take a look at them. I've sent a link to Atif Gul (the photographer, who's a personal friend of mine, I actually took a lot of photos from him in bulk, without any description) but he's been busy as well these days. Waqas.usman 21:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Bojohagur Duanasir = Hunza Peak?
Although I know little French, it's pretty obvious from the title what the guy says: Bojohagur Duanasir (Peak 34/Hunza Peak) -7329m Bojohagur Daunasir

I think many pages refer to Hunza Peak as the 6270m peak, not 7329m, so I guess the guy is wrong. Waqas.usman 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't say definitively that no one refers to Bojohagur Duanasir as Hunza Peak, but the Jerzy Wala map (which is quite detailed and carefully made) clearly labels only the 6270m as Hunza Peak. The picture on the Blank on the Map site is of Bublimotin and Hunza Peak only, not of Bojo itself. That site is pretty good in general, and has nice pictures, but I have not found it to be 100% accurate. -- Spireguy 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the above and for fixing the table, I was going too and fro between Districts of Northern Areas and the Google Earth detailed placemarks of Northern Pakistan that I finally uploaded a little while ago. Waqas.usman 06:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mountains
I appreciate your additions to the mountain articles, especially those in Glacier National Park (US). Many people I have met don't seem to understand that the height of a mountain may appear much higher than it really is if the lay of the surrounding land is lower in altitude...such is the condition in Glacier, where the tallest peaks are 4 thousand feet lower than in Colorado....but you already know that of course. Keep up the good work.--MONGO 04:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox: remember the photo!
Hi, Spireguy. Saw your edit at Mount Stuart --- remember that mountain infoboxes can have photos and captions: please preserve them when you use the new template. Thanks! -- hike395 12:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject tags
Sure—and I hope you don't mind my doing the same for Template:Mountain on new mountain articles I make. (Well, there's only been one so far, but there could be more)

Incidentally, sorry about spamming the living hell out of your watchlist and/or recent-changes list with the tagging. Trust me, it wasn't any more fun making those entries than it is to have to plow through them. —Zero Gravitas 04:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Chinook Jargon placenames
Hi...not that you'd know when a mountain/pass name is Chinook or not, but I'm hoping you can help me remember the name of a couple of minor peaks in the North Cascades area; in normal Chinook they'd be "ikt"/"ixt" and "mokst"/"moxt" but I can't find them under those names; should be something similar; they mean "one" and "two". I remember this being the subject of discussion somewhere, either in emails or in the prominence list, but I have no idea what to search under. Someone in WA was familiar with them....in the long run my Chinook toponymy is only just started, but it's already pretty huge; it's the obscure words, and odd/eccentric spellings and adaptations that are going to be hard to pin down.Skookum1 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Mox Peaks
Found it! Er, found one of 'em. I remember from someone's correspondence (in the prominence list) that there's a "one" peak ("Mox" being "two") and while there's two spires, the gist of the correspondence was that something around there was the "one", perhaps the lower of the two; or the name did referr to the double spire; but I don't know the history/provenance of North Cascades names. Thoughts?Skookum1 02:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought you might be thinking of Mox Peaks. Beckey calls them the "Twin Spires"; he says a Boundary Survey party called them the Sawtooth Mountains, and says: "Mountaineers in the 1930s and 1940s applied the name Twin Spires, but the Forest Service applied the name Mox Peaks to their subsequent maps. The whimsy of this appellation is not clear to those who know the area." I am really not sure what he means by that last sentence. It seems reasonable to me that the Forest Service thought that a Chinook version of "Twin", or "Two", would be a good name. Don't know if there was an original indigenous name of any kind, "Mox" or otherwise.
 * As to "ixt", is that related to the "ish" ending of river names like "Skykomish"? Otherwise it doesn't ring a bell.
 * see below about Skokomish (next section). Up our way the '-mish' ending is "wind", as at Squamish (which is only an approximation of the unpronounceable tangle that is their name for themselves, and whatever else they they use to call their language).  Ixt or iht means "one", or alone (esp as kopet ixt - kopet also meaning "stop" or possibly something like "until now"), sometimes seen on the end of terms like klimminawhit ("liar", from "smooth one").
 * BTW Mox Peak East is a good one by spire measure; it has a dramatic 1500 foot east wall. -- Spireguy 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is relevant---I just added it to the North Cascades page: Beckey notes that "Many names were derived from Chinook jargon, mostly applied by the Forest Service from 1910 to 1940; this dialect is incongruous here since it was a coastal Indian trade language." (Beckey 1996:141) That probably explains his cryptic comment about Mox, i.e. that it was the wrong language to use for a peak remote from the coast. -- Spireguy 03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * and sorry, one last bit: what I meant here was that Beckey thought that the CJ was only a coastal trade language, and that it was also only used as a trade language; it was much more than that, as my comments about Forest Service guys probably knowing it (as anyone in the backwoods anywhere between Spokane and Prince Rupert did in those days....)Skookum1 01:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Beckey: Sorry, not familiar with that source/cite. Jargon was nonetheless widespread, and also perfectly legitimate for use by non-natives and in non-native contexts of territory; Beckey sounds to be citing a linguistics prejudice about where a language "belongs", and who it "belongs" to. White people learned and used the Jargon, for whatever sometimes trival or, in the native context, superfluous reasons. My own view is that white usage is as legitimate as non-native usage; it was a shared language, and if the Forest Service guys were "into it", that's their business. And also part of the Common Jargon Heritage, and not secondary to it as nativist chinookologists would have it.Skookum1 05:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry---Fred Beckey, author of the three volumes of the Cascade Alpine Guide, the invaluable and definitive source for climbing (and a lot of other) info on the Cascades. Well worth a look; see North Cascades for a more detailed cite.
 * Sounds something like Farley, who's the "definitive" for southern BC; along with John Baldwin's book on Ski-Touring the Coast Mountains (can't remember if that's the title or not...). Farley was the main source for much of bivouac.com before I got busy there; the area definitions are a mix of range hierarchies and prominence hierarchies - restructured by Robin into "cells", which I don't find are as revealing as to the shape of the country's geography - the shape of the country - as are maps showing the physical boundaries of the prominence "islands"; although in my system, unlike peaklist.org's maps, which are good on a regional basis, I went down to units as small as a New England State, or at least WV, TN etc in regions farther north.  So Farley's area names, which were to me (ironically enough, given the mountaineering nature of the book) were from a lowland, access-based perspective.  The one that really irked me of Farley's areas was "Nahatlatch-Stein", namely pretty well the Lillooet Ranges other than those access from the Lillooet River (the Seton Portage-Shalalth area is rarely used for access; in fact I think only natives have gone up by that route, although hard to say about the old days).  Thing is the name Nahatlatch-Stein itself doesn't address the identity of the region, native-cultural or even since-Contact-cultural.  Long digression possible here, but likewise with Farley's name Bivouac climbers were adamant in using the name "the Chehalis" for the Douglas Ranges, and weren't interested in the historical titles so much as practicality of access from the city.  Likewise the South Chilcotin name, which I'll spare you a rant on, but which has gotten used to the point where the Bridge River Country, where the park is largely located and most easily accessed by, has come to be thought of by outdoors-Lower Mainlanders as being in the Chilcotin - which it's NOT (other than its northern and western extremities).  And so on; in terms of the "Nahatlatch-Stein", the Stein is well-known because of the park campaign (hithertowhich it had been completely unknown, which is why it was still wild...and the Nahatlatch, which has a string of lakes and campgrounds which have grown semi-popular since the timber butchery of the area ended (for the most part) and the roads because safe/open to drive (never safe if it's a radio-controlled road in an active extraction area).  But Farley had Lillooet in the "Nahatlatch Stein", and the southern Cayoosh; the Cayoosh being a region including the basin of Duffey Lake-Cayoosh Creek as well as the Cayoosh Range proper.  But because the Joffre-Matier area is so well-known, the Farley system cuts it off as a separate region from the adjoining Cayoosh Range, and isolates it also from the general definition of the Stein basin; sigh.  Obviously near and dear to me but largely irrelevant in what people decide to use; the "South Chilcotin" problem is compounded by one of the guide-outfitting parties in the Bridge River Valley using the name Chilcotin Holidays; and their site doesn't really mention any of them other tourism/recreation areas, not even Gold Bridge, Gun Lake, and Bralorne (which along with the Tyax-Gun Creek area where Chilcotin Holidays and the Tyax Lodge are, constitute the life and history of the Bridge River Country (which includes the Bendor, Shulaps, Yalakom/Camelsfoot, Seton-Shalalth, and touches on D'Arcy-Anderson Lake at McGillivray Pass (D'Arcy's not quite in the Bridge River-Lillooet Country, though definitely in the "old Lillooet Country", which included Douglas-Pemberton-D'Arcy (though Douglas is technically outside it...but part of it historically culturally...as is Lytton at the other end, and Clinton and Cache Creek-Ashcroft a bit also).  The ties are old in that country, as through the Nlaka'pamux/Thompson territory from Boston Bar through Lytton to Spences Bridge, and that's the "Couteau Country" in the old days (also seen Kootomin on old maps, but that's still not a native name, but a French-native hybrid).  Not so named because of its serrated landscape, but because of the war-craft of the Thompsons, which involved decapitation (the Chilcotins, on the other hand, were known for devouring hearts...); the Couteau or Knife Indians, known in old documents also as the Hakamaugh, a rough adaptation of Nlaka'pamux (if you knew how to pronounce Nlaka'pamux, that is).

So anyway....sigh...that's the direction I come at with attitudes as to what's an appropriate name or not; I'd prefer the opinion of the guys in the Forest Service, who were out on the land and had an interest in its history, than it what makes sense to a sense of what's "appropriate" as defined by who had the right to use such a word; I have far more problems with new names, and climber's names, than I do with a historical name that has its own reasons; so much history - the times past - is judged nowadays through a modernist perspective; it should not be; it is as it was. One local in Lillooet, who's someone else pissed at bivouac's (and other sites/guides) is even more pissed about Robins' nameing/renaming local summits than I am (he's got roots in the country from 1862 and beyond, rare in BC...) and says unnamed peaks should be left that way. Often enough, the natives who lived here for thousands of years didn't name summits; but places of importance instead; the concept of naming peaks is as much a foreign construct as is the grid-survey system and land alienation; but because Bivouac has (or had, as Robin may have truncated data, as he does too often...) more summmits mapped (thanks to me, to the tune of 25,000 peaks, four times that many including subpeaks), Robin has started throwing names all over the map, and deciding when something named a ridge needs another range, even if the summit is named a ridge, he's decided otherwise.....Skookum1 01:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to Farley/Becker: so while climbing guides can be referred to, they're no more contextual than anything else; I'd rather go with formal geographers (as I've done with the range defintions in the various Category:Mountain ranges of British Columbia I've stubbed and (some) mapped for Wikipedia; S. Holland's Landforms of British Columbia, 1976 BC Govt) or local lore (often in local, un-academic "kitchen histories") on what's where and so forth; geologists have a different spin from geographers, and ecological zones don't always match other kinds of zones (whichever, depending); and so on. There's a lot that could be in all these articles ultimately; the Cascades is a difficult one because it spans a large, diverse region, and there's only some commonalities, really, relative to any one chunk of the Cascades by itself; I think the North Cascades-Canadian Cascades article is, for example, such an area; and different from Chelan-Ellensburg-Yakima obviously, vs the Columbia and the Rainier-Adams-St Helens region; I wouldn't know where to begin with Oregon; the idea is that ultimately these pages could be a synthesis of geographic, geological, cultural, zoological/botanical and folklore/climbing history and more; in my view nearly anything in certain types of articles is only a stub; the additive nature of the environment, re information relevant to a subject - nearly any subject, seems bound to lead towards that over time...as a historical document, it's becoming the historical document; and completely unprecedented as a collective, consensual record of human knowledge and experience and what-have-you....including obscurities like mountain names and backcountry history....Skookum1


 * I don't think Beckey was claiming that non-native use of a Chinook word is always inappropriate, but rather that they removed an existing name ("Twin Spires") in favor of a name that probably couldn't have been the original local name of the peak (if it had one). -- Spireguy 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there's likely to have been a Lushootseed or Skokomish one, or Skagit if that's where the Twin Spires/Mox Peaks are; and chances are a striking formation like that would have a name in nearby towns where it could be seen from, or thereabouts (can't see Bivouac's Javamaps for to see what towns are nearby; hard to bother with on Topozone). I see what you mean, though - if Twin Spires is more "there" historically, then of course it should be there; my Chinook list of anything that's gazetted, though; including artificially-conferred things like Street names and the occasional business (the Hiyu Hee-Hee Tavern on the Kitsap: "lotsa fun", "lotsa giggles").

Skokomish
About Skokomish see Skokomish (tribe); one interpretation has it that it's Twana or Lushootseed, the other than it's a local Chinook Jargon hybrid of skookum, which is of course CJ, and -mish, which is the Puget Sound Salishan ending for "people" (farther north it tends to be mxw and mcw around Vancouver and inland (Halkomelem, Squamish, Straits), and in Hunquminum (the VI version of Halkomelem). Anyway, I'd never come across the skookum-mish etymology for that before, and thought it was a hybrid/created word from the Skykomish and Snoqualmie Rivers, which when they merge are the Snohomish; thought it had something to do with that.  Tribal tradition says otherwise - that skookum meaning "strong", was definitely intended; even if it's a pun on the Twana meaning ("fresh water") it still works in terms of local argot; and tradition blends in a lot of elements, or can, so it works both ways, as story and as origin.Skookum1 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ISBNs again
Hi--Exactly what is wrong with the ISBN 0-89886-238-8, which is the corrected entry I put on the Masherbrum page, which matches the LOC and Amazon, and which checks out (I cut and pasted into an auto-ISBN checker)? Thanks, Spireguy 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your correction was correct, thanks for fixing it.  Timing error on my part. Rich Farmbrough 22:28 25  August 2006 (GMT).
 * P.S. Congratulations on the first correct "challenge"! Rich Farmbrough 22:30 25 August 2006 (GMT).
 * And thanks for fixing those other ISBNs. Rich Farmbrough 22:31 25 August 2006 (GMT).

K2
I have got into an edit war with a Pakistani POV pusher which I am liable to lose to lose uder WP:3RR. Surely K2 is no more in Pakistan than it is in China. Please can you help. Thanks. Viewfinder 09:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have found the 1963 border agreement between Pakistan and China however its language is not that much clear. Obviously according to it peak could belongs to one country as it define the border. You can find the agreement between Pakistan and China on here  ., here and and here. Can you decode its language for me? I cannot spend more energy on it because I really have to work/study (non-wikipedia stuff). While trying to decode it please do not use Indian sites and writers because they are not neutral in this case. Thanking you in anticipation. --- ابراهيم 15:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot get any of the above links to work. Some of them cause my browser (IE) to crash. Viewfinder 20:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The second and third links worked for me. The most relevant section is point (5) on page 4 of the second link, which says that the border passes "over the summit of the Chogri Peak (K2)." Nowhere is there any mention of a special provision for K2 being entirely or mainly controlled by Pakistan; it simply says that the border follows the main water divide, right over the summit, as one would expect. (The third link is basically the same info as the second; I assume that the first is as well.) This fits in with the climbing-oriented references I mentioned on Talk:K2, which make clear that the northern route to the summit of K2 is entirely in China and is administered by China. I'll copy most of this over to Talk:K2 as well. -- Spireguy 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Himalaya annotated image
Hi Spireguy,

I noticed your comments regarding the annotated Himalaya image on Commons and uploaded a new version. Could you tell me if there are any other problems? One thing I am not quite sure about is Nuptse. Should it be more to the left?

I also tried to make the south col routed dotted to show that it is behind the ridge, but that did not look too good either. If you want I can email you the photoshop file, if you want to improve the image yourself. Just let me know. Janderk 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The image looks good now. I couldn't do the Photoshopping, and I don't think that you'd be able to put in the route where it is hidden, so I think what is on there now is good. About Nuptse, it has many summits of similar height; I think the main summit might be a tiny bit to the left of what you have now, but not enough that it is worth changing, imo. You arrow certainly points to some summit of Nuptse. -- Spireguy 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I made another small change and moved the Nuptse location slightly more to the left to try to point at Nuptse I. Janderk 22:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, looking at the Washburn map I see that Nuptse I is in the middle of the long high ridge, so your arrow is quite good now. Thanks again. -- Spireguy 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Alaska and Brooks Range Traverses
Spireguy, wondering what your opinion is regarding adding historically documented information on traverses of mountain ranges. My feeling is that this is historical information that others might want to track down and that these pages are good places for that information. But I am a newbie here and want to be considerate of the culture. Romandial 19:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Borealis Peaks? re Luna Peak (British Columbia)
Hi. Just cruising through the Mountains of British Columbia category to try and find a suitably shrinkable peak-pic to use for a stub template for BritishColumbia-mountains-stub, which I'll be creating later today; so far might use Mt. Albert Edward or Mt Garibaldi pics or something from my own collection; has to look good at 35px...anyway, I'm familiar with Luna Pk in Washington so when I saw this one I went "where the hell is that?" and so looked at the text and saw "Borealis Peaks". Hmmm. Thought I knew every range, even every mountaineers' grouping in BC, so went and looked at Bivouac; it's mentioned in Luna Peak's article, but from there a Bivouac search turns up only a photo essay by Drew Brayshaw. Now, Drew is one of these guys that likes to go around the countryside naming things, as if he were God or something; a whole ara of the Bendor Range he went around with his snack boxes and christened summits Gingersnap, Oreo Cookie and such stupidities....then whined and ranted when they weren't kept in the system, as no one else used them (well, might have been Klaus Harng, but....same idea). There are no other references to Borealis Peaks, unless it's in Fairley or Baldwin (?), although I gather you may have used it in peakbagger.com (?); yeah, OK, it's in the area between Bella Coola and the Monarch Icefield. But in my three years of poring over BC Basemap and all of Bivouac's materials I've never even heard Robin or Fred refer to that area that way. Just curious - you got any idea/source? There's no Borealis Peaks article, nor should there be; I'm just concerned with the text in Luna Peak; no layman has ever heard of the Borealis Peaks, that's for sure...Skookum1 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

?Hey; more on this tangent later but pls have a look at the section on my talkpage about the Columbia River; notes on everything but also wondering about the basemap used by prominence.org; it's useful for some things; or is it copyright those guys/yourself? Almost would be a good illustration for Columbia Basin, for instance, or, by combining maps Oregon Country/Columbia District, and nice to put the historical trails mentioned in that other post on......Skookum1 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Southern boundary of North Cascades?
Hi David; chanced by the Cascade Range page to see progress there and noted absence of mention of the North Cascades in the opening, despite the presence of the Canadian Cascades portion of same. Someone, somewhere, I thought it was you, had a definition of the southern boundary; is what's in this article on that sufficient for you? Whoever I'd heard from/corresponded with before was of the opinion it was a certain pass, by the look of things the one south of Glacier Peak, I'd think. Anyway, here's the opening of the Cascade Range article:
 * ''The Cascade Range is a mountainous region famous for its chain of tall volcanoes called the High Cascades that run north-south along the west coast of North America from British Columbia through Washington and Oregon to the Shasta Cascade area of Northern California.

...."famous for its chain of tall volcanoes called the High Cascades and also for the ruggedly glaciated spires of the North Cascades, which span the border with the Canadian province of British Columbia, reaching up the east side of the Fraser Canyon as far north as the confluence of the Thompson River" - or something to that effect is what I'm thinking of amending it with. Wordings? Thoughts? The Coquihalla Range, by the way, is something of an unofficial name as it's not gazetted although it does show up even in older histories; I'll see what I can find....Skookum1 (Talk) 08:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All the pics shown are volcanoes...and don't look much like the Cascades around these parts, that's for sure; hell, that's practically flat country down there, south of Snoqualmie...other than the cones, that is. I'm shopping around for a picture of Mount Slesse, and maybe Hozameen or another typically North Cascades summit (as if there are any "typical"); I'm trying to get Randall's Flying Photos (google that...) to give me permission to use their images in Wikipedia, same as they did for Bivouac.com (who now charge a fee to see them), as they have LOTS of the Canadian Cascades, including really good shots of Hope Mtn/Isolillock, Hozameen, Cathedral Park, Manning Park, and a really nice aerial from the north of Jones Lake and the Four Sisters (Foley through Cheam....), plus northerly aerial views of Baker and Shuksan....hopefully they'll say yes....Skookum1  (Talk) 23:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Samples of Pics of North Cascades
Hi; I'm going to browse Randall and Kat's Flying Photos tonight and pick some images, and also get around to writing them about usage; their older stuff I had to do a lot of colour alteration on, but Kat must be using better filters now as most of these are fine. Thought I'd show you some via external links here:
 * Cheam and the Four Sisters and ?? looking South from over Fraser Valley near Chilliwack (not sure what's in the distance at left - Hozameen? - no too far south, I'm sure, and not as distinctive; whatever's highest over that way (SW by a bit W, whatever the compass boxing is, from Cheam0.  At first I thought this was Shuksan because of the "strike" of the mountain in foreground, but it's actually the Cheam with th rest of the Four Sisters behind it; Foley, the sharp one at the end, is the last; Jones Lake is to their right in the more or less cirque formed by the "Cheam Range" as it's also been called.
 * Classic Canadian view of Mount Baker (this is the angle we're used to seeing it from....]
 * Coquihalla Range between tollbooths and Boston Bar (these have names on Bivouac, odd ones; I'll check: "The Horn" is one that's legal/official); the Coquihalla Highway is at the foot of the face at right, behind the ridge in front of it.
 * Coquihalla Pass, Hwy 5
 * view back down Coquihalla Group/Pass (SW)
 * Town of Ashcroft
 * Town of Savona and Kamloops Lake
 * Thompson River in Walhacin/Semlin area
 * Must be Nicola Lake, or Douglas Lake
 * Over the Coquihalla Range, looking towards Lytton (gives a good idea of the flavour of the high country in the Canadian Cascades beyond the Coquihalla/Manning Park area - more plateau-summits than anything else. Those in the centre-left background are the Clear Range, Lytton Mountain, the last in the Cascade Range, is a flat summit in front of them.  Still very high, but forested.  Brighter haze at centre is Thompson River valley around Ashcroft-Cache Creek.
 * View Southwest from same area towards Mount Baker All but the ridge at right are in the Canadian/North Cascades - the ridge is the last bit of the Lillooet Ranges above Hope, which is down in angle of the misty valley to the ridge's left; can't remmber the names of the summits.

Hope that's not too many. That's just a sample from one of their flights; the next I'm scrolling through is a flight to Chilko and Taseko Lakes via Whistler and the Bridge River Country; wonderful stuff, better than some of their earlier runs.Skookum1 02:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just checking on North Cascades location map
The one on Cascade Range is the one I mean - - is the southern boundary right? I can re-do it; and may re-do it using the NASA images anyway.Skookum1 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The southern boundary should be moved one major drainage to the north (where it currently necks down) to match the definition in the article (US Hwy 2). -- Spireguy 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I made two new maps just now, based on what you've told me, one using the original basemap, the other a NASA image - the NASA image is a bit "stretched" east to west as it was taken from over California; it could perhaps be resampled a bit to un-stretch it, I'm just not sure by how much; but here they are, with the NASA image in two slightly different framings (one a bit further west, showing fogbanks hitting the Strait of Juan de Fuca and verging in on the Olympics, the other avoiding that; all three maps could use key placenames on them, too, but I'm not so good with that kind of thing:


 * South BC-NW USA-relief NorthCascades.png
 * [[Image:Washington.A2001223.1920.250m_NorthCascades800b.jpg|thumb|300px|right]]
 * [[Image:Washington.A2001223.1920.250m_NorthCascades800.jpg|thumb|300px|right]]

Let me know which one you like best and I'll add Seattle, Victoria, Everett, Vancouver and whatever inland WA cities you think would be best (Wenatchee or Ellensburg? Spokane maybe?). I can also make the red line thicker on the NASA images if that would be better....Skookum1 02:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The new southern boundary looks good. I prefer the one on the original basemap; I think it's clearer. However I would suggest reframing that one to include a little more south and a little less north and east. The natural context here, I think, is the rest of the Cascades, and the southern Coast Range. I would suggest labeling Seattle, Vancouver, Everett, Wenatchee, and Mount Rainier. -- Spireguy 03:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Slesse Mountain
You should ask Skookum1 that question, since he told me it's a volcanic plug. Black Tusk 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cascade Range page
I retitled the section to "Peaks of the Cascade Volcanic Belt" from "Peaks of the High Cascades", because once again it had Garibaldi wrongly included in it (if it was "Peaks of the High Cascades"); then added the appropriate intro for the new title, and broke the non-Cascade Range peaks off into their own group; which has since grown, including such obscurities as the Bridge River Cones - which are in either the Chilcotin Ranges or the Pacific Ranges, or just on the boundary of those two subdivisions of the Coast Mountains. Late last night (or, early this morning when I couldn't get back to sleep...) I fielded by BlackTusk, just after his addition of Bridge River Cones to the Cascade Range page, that that whole section of non-Cascade Range members of the Cascade Volcanoes, should be moved wholesale to the new Cascade Volcanoes page, which should have existed a long time ago (see my notes about this see User talk:BlackTusk; he must have gone back to bed right after, or left for work or whatever (it was 6:30 am), as I haven't heard back and his usual contributions and fixes of the various BC volcano entries has been quiet since (I just got up, after finally getting back to sleep...). Anyway, just flying this by you before I do it in the next couple of hours; my view is that the continued inclusion of Cascade Volcanoes that aren't part of the Cascade Range is just going to confuse things further if it's allowed to stand; the supposition that "some definitions say the Cascade Range includes Garibaldi and northwards" or however it used to be put was uncitable, except by way of citing erroneous references (as if there were any); I'll put in a bit about historical usages of "Cascades" (not "Cascade Range") north of the border - even for the Kootenay! - but all academic definitions, except "fuzzy ones" such as the Seattle geographer who sprawled the word "Cascadia" across the map (wrongly), make it clear the Cascades end at the Fraser...I'm not sure what peakbagger says, but I'll check; it's a common misconception stateside and really aggravating; not quite as bad as thinking we're the 51st State, but getting close. I wrote Aaron Maizlish about his basemaps on peaklist.org but haven't heard back yet...do you know who made those maps by any chance, i.e. what basemap was used?Skookum1 19:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

New try on N Cascades map
Putting it here so as to not further clutter the section above; the basemap is from User:Qyd and I've been trying to find the one I used, as this isn't quite it (different resolution); it's sized 800x500, could be made 700x500 by cropping off some of the Pacific, or some of Wyoming, but the "golden mean" proportion appeals to me (used to be a photog); if it should be cropped more let me know - I thought maybe this basemap/frame might also be useful for various ranges extending over to Montana/Wyoming, though; the source basemap used here ended at the California border anyway and I cropped it just above the Thompson/Kamloops; thought about adding another colour-line for the rest of the Cascades but that would just clutter it; and with the state boundaries showing so clearly here are the city markings and Rainier still needed? By the way, this map shows something that is an "oddity" by way of geosynchronicity, though not in the sense of geosynchronous, but as in synchronicity....note the outline of Vancouver Island...then not the outline of the Columbia Mountains, i.e. the permeter formed by the Kootenay/Kootenai and Columbia Rivers; almost identical, down to a few square miles discrepancy; this was pointed out in some book long ago, I remember my Grade 12 geog teacher pointing it out. Weird, huh?Skookum1 04:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I like this one pretty well; it could perhaps be a bit smaller, but it is good for overall context, especially with Oregon and Idaho showing. I think you're right that city markings are not particularly necessary. -- Spireguy 20:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll trim some Pacific Ocean and Great Plains off it, then add it. BTW did you see the SWBC ranges map on the talkpage at the Mountains Wikiproject?  Still needs some fixes but as a concept in complicated range-sets (e.g. Hazelton Mountains, Omineca Mountains, which have complex subrange systems, likewise the Selkirks and Rockies.Skookum1 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

=
============================================== NPR is looking for Spireguy...

My name's Robert Krulwich...I work on NPR (also ABC)and I've gotten interested in the spot on our planet that is farthest from the center of the earth...and as best I can tell "Spireguy", more than any other guy I can find, has taken a hard look at this question. I found some calculations on a neighboring page, and I think they are Spireguy calculations, that compare the heights of two Andean mountains and seem to award the prize to a Volcano called Chimborazo in Equador. I would like to interview Spireguy...but I haven't a clue how to contact him..so if anybody here can help me, or if, as seems pretty likely, Spireguy makes regular visits to this site, could he (i'm assuming he's a he) contact me at rkrulwich@npr.org? Thanks

F.S. Smythe
Thanks for going through the text and fixing the typos. I have one book by the author, "The kangchenjunga Adventure" in that thers is a picture of Frank. I know nothing of copyright, but do you have an opinion on wheather it would be appropriate to scan a picture from his own book, which is over 60 years old. Sensitive subject, but if you have any expertise on this it could be very useful. Thanks in advance. (Gowron 21:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Coord template
Please can I point out the coordinate style changes that have appeared at List of highest mountains. Imo it's messy. The editor claims that this is needed to assist Google Earth but I don't buy that; it is surely within GE's resources to write a program to convert dms coordinates scraped off wikipedia to real numbers. I don't object to going over to decimal degrees (aside: 4 decimal places is enough), but imo the current format greatly and unnecessarily adds to the bulk of the article. What do you think? Viewfinder 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see coord. One of the advantages of the new template is that it puts the choice of display format in the user's hands. Another is that it adds a Geo microformat. Your comment about Google Earth is bogus; I made no such claim, in regard to these changes. If you want fewer decimal places, remove the seconds from the source code. Andy Mabbett 22:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim about GE is made here. Still, I have found out how to edit my own display format. Viewfinder 22:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So it is - and as I said, that claim does not relate to its use on LoHM (it relates to its potential use in the tile bars of specifically-tagged articles about single locations). Andy Mabbett 22:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

While I'm theoretically in favor of the Geo microformat (in a vague way, since I am no expert on XML-type issues), I would like to see more concrete advantages put forth for this change. It is definitely clunky, visually, and I think it's important to remember that 99% of WP users have no idea how to change their display format. It seems to have been cleared up that this change is not specifically to benefit GE, whether or not that is necessary or useful. So why change? I guess I should look more closely at the coord discussion, but a quick look didn't convince me strongly. If there is a setting that makes it default to just a dms display, then I would be happier with it. -- Spireguy 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The coord documentation says "By default coordinates are displayed in the format in which they are specified.". See also Geo microformat. Andy Mabbett 09:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On my home computer, the coords were displaying as both DMS and decimal, which was excessive. On my work computer, they are displaying only in DMS, which is much better. I haven't made any attempt to configure these two computers differently, so I'm not sure why they come out different. If the usual display is just the specified format, then I'm fine with this change. But if a lot of people get both DMS and decimal, that should be addressed. -- Spireguy 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds as though you need(ed) to refresh your browser, at home, to get the revised CSS. Andy Mabbett 19:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jengish Chokusu
I'm sorry for my reverting. Actually I mean that this mountain was never renamed, because Жеңиш Чокусу(Jengish Chokusu) in Kyrgyz means "Victory peak" or "Пик Победы"(Pik pobedy ) on Russian, and the translation of Жеңиш Чокусу(Jengish Chokusu) as "Independence" is wrong. I know it because Kyrgyz is my native language. -Greenvert 14:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More correct variant is "Jengish Chokusu".-Greenvert 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)