User talk:Racerx11: Difference between revisions

Hi, I saw your query about whether ol' Ed was born in June or July. The article said July when I started revamping it back in May & I assumed it was correct even though it wasn't sourced because who screws up birth dates? Well, I guess someone did. I looked & several sources say June, so I changed it & sourced it. Nice catch. ScarletRibbons (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Grand Bonhomme

Hi Racerx11 - I've responded at Talk:Grand Bonhomme, but to cut a long story short it looks like the Peakery height may be incorrect - it's certainly in the minority of web sources for the height. Grutness...wha? 06:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more at the talk page. There seems to be some real confusion about this one. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User: 203.122.223.123

Hello Racerx11, we appear to be having a problem with the above IP editor, who keeps reverting our edits with their trivia and poor spelling. I have reported this to MaterialScientist, who previously banned this person - another note to this admin., may not come amiss? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "Appearance in media" and "In popular culture" sections are lightening rods for this kind of stuff and it can be difficult to keep those sections trimmed and free of puffery and fan cruft. In this edit he added a popular culture section where there was none. I have also replied at MS's talk page btw. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peakbagger_ref_template

Hello, Racerx11. You have new messages at RedWolf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RedWolf (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

California Fourteeners Template seems incorrect

The list of less-prominent peaks seems incomplete/wrong: see Richins' web page for a complete list? I would recommend just leaving the minor peaks off the template. —hike395 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I used the table at List of California fourteeners as a guide. Note that Thunderbolt Peak is placed in the lesser prominent table, where as the source you provided seems to list it as full-fledged fourteener. I can remove the lesser prominent peaks, but how should I handle Thunderbolt? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 04:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did some web searching: seems like half the fourteeners lists include Thunderbolt, and half do not. :-( What would you think is the definitive source? —hike395 (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I was hoping you were going to tell me:) I would have to do more research myself to give you an answer and it's getting late here. I will look into it more tomorrow. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 04:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, did a little more research and here is how I see it. The list of major fourteeners here at List of California fourteeners seems to be consistent with the sources if one assumes a prominence cutoff of 300 ft. The problem is there is no lower cutoff for listing the less-than-300 ft prominent peaks. (For example, is a 10 ft rise near a summit ever worth mentioning?) I suspect the source you linked set the bar pretty low on the prominence cutoff which would explain the greater number of peaks listed. But it doesn't give the prominence for any of the peaks at all, so we can't even guess what their cutoff is.

The problem with any list like this is no matter how many peaks you list, it will always be "incomplete" as long as you are willing to reduce the prominence cutoff a little more. So your idea of simply leaving out the less-than-300 ft prominent peaks seams like the best solution.

But...there is still the problem of Thunderbolt Peak. As I look through the sources, I see that the majority of the sources actually do consider Thunderbolt as a fully qualified fourteerner. One could rationalize this by assuming a prominence cutoff of greater than 200 ft (if it were 200 or greater than they would also list Polemonium Peak with a prom of 200'-even per most sources, and most if not all do not include Polemonium).

Because most of the sources consider Thunderbolt a proper 14er, including the source you gave which you seem to feel is very reliable, and the fact that currently Thunderbolt Peak is the only peak of those in question that has its own dedicated article, I feel Thunderbolt should definitely be included in the navigation template. Does that argument make sense to you?

Now for the other loose ends:

Should we leave List of California fourteeners as is in light of this? or tweak it some? or revamp it entirely?

On the template itself, should we have Thunderbolt Peak displayed in small text as I did before to indicate lesser status by some sources?

On the template for the Colorado Fourteeners, do you have the same feelings about the lesser prominent peaks in Colorado? Are there similar problems there as well?

Let me know what you think about all this and hopefully we can take of the fix(s) soon. Thanks

--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One website that the Mountains Wikiproject relies on is Peakbagger. Their California fourteener page uses 300' of clean prominence and lists only 11 fourteeners, excluding Mount Muir and Thunderbolt Peak (click on Prom-Ft to sort by prominence). Here's my suggestion: put those 11 fourteeners into ~~bold~~the template at normal font size, put Mount Muir and Thunderbolt Peak in smaller font, and leave the rest out of the template. As for the list article, I would recommend having it match the Peakbagger list, and cite to Peakbagger.

I think that the Colorado fourteener list/template can be handled similarly: the Peakbagger fourteener page is here; except the cutoff seems to be 280' for some reason, yielding 53 fourteeners. Looks like there are 6 more "fourteeners" if the cutoff is at 200'.

Does that sound good to you? —hike395 (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine with me except those changes to the list articles might not go over to well with other editors. Idk, maybe it will be fine. Should we link this conversation at the talk page and perhaps seek a consensus first? Or just be Bold and do it. If it's bold you like, how about I make the changes to the templates and you take the bigger and higher profile job of the list articles? :-) --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean bold in the last comment. But, I am happy to be bold and modify the list articles. It's part of natural editing. —hike395 (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I understood. I'm clear on your suggestion. That's great. I will make the template changes later this evening. Thanks for working with me on this. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Hike395, I made the changes to the templates so you're up next. Note that I have left the peaks ordered by their elevations, except of course the lesser prominent peaks we have separated; although those are ordered among themselves also by elevation. I assume you will keep the similar default sort by elevation with the lists? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zugspitze

Hi Racerx11, It's really not worth it - I prefer to add new mountain articles than argue over a single word on an existing one. You've left the rest my edits on Zugspitze in place, so that's got to be an affirmation! Actually I was hoping one day to turn Zugspitze into a featured article. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's cool. A little background on my involvement of that page. I converted the infobox a couple years ago. It was still in German form I believe, with the parameters and some field values still in German in edit mode, but displayed in English in read mode. This was a result of an earlier edit which brought the infobox in from German Wikipedia I assume. When I converted the infobox I thought about removing the key col and isolation information then, but I left it in, because at the time I was more concerned about preserving as much as the original information as possible. My most recent changes was part of a general effort of mine to clean up the mountain infoboxes of Wikipedia, at least those of the world's ultra prominent peaks. So deleted that information then. If you like the data to stay, I can live with that, but I should mention that for some reason the Fern Pass and Parseierspitze key col information is longer visible on my browser in read mode. There is just a dash (-). I might suggest reverting back to the version before my latest changes if you don't know what happened there or can't fix it. thank you. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just included the use of the isolation parameter to give it a better look. Removed the stray dash and noted in the edit summary that key col info does not display, just an fyi. Also I guess there is no parameter for key col. I tried 'key_col =' and 'saddle =' and both failed to execute. All in all the infobox still looks better now that it did a moment ago, don't you think? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an improvement - I like it! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Sorry I removed that info earlier, I was under the the mistaken assumption that the page was one of the very rare few that displayed isolation and key col data in their infoboxes. I have since learned there are many more than I had expected.

One question: I know "↓ Fern Pass" indicates key col/saddle, but what exactly does "→ Parseierspitze" refer to? As explained, this data is currently undisplayed. Would you like me to edit the syntax so it is visible in read mode? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making your talk page more user friendly

I notice that your talk page is getting quite long. If you wish to have your talk page auto-archived (like mine), you can put the following at the top of this page:

{{archive box|search=yes|button-label=Search archives|auto=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 40K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 20
|minthreadstoarchive = 4
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = User talk:Racerx11/Archive %(counter)d
}}

Hope this helps! —hike395 (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do that. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Condolences

I had answered the queries. JamesBWatson shall answer, whenever he's on. You are an experienced editor. In near future, I don't think I will ever see you edit warring, because you have better ways of handling the issues. You are actually aware about the different definitions of edit warring.

I've checked the contributions of Viewfinder, I would like to say that he should get well soon. He should forget the things that happened, he will surely have his answers once the admin is back to WP. Viewfinder is not even topic banned, he can edit every single page. I am only saying this because he seemed useful contributor. Thanks OccultZone (Talk) 03:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. My concern at this point is the larger issue of how this rule is handled and enforced in general. I feel now that my posts should have been driven more so by this concern, over what I see as a flawed policy, rather than by my frustration over User:JamesBWatson's actions. Thanks for your time and understanding. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PA from other user

You know that you are encouraged to warn against the personal attacks? I have done that for you.[1] But you should do as well. OccultZone (Talk) 00:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: I had to re-read that comment just now to see if was indeed worthy of a 4im. Sure enough, I guess I skipped over the word "idiot" when I first read it, and it appears to have been directed towards me. I was thinking the guy was just blowing steam. Thanks for taking care of that and point taken about warning against PAs.

For the record and for clarification for anyone else, this was the comment posted on my talk page, which was in response to this revert at Kangchenjunga. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He had talk:OccultZone#Personal attack.3F discussed about the warning, hope he's fine now. OccultZone (Talk) 01:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi

	hi
	ok racerx11 Potsu (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Racerx11. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
Message added 19:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

De728631 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Gintov

Sorry that it took me so long to block the vandal; I hadn't realised how many times you'd rolled the IP back. (I'm only just getting used to Huggle and how to see the user editing history properly!) --Tristessa (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tristessa de St Ange: No problem. Understand. Thanks for leaving the note!:-) --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Wuteve

You tagged this article. I once thought that SRTM data, which is public and verifiable, was a sufficient citation, but it now seems that when it comes to the crunch, it loses out to articles by employees of NASA, USGS and CIA. Liberia HP is one of four national HP's that I have just added or revised at http://www.viewfinderpanoramas.org/elevmisquotes.html. It's not up to me to decide if my evidence for Liberia is good enough, but there are so many errors, some of them very serious, in that "reliable" CIA list of national HP's and I shall be very disappointed if the article reverts to 1380 on the grounds that the CIA is the most reliable source. Viewfinder (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry VF, I thought my action was relatively innocent. I tagged the statement more because of the wording than anything else. Let me explain. First of all (and I could be completely wrong about this when it comes to anyone else) when I use a cite needed tag, it is when I believe the statement to likely be true. Otherwise I would consider deleting the statement entirely. Secondly when a statement draws a conclusion from raw data and attributes it to a primary source, it almost screams "where's the source?"

I have inline cited the statement to the link you provided, more specifically to the section on Africa. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to Wuteve, I would add that 1447m, which has a primary citation on my site, is probably better that 1440m which I estimated from SRTM data. I can upload the Liberian map if necessary. No criticism was intended, sorry if I came across as critical. Perhaps we need to discuss the more general question of the citation of SRTM data. It is verifiable and much more reliable than the CIA, but its verification does require GIS knowledge. Viewfinder (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Viewfinder: Yes, I'm listening, on the broader issue of citation of SRTM data. I'm sure you have read and are familiar with WP:PRIMARY. And since you have mentioned it, I suspect requirements of specific knowledge, in this case GIS knowledge, is one of the reasons why using primary sources exclusively is discouraged. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would prefer to be someone who is trusted by Wikipedians as a reliable source of summit elevations. Especially compared to the CIA and authors of NASA and USGS articles in which elevation accuracy is not important. These authors don't check their heights carefully, they often use outdated sources. I can better do this by creating secondary sources on my own site than by editing Wikipedia directly. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can be a fertile place for misinformation and sensationalism to breed. Viewfinder (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So many times, primary sources have to be treated well. Sometimes the subject itself is better source than anything else. So it is not really formal to remove or avoid primary sources. It just depends upon the subject and its type. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Sorry for the late reply. I meant to respond but put it off for some reason and then sort of forgot about it. Yes, thanks for pointing that out. "Primary" should not be considered a dirty word when used with reliable sources. Indeed, sometimes they are the best source. In this case there was no source at all. There was only the internal wikilink to SRTM, the article on the subject of the primary source mentioned, not anything at all that directed the reader to the data itself it was talking about. That's why I tagged it. As pointed out by VF, if the data was cited, it would require at least some specific knowledge, not likely possessed by the average reader, to interpret it fully and accurately. The rules of WP aside, it is common sense that a citation to data only a very few people are able interpret, isn't much use if that's the only source given. Anyway, the problem has already been solved by my addition of an inline cite to a reliable secondary source that VF supplied to me. I am not opposed to adding citations to SRTM data, but I do not know how best to do that. Thanks you. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can reproduce and post small sections of SRTM data in a format which most readers should be able to understand. Regarding primary sources at Mount Damavand, I have been arguing that a modern GPS survey by a climber and mathematics professor who has used GPS to measure hundreds of mountains, is considerably more reliable than the older sources that are cited in support of 5670. I don't blame the authors of these sources, no better information was available to them at the time, and for the purposes of their articles, a 1% error does not really matter. But their 5670 figure is ultimately rooted in a 1930's estimate by a glaciologist. Viewfinder (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Club Stade Viennois

Hello Racerx11 im the new Manager of the former "Rugby Club Stade Viennois" which is now called "Stade Rugby Club Wien". after a long absence in the internet now im changing and updating all of our pages here. i want to remove the old wikipedia artikel to write a complete new one. as u realised i put some new fotos in it yesterday before deciding to remove and write a complete new page instead of this unprofessionally written site. our wensite is getting updated too so i wanted to do it all fast. i couldnt find out how to remove the page on wikipedia... can u help me out please? kind regards

@C 74: What you are trying to do should be done carefully by even the most experienced of Wikipedia editors and NOT done in haste. If the name has changed then you need to "move" the article to the new namespace. See WP:RM. It also appears a file you uploaded was deleted due to copyright violations. Please read WP:COPYVIO. Additionally the link WP:Your first article might be helpful.

Most importantly you should consider NOT rewriting the article at all if you are who you say! WP:AUTOBIO applies here. Editors who are closely associated with the subject are encouraged to be extremely careful when editing those articles. Small changes done a little at a time would work best. Fix the things that you feel are the most important or are the most glaring errors. I would NOT recommend rewriting an entire article about an organization you own, manage, etc.

I have removed a bunch of stuff from the article that appeared to be old vandalism. You are welcome to add back anything I removed that should have stayed. I am going back to the article now to see if I can improve on what is there now. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 19:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thnx a lot :) i will find someone who has the know-how to write in Wikipedia for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C 74 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Hi, I seem to be in danger of getting into another edit war. It is quite important because my edit de-orphans an article which my adversary wants to remain orphaned because (s)he does not think it should be there. Any advice? Viewfinder (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Viewfinder: Is there no other page that it can be linked from? I am rarely involved in deletion process, but it seems to me a link from the year of birth would hardly make a difference one way or another whether an article is deleted. Or would it? Regardless, what I know now about edit wars, I would just let it go for a while at the 1998 article. If there is another editor who wants the article to stay, then they may come in and add the link there. In the mean time you could try to link it elsewhere, if you haven't tried already. Hope I've been of some help. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Jacob Barnett, which was rejected for deletion but its opponents are contesting the rejection at WP:DRV. I will leave 1998 for now. Viewfinder (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fazlur Khan

The statement isn't untrue, but a couple of editors have pointed out that it's inappropriate to pick the aspect of the building invented by your favourite engineer and add "invented by my favourite engineer!". The article would be a mess if we listed the inventor of every technology in the article, and the user has offered no solid reason for singling this one out, instead choosing to edit-war it with vague "just adding this information" edit summaries while evading their block. WP:EVASION says that "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert", but I wouldn't say this was even ambiguous. --McGeddon (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon: Makes sense. I have reverted user:2pacshakurr's latest edit to the page. Thanks for the explanation. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 19:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Globetrotter1918's continued reverts on Eight-thousanders

G'day User:Racerx11,

If I may ask for some assistance, I could use some help with the page on the Eight-thousanders where User:Globetrotter1918 is continually making reverts in the lists, his inability to discuss sources and rationales for climbers to be listed, and the fact that I consider myself more knowledgeable on this subject than a mere n00b that just popped up, as I've been working on 8000er related issues for the last 20+ years; in books, articles, statistics and what not. I'm not yet tired enough to go and retire like UserViewfinder did, but I'm certainly very close to making up my mind about this indeed.

Thanks in advance, Qwrk (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Eight-thousander. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Qwrk (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

noob is you. About Himalayas and Karakoram know more than you. Globetrotter1918 (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is a breach of civility. Viewfinder (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eberhard just called me to inform me that a user, who goes by the same name as User;Globetrotter1918, has been active on Polish wikipedia, and who is currently blocked "with an expiry time forever (account creation disabled, can not edit own talk page) (unauthorized use of puppets)"

Check;

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wk%C5%82ad/Globetrotter1918 [translation here; https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpecjalna%3AWk%25C5%2582ad%2FGlobetrotter1918&edit-text= ]

When it comes to logical fallacies ["8000ers.com is NOT the authorative source for this!" while at the same time using link to sources on 8000ers.com to be used as a reference], I stand by my view that, even when the basis of wikipedia is a good one, in essence there is something fundamentally wrong with this platform when a contributor with 3,000 edits is given the same weight as a newby with 6 edits to his name.

I thought this is something you all should know.

Qwrk (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, 8000ers.com is the best source for inclusion, right? Sorry I mistakenly didn't check the contents of source when I saw it was cited. Several editors including VF have stated you still need a source until its updated. Please consider the boomerang that VF got hit with before you run to an admin, if by chance this changes your mind about retirement. Thanks for the info. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I do sincerely value your kind words, I really have a difficult time seeing a future for me on wikipedia while this situation of "equal weight" is still in place. That's an essential glitch, in my eyes.

Your explanation for valid sources I do subscribe, while at the same time this would put more work on my plate. The last PDF that has been published names Hirotaka Takeuchi as ultimate climber to have made the "Crown of the Himalaya" so in essence Cchang Dawa, Kim Chang-Ho and Radek Jaros ought to be taken out. Even the "disputed" list ought to be reworked as there is a marked difference between "disputed" and "unrecognized" where now these names are tossed in one and the same bucket.

My list of things that I need to be doing is long, and only appears to be getting longer, and the typing is slow... so I'm not sure whether there will be a change in decision any time soon.

Thans again, and all the best. Qwrk (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mount Taibai may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

], [[China]]. The mount's highest point, Baxian Tower ({{zh|c=拔仙台}}), rises to a height of {{convert|3750|m|ft|abbr=on)) and is the tallest in the [[Qinling Mountains|Qinling Range]], as well as the watershed between

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fixed. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tryfan

Thanks, good solution - you know the template things better than I do. I really wish the UK would fully move into the metric era (though I still have fond memories of being on Tryfan in driving rain and howling wind on a successful 3000s attempt back in the seventies - cheated a little perhaps, by ascending Snowdon the night before and sleeping up there) Neatsfoot (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about the UK and unfortunately I doubt that we here in the US will move at all into the metric era in our lifetime.

I wasn't sure, but I guess one rationale would be that we use imperial first for the 3000s article because that list is based on feet, but the peaks themselves would still have be SI first in their own articles. We just have to do the best we can to reduce the rounding errors that creep in from converting the same figure twice or more.

Maybe the amount of re-ascent and isolation can factor case-by-case, but generally I would say those are both valid ascents. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article was not complete

Selfie Slam is incompelete by Rovio Entertainment games. Please improve this section. Thanks. MandatoryTeaser (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RacerX11. I would like to state in regards to your Africa article edits that a continent is not necessarily geographically defined so much as culturally, nationally, and socially. For example, Asia is a continent, even though it is connected to Europe and Asia. Also, Africa is built around the AU, or African Union, which almost all African nations have joined, making them a continental region. Because of this de facto definition that has been accepted by most of the world, I believe it is false to say that Africa is not a sovereign continent. However, I can see your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran P. Clark (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kieran P. Clark: If you are referring to this talk page comment of mine, that was in response to this post, which was about the divisions of the Americas. Africa is culturally and traditionally its own continent and the second largest after Asia. If one insists the Americas are instead the second largest because they are connected, only then must one consider that Africa is also connected to Asia. In which case the Americas would would be second largest after Afro-Eurasia. This is explained in the article continent. See also the continental landmass section of List of islands by area. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sun

The sun is a very old word that was coined way before people knew it was just another star. So while "sun" refers to our specific star, I do not believe it is a proper name. Nor do I believe "Sol" is appropriate either, it is not accepted by most scientific nor linguistic groups as an appropriate name for the sun. The sun is the sun the stars are the stars. The sun iss a star, it's as simple as that. I would not mind trying to get an official consensus on this, but I'm not sure where to do it, Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 256: / Line 256: @@
 :{{Ping|Kieran P. Clark}} If you are referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Africa&diff=618506251&oldid=618432177 this talk page comment] of mine, that was in response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Africa&diff=prev&oldid=618432177 this post], which was about the divisions of the [[Americas]]. Africa is culturally and traditionally its own continent and the second largest after Asia. ''If'' one insists the Americas are instead the second largest because they are connected, only ''then'' must one consider that Africa is also connected to Asia. In which case the Americas would would be [[List of islands by area#Continental landmasses|second largest]] after [[Afro-Eurasia]]. This is explained in the article [[continent]]. See also the continental landmass section of [[List of islands by area]]. --[[User:Racerx11|<font color = "orange">Racer</font><font color = "black">X<sup>11</sup></font>]] <small>''[[User talk:Racerx11|Talk to me]]''</small>''[[Special:Contributions/Racerx11|<sup>Stalk me</sup>]]''  13:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
+==The sun==
+The sun is a very old word that was coined way before people knew it was just another star. So while "sun" refers to our specific star, I do not believe it is a proper name. Nor do I believe "Sol" is appropriate either, it is not accepted by most scientific nor linguistic groups as an appropriate name for the sun. The sun is the sun the stars are the stars. The sun iss a star, it's as simple as that. I would not mind trying to get an official consensus on this, but I'm not sure where to do it, Thanks. -- [[User:Dougie WII|Dougie WII]] ([[User talk:Dougie WII|talk]]) 12:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)