User talk:RedWolf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Crystal Clear app file-manager.png
Archives
2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003


Currently, intermittent visits. Do not expect immediate replies during this time..

Contents

[edit] Kilimanjaro

Interested in climbing kili? Be sure to get a good guide. I climbed it in 1999 and had some trouble with a guide who didn't know the way (You need a guide by law to climb kili) I wrote up my story of it if youre interested: Kili Climbing Story Seabhcan 15:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Interesting story of your climb. Sounds to me like that might have been the first time, not the 10th time for your "guide". We are considering the Machame or Rongai routes, the Marangu (Coca-cola route) was discarded a while back by us. I've done a lot of scrambling in my days and a bit of glacier travel. I'd give more consideration to some of the more demanding routes but the other person is not quite up to that. You sure didn't leave much time for acclimatization. I spent two nights in a tent at nearly 5100m in Nepal and while not easy I was comfortable after being above 4,000m for 9 days. RedWolf 04:10, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
Ya. The guide was a bit of a chancer allright. There is a problem with kili guides in that most of the best known guide companies are based in kenya but Tanzanian law forbids kenyans from guiding on Kili. The kenyan companies will find you a tanzanian guide, but you really have to trust them to trust him. Tanzanians can guide on mount kenya, however. The Machame and Rongai routes aren't (If I'm remembering right - its been a number of years) much more than tough hikes, and I didn't have experience of anything more technical at the time. Also, 5100m in Nepal is far more difficult than the same height at the equator. Its to do with the Coriolis effect - the atmosphere is thicker at the equator and so the percentage of oxygen at a particular height is more. Good luck with your trip - and dont eat the salad! Seabhcan 15:49, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Greetings! Saw your Kilimanjaro post on the user page. I was just wondering if you've made any plant to this end, and had any ideas on the timeframe and such for the climb? I'm most definitely interested, sounds like it would be fun. Metlin 12:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I would be looking either at the late January - February or late August - September timeframe for any attempt on Kili. I would do Mt. Kenya first for acclimitization although there's an alternate in Tanzania. RedWolf 05:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Ahhh, I climbed the cola route in '98 and have been longing to go back. I would love to try Rongai. Next summer might be possible. +sj + 10:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)[[]] 23:43, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

We've never spoken before, but Ive seen some of your work and I believe that you deserve this. →Journalist >>talk<< 04:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Journalist awards Redwolf this Tireless contributors barnstar for being a weariless editor. Keep it up. →Journalist >>talk<< 04:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Journalist awards Redwolf this Tireless contributors barnstar for being a weariless editor. Keep it up. →Journalist >>talk<< 04:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Picture

An image you uploaded, Image:Alpamayo.jpg, has just become a Featured Picture! Congratulations, and thank you for uploading it. Raven4x4x 07:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Template:Canada CP 2006

Hi RedWolf,

Well, to answer your question regarding where to find the population rank for a particular municipality in a whole country, you can find the ranks via this website: [1]. The population rank is shown on the last column of the chart.

Thank you for reminding me for my spelling mistake.

 Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN  posted at 17:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Namche Bazaar

Would you consider re-licensing your [photo] of Namche Bazaar under CC-by-SA 1.0 for use in our article on Wikitravel? We've been talking about making it one of our monthly featured Off the Beaten Path articles, but we need a photo. You can reach me there, or I'll check back here. Thanks. Gorilla Jones 17:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This is not my photo, so I cannot directly add a new license for it. The image was originally from stock.xchng. I contacted the photo owner (els) in Nov. 2003 and he granted permission for me to license it under GFDL. Unfortunately, it seems the photo has been removed from stock.xchng and I was unable to find the email address for els there anymore. I will have to dig through my various email archives to see if I can find the email address I used in 2003. However, given the time involved, the chances of still contacting els at that email address are not great.
    Now, I have been to Namche Bazaar myself and do have a number of photos of the town. I will go through my collection and see if I can find a suitable photo and upload it. Does it have to be CC-by-SA 1.0 or can it be CC-by-SA 2.5? RedWolf 09:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Convert

Hi, I noticed that you switched the heights in feet for Mount Cameroon to use the Convert function and thus be derived from the metric dimensions. This approach is convenient - and I have inserted it myself into infoboxes and elsewhere. It works where the height in feet was not originally calculated independently of the metric height. However, where the original calculation of height was from a source in feet (or from a metric measurement exact to a greater number of significant digits - rarely the case for mountain heights), using Convert is not appropriate. This is because feet are smaller than metres and thus a range of feet values gives the same metre value, although the converse is not true. For example, 5,000 m using Convert gives 16,404 ft. However, measurements of from 16,403 to 16,405 ft all convert to 5,000 m. Thus, if an original measurement is in feet it should not be replaced by a synthetic value using Convert. In my example, suppose a mountain's height was given correctly as 5,000 m (16,403 ft) and that the foot measurement was correct. Replacing the text with Convert would give 5,000 m (16,404 ft) which would be incorrect. Obviously, this example works for all pairs of units where the smaller unit is an originally-measured value. It is thus important where the original measurement is in the smaller unit (feet in the above example), for the writer to note that this is the case so that a rounding error is not introduced. As to how this is best done, I am open to suggestions. Until further notice, I shall use footnotes. By the way, I have not determined that this problem exists in the case of the Mount Cameroon changes, however, I do intend to look into it. Best regards - Sammalin

[edit] Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


[edit] 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) 09:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Camel's Hump assessment

Hi there - thanks so much for assessing Camel's Hump (Vermont). I was wondering what specific edits you would encourage? Or points that need clarity/more material/research? Thanks in advance. H0n0r 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • See the comments link on the talk page (I just finished adding them). RedWolf 16:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chomolhari assessment

There's no argument that the text on this peak represents a start, when comparing to other mountains of similar importance. Obviously a picture is needed for example. However, when assessing quality should one not take into account how much and how easily information can be gathered on a peak in the first place? It took me quite a bit of digging to even find which 5 groups had climbed the mountain, let alone how they did it, while books have been written about mountains that have a similar start rating. Start is described as that "many readers will need to find additional sources of information". Good luck to them. Btw, I've just removed the "stub" designation, as people may stub their toes trying to expand it further.

Despite the lack of information on it, I do disagree with the Low-importance rating. The mountain is very prominent in many ways: the topographic kind (over 2 km, only 9 peaks in the Alps beat it), the visual kind (it's the one mountain people keep staring at while traveling between Sikkim and Tibet and treks in Bhutan are organized just to go from one to the other viewpoint of Chomolhari), the alpinistic kind (the faces that one is allowed to climb are exceedingly challenging), and the cultural kind (as mentioned it is sacred to the Tibetans) (It's sacred to the Bhutanis too, but then all their mountains are sacred). It ranks above peaks like Baruntse (rated High importance) and Chogolisa (Top priority) in all these aspects.

Otherwise I have no particular "relation" with Chomolhari, never been there and just found it necessary to expand on your stub on such an important peak. Looking forward to the WikiProject's assessment of the one other mountain I wrote the text for and of my baby that once (and unnoticed by me) was nominated for featured article. Afasmit 19:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • There are lots of mountains (do I dare say thousands?) of mountains where it is difficult to find extensive information on them. I am going by the standards set for B class and above articles when I rate the articles more or less. Also keep in mind that I am just one reviewer; others may give higher/lower ratings. Also, the rating of mountain articles is still in its infancy and we are still trying to determine what is needed for each rating level. I initially rated it low importance as references were missing on several statements (I am partly guilty for that as I was the one who added some of the info) so if the importance to Tibetans was cited by several sources, that would give more weight to rating it higher. I have re-examined the article and raised it to Mid. The importance of the two mountains you mentioned may be one notch too high on each now that I look at them again. Thanks for your feedback; I'm still working on my article assessment skills so feedback on my review is good. RedWolf 05:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Metres in infoboxes

Good work you're doing on Mountain articles. I noticed you changed the way metrr and feet are wikilinked in infoboxes ([2] for example). When I wrote it like this, I figured that meters and feet should be linked and unabbreviated at least once, but more than once is not necessary. --Berland 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I feel that metres and feet do not need to be wikilinked at all in mountain articles as it just adds unnecessary link clutter and the article content is not really relevant to these units of measure to deserve a link. That being said, I am not objecting to the link only first occurrence rule just that I am trying to be consistent in other mountain articles. RedWolf 17:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been consistent to my rule in my own infobox edits. There should possibly be a guideline on this in the project. --Berland 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macintosh System Template

I recently put up an article about the Hard Disk 20 and wanted to use the {{mac specs}} System Template it appears you created. If so, the problem I am having with it is that it will not let me format the template without CPU & RAM info. Even if I put "N/A" it leaves formatting artifacts. I apologize for my ignorance about Wiki syntax, but is there a way to clean up the template for my use? Otherwise, would you be so kind as to help me create one for non-system specs? Thanks and best regards ...--Woodwynlane (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • CPU, CPUSpeed, RAM and RAMType are now optional parameters. RedWolf (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hanging Hills etc.

Thanks for the Wikiproject reviews of reveiws of the Hanging Hills and the Holyoke Range. I have to question the low importance rating on them, though. Both of these ranges are well known New England landscape features with significant recreational, cultural, and geologic notability. Did you read the articles? I'm wondering if you have a west-coast mountaineering bias on what constitutes a significant mountain (i.e., an elevation bias). And what about the start-level quality rating on Chauncey Peak? Any advice for improving it? What is it missing?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The importance rating is as it pertains to mountains on a global basis taking into account elevation and ranking within its range or mountain grouping (if any). Mid importance is typically for highest mountains within a range/group. Many/most mountains would be well known locally so that is usually not a primary factor in determining importance as it pertains to the Mountains wiki project. Regional wiki projects would no doubt give these articles a higher importance. As for Chauncey Peak, the geology section needs a bit more. I realize that it says to see the related article for more information but there should at least be a summary of that article as it pertains to this particular feature of the area. Great work on these articles. RedWolf (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't think you've read these articles very well. Nor have you read the explanation of ratings on the mountain project page. Here's a quote: Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to several audiences —but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated. Might be worthwhile to review it; at the very least it opens up a whole field of discussion. That said, how about a moratorium on rating east coast mountains? Or elicit the viewpoint of editors who are familiar with the region?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pgagnon999. Not everyone knowns the same mountains. Most of the mountain articles I have seen are rated low importance. I have rerated some mountain articles I know that were not low importance. Some were even more than mid importance. For example, the Arctic Cordillera in the Canadian Arctic would rather be high importance because it is the only major mountain range in eastern North America, it contains the highest mountains in eastern North America and because the other major mountain systems (Rocky Mountains and Appalachian Mountains) are high importance as well. I understand the Arctic Cordillera is probably not very well-known, but it's still a major mountain range and deserves a major rating. Black Tusk 20:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just tacked a post to the wikiproject mountain discussion board that will (hopefully) open this issue up for general discussion. There is certainly a lot of bias, and most of it seems centered around the idea of mountains as a recreational resource, specifically a mountaineering resource. But mountains mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. See you at the project discussion board. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You are certainly welcome to change the importance if you feel there's merit to doing so. Be bold. Just post your reasons on the assessment comments page. I'm not trying to be the sole judge of the ratings and am only going on my interpretation. Black Tusk, if you feel the importance is wrong, change it and make a note of it on the comments page. The importance ratings are not carved in stone once they are set. RedWolf (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Wolf, I just came across low ratings you posted for two major mountain ranges (entire ranges!) in India (in the most densely populated area on earth!) with highly significant cultural, religious, and economic importance. I therefore have to assume that you are rating the mountains based on recreational value only. As you are an administrator, I can't help but hold you up to a higher standard than the usual Wikipedian. This kind of bias doesn't help the project. I don't think being "be bold" is a suitable response in this case. Would you consider holding off on doing any further ratings and instead contribute to a discussion on the subject? Again, I've made a post on the project talk page. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How does Whistler Peak in the rockies rate higher than the entire range of the Eastern Ghats in India? --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolan Medical College

You deleted Bolan Medical College on 15 September 2005 because it was a copyvio|url=NTC-Bolan Medical College Quetta. I've recreated the page as part of WP:UNI; feel free to comment if you have a view on the page or its contents. Thanks! Natebailey (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Articles

Hello RedWolf! I want to ask you something about merging articles. I recently proposed merger of List of the highest peaks in Pakistan into List of mountains in Pakistan but got no response on the discussion page for about a week. So, what should I do now, bcz once before when I got no response on merging of two articles for a month, I merged them but my edits were reverted and I was given a warning by a user. So can you guide me what to do in this case and please also tell me what to do with the talk page of the merged article. Thanks! --SMS Talk 07:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't have a problem with the merge. Without knowing the article, hard to say why you would be given a warning before. When you are done merging the article text, just redirect the article and its talk page to the merged to article. RedWolf (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marie Byrd Land vs. Mount Sidley

Hi, RedWolf
I saw that you begun Marie Byrd Land and contributed to Mount Sidley. Now, I'm asking you: How can Mount Sidley be in M. B. L. as stated in the article (and other mountains in this area too), when M. B. L. is located at a completely different location? This question originally derives from the German Antarctica Portal of which I take care for some weeks. I couldn't find any possible reason, could you help me? Thank you--RedSolution (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The USGS GNIS page makes that claim. RedWolf (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems as if I'd gotten it - I think that all those coordinates in Wikipedia state East instead of West (concerning mountains). I gonna change it now.--RedSolution (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Rush

I have nominated Category:Rush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elevations

I've been adding some infoboxes to some of the mountain articles. Over the last few years I've noticed that most of the elevations given in articles and infoboxes I have not worked on seem to refect data from Peakbagger.com or Summitpost.com. So far I have followed this proctice most of the time. These elevations are it seems always at variance with the elevations give by the USGS who seem to be quite proud of there elevation data. I'm looking for guidance as to which data should be used. Thanks in advance. --DRoll (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This refers only to articles pertaining to US mountains.--DRoll (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, I have noticed the elevation discrepancies with the data given by USGS GNIS. I have tended to side with Peakbagger or SummitPost as it is actively maintained and is almost certainly more up to date than what you would find in GNIS (or at least that's the impression I get anyways). I think the elevations from those sites are typically taken from up to date topo maps. Apparently the most accurate elevation data on U.S. peaks can be found at NGS although most tend not to bother trying to find the peak there. You do raise a good point which I guess the WikiProject has not discussed in any detail as to whether we should "trust" the GNIS as being accurate and use that as the "source of truth" rather than relying on those other sites as we generally do now. We do tend to rely on the GNIS elevation for peaks in Antarctica, due in part to it being the best organized system (or at least that I know of) with public domain information on features in Antarctica. RedWolf (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the advice. I'll look into NGS. --DRoll (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding coordinates

Hi. I have noticed you making changes to a number of mountain articles so that the coordinates appear in the title area. The preferred solution (as I understand it) is to use the {{coord}} template and use the "display=inline,title" parameters. Is there a particular reason why you are using {{coor at d}} instead? RedWolf (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Question about which coordinates system to use. To quote Docu, "It uses 6 characters and 7 templates less." Anyway, if I add title coordinates to the {{coord}} template and use the "display=inline,title" parameters, I am using 18 more characters than simply adding "at" to make it {{coor at d}}. Though I personally like using the second for the reasons Docu describes, in the last edits, I don't recall switching templates. I only did {{coor d}} to {{coor at d}} (like 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) and then one time adding "display=inline,title" to {{coord}} (here. Note that {{coor d}} is different than {{coord}}, and that I am adding title coordinates based on the existing templates. Sorry if I sound confusing; and you can respond on my talk page if this doesn't help. SpencerT♦C 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sunrise Mountain (Las Vegas)

I ran across this article and it might qualify for deletion. Perhaps even speedy deletion. There is already and article named Frenchman Mountain that refers to the same peak. I marked Sunrise Mountain for merging but it seems to contain nothing but original research and is very poorly written. I really don't think there is anything worth saving. Any advice would be appreciated. --DRoll (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. They are different peaks. --DRoll (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sherbrooke Lake Image

I'd like to replace your Sherbrooke Lake image in the Field, British Columbia article with this photo of Field. I think it's more representative of the Field townsite, and will be of greater interest to the wikipedia users. BTW, that featured image of Alpamayo is amazing - nice work. Mtobey (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Rush

Category:Rush, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Black Falcon (Talk) 17:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of Italian American mobsters

I have nominated List of Italian American mobsters, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian American mobsters. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Docg 21:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Charleston

Back on Oct 16, 2004 you suggested that the article Mount Charleston should be move to Charleston Peak on the discussion page for that article. I think you were right. All the references use the second name. I doubt if there is any real debate from a research point of view but I don't know how the locals would feel. I guess you have to be an admin to do this sort of thing properly or I would just be bold and do it myself. --DRoll (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pd usgov?

You marked Image:Giuliani crime rate.gif with pd-usgov, but the work is clearly mine, and not that of the US government. The data is that of the US government, but the figure is my intellectual property. In addition, I wish you had not marked the edit as minor. Look, not a big deal, but just please remember that the data that support an image and the image are not one and the same. Pdbailey (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Well that was almost three years ago and I certainly don't remember my exact rationale for tagging it as such. However, there was very limited information on the description page and I probably made an educated guess. Back then, image tagging was not as well structured as it is now. Had I come across the image now, I probably have slapped an untagged image notice on it with the possibility of it being deleted. Well, actually one of the license checking bots probably would have done that. Live and learn. RedWolf (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
RedWolf, I'm sorry, must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed a couple days ago. Pdbailey (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parícutin

Unsourced contents may be removed at any time. You did not provide any sources for your statement about the elevation so they were undone. Do not re-add your statements unless you can provide reliable sources. Thanks. RedWolf (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Making sure I click the right button may help avoid a premature load. I was initially looking at elevation points through Google Earth, then I remembered Peakbagger.com has more accurate surveys for world peaks. As for the 10,397-foot elevation already posted on there for Parícutin, as sourced from the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program and some other sites, there is a possibility that it could be attributed to adjacent Cerro el Brinco...located at the foot of Cerro Tancítaro, the highest point in the Michoacán-Guanajuato Volcanic Field. I'm still trying to find out its actual elevation. Volcano World actually has this 10,397-foot (or approximate) elevation for both Parícutin and El Jorullo, which I'm well aware isn't correct. El Jorullo is much lower. Parícutin, as sourced by Peakbagger.com, Encyclopedia Britannica and Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia along with some hard copy maps and the close measurements from Google Earth, is given an elevation of only 9,101 feet. For now, I'll just mark the discrepancy in elevation between sources.

If you'd like, I can create a summarized article for the Michoacán-Guanajuato Volcanic Field and include most of the major features within that region. I'm sure that down the road, there will be more significant activity. Mld74 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kuntaw

I've added a Kuntaw page which is a simple redirection to the Kuntao article. I'm just mentioning it here because I see you had deleted a same-named page for copyright violations and wanted to reassure you that this is different. I'm sending this note to Lupo as well since he made a similar deletion. HarmonicSphere (talk 7:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of Final Fantasy cast members

I have nominated List of Final Fantasy cast members, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Final Fantasy cast members (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kariteh (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If you had cared to view the page history, you would have discovered that this article was created as the result of a CFD. In any case, do with it what you wish, I have no further interest in that article. RedWolf (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Mmh, I would reply with something informative (like, mentioning that the content of the article has already been included in other relevant articles), but since you believe that I didn't "care to view the page history" and that I didn't see you name there and that I simply chose to notify you randomly out of a billion users possible, I'll simply shut up. Kariteh (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews Username

I have moved the previous RedWolf account on Wikinews, please register ASAP. --Brian McNeil /talk 08:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I have grabbed the account there. Thanks for your help. RedWolf (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nixon greets POW McCain.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nixon greets POW McCain.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ferrylodge (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Estevan (disambiguation)

I have nominated Estevan (disambiguation), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estevan (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? DigitalC (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dru

Hi RedWolf. So in the relevant Categories the Dru is now below the Aiguille du Midi. How does that work then? Best wishes. Ericoides (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The default sort key was using "Du Midi" and not "du Midi" (don't know why it was that way if the article name uses du Midi) which resulted in "Du Midi" coming before "du Dru" since the uppercase D is numerically less (ASCII code) than the lowercase d. I have changed it to use "du Midi" and now it appears after "du Dru" in the category. RedWolf (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Namche Bazaar els.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Namche Bazaar els.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments Hidaka Mountains

Thank you for your constructive comments. Let's see what I can do.imars (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)