User talk:Seattle Skier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive
Archives
  1. January-March 2007
  2. April 2007

Welcome to my talk page! Please feel free to leave me a message, use the [+] button above to start a new section. I prefer to reply here to keep conversations together in one place, so please watchlist this page. I will also try to leave a brief note on your talk page, informing you that I have replied. Also, please realize that I am occasionally out of town, in the mountains and away from internet access for days at a time, so response may sometimes be very slow. I apologize in advance for any inconvenience that may cause.

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia growth

I think that my plots show better that the growth of wikipedia is not exponential anymore. According to them sometime around Ago, 2006 was the maximal growth rate of wikipedia (and also the inflection point). It seems also that the article 2'000.000 will be at the end of this year.

First derivative of the growth of number of articles of Wikipedia in English

The regression curve is y = exp(at + b) with a=0.00208684458094 and b=9.91167349817703. This regression was calculated using data from Jan 2003 to Dec 2005

What about using them instead of using your plots? (if you need the matlab code to generate them, let me know) Diego Torquemada 11:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think that the info you included should be instead in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia%27s_growth Diego Torquemada 12:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I noticed your plots on Wikipedia talk:Modelling Wikipedia's growth. Why not just include them in Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth directly? But it would be nice try to make them easier to read though, by making the data darker/bolder and perhaps also connecting the red dots into a continuous curve, and eliminating most of the gridlines in the log plot. Just some suggestions.
As for my plots, I decided to add them to Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia becasue I think they nicely show several things in a single image: actual article growth, plus a simple projection for growth (annual doubling is easily understood by non-mathematical people, unlike a fit to an exponential curve), plus the actual daily growth rate, all plotted against both a log and linear scale. I think my plots combine most of the information in your three plots above (plus more) into a single, easy to read image which is a significant enhancement to that page. The table of annual growth which I added also significantly enhances the page, again by presenting basic information in a simple format which is easily understood by non-technical people.
I would prefer that the plots and the table remain there on Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia for the reasons I have given above. But I have also linked directly to Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth in the "Notes" section, which is the proper place for more detailed projections using more complicated mathematics such as exponential fits, derivatives, etc. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the 2,000,000th article, it seems clear that it will come long before the end of 2007. Based on a linear trend at roughly 1700 net new articles per day, that puts article 2,000,000 around September 20, 2007. The growth rate would have to fall dramatically, to less than 1000 per day, in order to delay the 2,000,000th until the end of this year. That is a highly unlikely scenario. --Seattle Skier (See talk tierS) 21:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is for your excellent Size of Wikipedia graph, which I was delighted to find.--ragesoss 04:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What I would really like to see is a projection for the fall-off rate of new articles per day. From the high of over 2000/day, net article creation has fallen to around 1500 (between 4-16-2007 and 5-1-2007) and seems to be on a continued downward trajectory. Another useful thing would be plot of the number of deleted articles in the database, and the number deleted per day.--ragesoss 04:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right about it being tough to get a meaningful projection for new articles per day. In any case, we don't have yet a good model that takes into account the appearance of (what I take to be) the logistic behavior of Wikipedia size in the last 9 months or so. On the German Wikipedia, article growth has been level (500-600/day) for a while now. It's no sure thing, but many people expect something similar to happen on en-wiki. I was discussing the deletion issue with Greg Maxwell last night; he created a data set of deletion actions per day (though I believe it's inflated slightly instances where articles are deleted and then restored less some problematic versions in the history): http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/endel2.txt .--ragesoss 05:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pyroclastic cones

I was thinking about the samething yesterday since the Cinder cone article is now made, so I agree with the merge. Black Tusk 11:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canary Islands

Hi, Seattle Skier. This is possibly somewhat random as I'm not sure if you've had anything to do with these articles, but I noticed on your user page that you're heavily involved with Wikiproject Volcanoes, so I thought I'd ask anyway. I've made a few edits here and there to Canary Islands articles, particularly Lanzarote. I notice that Lanzarote, Fuertaventura and La Graciosa have Wikiproject Volcanoes tags on their talk pages and/or Volcano Infoboxes on the pages themselves. While these are clearly volcanic islands, I wonder if you might have an opinion on whether this is appropriate - personally I'm inclined to think that the infoboxes are misleading. Lanzarote, for example, consists of several volcanoes which have erupted at various times to form the island itself. Classing the entire island as a volcano seems a bit odd. I'll defer to your judgement as it sounds like you have a lot more idea about such things than I do; as far as Lanzarote goes, I'm just the photographer :-) --YFB ¿ 19:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... *ping*? Sorry if you're busy or something - I don't mean to hassle you, it's just that you keep appearing on my watchlist so I know you must be around and I'm not sure whether maybe you've missed my message for some reason. If you've just not got around to replying (or you've decided not to!), my apologies for being impatient. Look forward to hearing from you, --YFB ¿ 04:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, YFB, I didn't realize you needed an immediate response. I'm busy trying to do initial assessments of 1800+ articles for Wikiproject Volcanoes, and would have responded within 24 hours, for sure. Anyway, I haven't actually edited any of those articles, except fixing categories in some. But I do think that most geologists would consider each of the Canary Islands to in fact BE a massive volcano. For example, see the listings at the Global Volcanism Program: Lanzarote, Fuerteventura, Tenerife, etc., List of volcanoes in Canary Islands

Sure, each of the islands has smaller volcanic vents, cones, craters, etc., on it. But that doesn't mean that the whole island is not also a massive volcano rising from the sea floor. I think residents of the Canaries or Azores or such places are the ones most adamantly opposed to considering their entire island a volcano, probably for their own sense of security and peace of mind. (In contrast, it seems that Hawaiians embrace the geologically correct viewpoint.) But pretending something is not true doesn't change hard geological facts, which make clear that lava is likely to come pouring out of nearly any and every spot on an island like Lanzarote or Tenerife at some point. The islands are laced with fissures and cracks, and the primary mode of construction (which is ongoing on almost every one of those) is lava pouring out in huge flows from those weak points. As the islands slowly slump outward due to their own massive weight, additional fissures are being formed throughout, which is why lava can start flowing from any place at some time in the future. So the whole island must be considered a volcano.

Most Wikipedia articles on these islands do not have the geography or geology correct right now. For example, in Tenerife, it says "Like the rest of the Canary Islands, it is of volcanic origin" and does not say much more. While that may be true, it is a completely deceptive and misleading statement (it is unintentionally very POV, in fact, in that it severely downplays the degree of volcanism). A more accurate phrase would be, "Like the rest of the Canary Islands, Tenerife is a massive volcano which rises from the seafloor. By volume, this complex of overlapping stratovolcanoes is the largest volcano on earth outside of the Hawaiian Islands", and then provide details of the true degree of potential volcanic activity and hazard. One of the goals of Wikiproject Volcanoes is to properly and fairly address the volcanic facts about many such islands and mountains. All in good time, after initial assessments and such are done.

Feel free to ask more questions, or if something I said is unclear. (Wow, it took me 39 minutes to write this!) --Seattle Skier (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What a great reply! :-) Now I feel soooo guilty for hassling you - I didn't really need an urgent response, it's just that I've been doing an all-night coursework session and I keep checking my watchlist rather more frequently than I should... humble apologies.
Having spent my 2006 summer holiday on Lanzarote clambering about on a seriously volcanic landscape, I'm not in any doubt about its provenance and your response has given me a much better understanding of the classification applied to the islands by geologists - of course the geological aspect should take precedence, given what you've said above. A few years back I visited Vesuvius and while I was on Lanzarote I climbed one of the publicly-accessible cones, Montaña Corona. As a lay person it's easy to think just in terms of the visible summits and vents as volcanoes, rather than the entire island on which you're standing. I went to the visitor centre in the Parque Nacional de Timanfaya, where there's a display showing the island's progress over the hotspot that causes the eruptions themselves (IIRC) - the major activity is centred on a near-straight line which runs the length of the island. Again, that made me think of it more as an island with volcanoes springing up within it, rather than one massive volcano. I'm happy to defer to your version of things now that I have a clearer idea of what's going on :-)
As far as infoboxes goes, it does still strike me as somewhat incongruous to have the Lanzarote article headed by a summary of its geological properties - particularly things like "elevation", when there's several distinct summits on Lanzarote, each of which could probably have its own article+infobox eventually. Perhaps in cases like these, where the 'volcano' isn't just a geological phenomenon but a significant inhabited island and tourist destination, it would be appropriate (in the long term, of course - the Lanzarote article is pretty hopeless at the moment) to have a separate article about the geology, or for the Infobox Volcano to go further down the article under the Geology heading.
Anyway, it looks like you're doing a great job with the Wikiproject Volcanoes groundwork, so I'm sorry to have dragged you away from it with a non-urgent and, as it turns out, rather misguided query. It's my intention to get out and see a few more volcanoes in the not-tooooo-distant future (order of 1+ years, rather than weeks) and I'll be happy to take photos and/or contribute to articles as and where I can. I've got quite a large collection of photos related to the geology and landscape of Lanzarote (I took about 1200 shots during my 2 week holiday - not all encyclopaedic and not all particularly good) and I'll try to process and upload some more of them during the summer.
Thank you for your detailed, helpful reply. If I can be of any assistance with anything, give me a shout - I owe you one :-)
Cheers, --YFB ¿ 05:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Rishiri

Good point! Thanks! imars 06:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crater Lake

Hi Seattle Skier. I'm pleased you like the Crater lake image, but unfortunately, that is the highest resolution of it I have, my husband took that photo from an air flight from Dallas to Portland, and he didn't have a really high-fy camera last year, so...that would be the best I have. As for the date it was taken on, I have written that on the image description page at Commons. It was taken on Monday, July 17, 2006 at 5:30:48 PM -- Zainub 14:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Good point, I may be mistaking because he emailed me the photo in the summer, just after that flight from Dallas, may be he did tell the original time when when it was taken, but I confused it something else. I'll ask him and update the date. Thanks. --Zainub 17:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 3 May 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sabancaya, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GaribaldiLakePanorama-2400.jpg

Hi again, Seattle Skier. Just happened to be browsing Garibaldi Lake and came across your image - it's beautiful! If you've got the original component photos and wouldn't mind emailing them to me (username at hotmaildotcom), I'd be happy to run them through my panorama stitching software to get rid of the colour banding in the sky; panoramas aren't Photoshop's strong point, as I've learnt from experience. Let me know if there's anything else I can be of assistance with, too. Best regards, --YFB ¿ 20:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi YFB, thanks for the compliments, and for the offer, but I'd prefer not to do so. I used Canon's Photostitch software for the initial merge, and it made extensive reductions in the banding automatically. The amount of available lighting changes by several f-stops from left to center to right of this almost-sunset shot, so I think the software did quite well in reducing banding. Original brightness differences in the photos are much greater than in the final panorama.
However, after stitching, the entire horizon ended up unevenly curved in an almost intractable manner. I then spent a lot of time in Photoshop using "Shear" to carefully unbend the panorama so it would have a level horizon throughout. I shot the photos handheld, but it would have been better to use a tripod. However, I had no desire to lug that up to the lake, 9 km and 1000 meters of vertical gain up a steep trail, so I had to make do without. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, I don't blame you for not taking a tripod! I'm sorry, I assumed you'd used the Photoshop photomerge function, which has a tendency not to even up the exposures very well. It sounds like you've probably done as good a job of this, if not better, than I'd be able to do. I'd still be happy to give it a shot if you like, but no worries if you'd rather I left it. Compliments still apply :-) --YFB ¿ 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minoan eruption

I just noticed you gave a "B" grade to this article. When I originally found it, it was in terrible condition, but several editors and I have really worked to clean it up. It is my first volcano article in which I have made this much effort. Thanks for the grade. Now to find another volcano article to clean up!!! So to speak. Orangemarlin 05:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice work by you and the others, it read much more professionally now than it did a few months down the history list. I think it's certainly ready to send to WP:GAC now. If you're looking for another volcano article to clean up, we might have a list of candidates soon now that assessments for WP:VOLC are nearing completion. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Dammit, Seattle Skier, I'm a doctor, not a vulcanologist. LOL. I'd be glad to help. When I find an article of interest to me (and frankly, historical eruptions of volcanoes are the most interesting), I check the sources to make sure they're accurate, then using what I read in the sources, I change what is written. I also don't like bad writing!!!! Anyways, I'll look at the list to see what interests this old doctor. Orangemarlin 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume you're aware of the two main recent books about historical eruptions worldwide: Vulcan's Fury by noted volcanologist Alwyn Scarth, which is a really good book, and Volcanoes in Human History, also very good but less technical. Both have lots of interesting material and ideas for incorporating into various articles. Scarth has also written a fine book about Mount Pelée, titled La Catastrophe: The Eruption of Mount Pelée. That article, which I just rated, is a good example of one needing cleanup: it is B-class, but unlike Minoan eruption, it is far from WP:GA because it mostly lacks inline references. Several other books have been written about this eruption (e.g. Fire mountain : how one man survived the world's worst volcanic disaster and The Last Days of St. Pierre) and also the volcano itself (Mt. Pelée, Martinique: a study of an active island arc volcano), so there is a ton of material available to turn that article into a GA and eventually an FA. Just an example, not a suggested worklist . . . By the way, I enjoyed glancing at your user page, I was chuckling a lot since I seem to share many of your viewpoints (pro-Mac, anti-Dubya, NYY-hater, Modernist, etc.). --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Making people chuckle is fun. Please realize some people throw darts my way. I'll get those books. Nothing like a good read. Orangemarlin 21:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow Range (Coast Mountains)

Hi Seattle Skier, do you know if Tsitsutl Peak is really the main volcanic peak of the Rainbow Range? because I found other volcanic peaks around the same range, sush as Beef Peak, Mount MacKenzie and TaiaTaeszi Peak. Black Tusk 11:24, 05 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Black Tusk, I think it is best to refer to Tsitsutl Peak as the highest remaining point in that heavily eroded shield volcano. Looking at a topo map of the Rainbow Range (like the one here), it seems likely that the actual center of the volcano prior to erosion might have been just SW of Tsitsutl, roughly where the text "Area" is written on the map. It looks like the creek has heavily eroded into the actual center of the shield. But that's just my own speculation, and I haven't read any published sources which specify the center of the shield (i.e where the "main volcanic peak" once would have been).
The other peaks in your list are other high eroded remnants of the shield (actually, MacKenzie looks to be too far SW, and not part of the shield). Of the three, only Mount MacKenzie is an official name, and the others are unofficial according to bivouac.com. So we should be careful about creating articles about peaks with unofficial names. The only real separate volcanic peak associated with the Rainbow Range is Anahim Peak which sits on its NE flank. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok I just wanted to know because I seen a map of the Rainbow Range on bivouac.com [1] and there's more than just Tsitsutl Peak. I was thinking they could be remnants of the shield when it was not heavily eroded and was still over the Anahim hotspot. Black Tusk 09:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References on Nevado Sajama

Hi Seattle Skier. First, thanks for all the great contributions: you are constantly lighting up my watchlist. Good stuff! I noticed that you added some references for Nevado Sajama--thanks. However in light of what was happening recently on Mount Shasta I wanted to make a comment/suggestion about adding references in the way you just did. If someone adds references to an article without changing the content at all or putting in inline citations, it looks a bit strange, and it might be a red flag to someone who is particularly sensitive about spam. (Even someone who is more calm and reasonable than the anon party involved in the Mount Shasta dispute.) References, per se, are supposed to be sources that have actually been used in the writing of the article. So if one just gets added without any change or cite, it looks a bit wrong. When I want to add a general reference book that has not been used in the article (to my knowledge) I add it under "Further reading" or somesuch heading. That makes clearer what its status is. Someone may come along and declare that it is unnecessary, but at least it is not there under what might seem false pretenses. Of course, if the reference is actually something that is used for the content of the article, I would insert a specific inline citation. That makes it quite clear that it is a genuine reference and that it is necessary, in addition to making clear what info is coming from that reference.

Hope that makes sense to you; it's a minor point, and not one to make a big deal about, but that's my suggestion. Cheers -- Spireguy 16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Spireguy, thanks for your comment. I do understand your point, but I think the refs I have added are much more than "further reading". The problem on Sajama was that the GVP reference was not correct: despite Sajama being the highest volcano in Bolivia, it is not included on the GVP website. So that article appeared to have no reliable sources for its geological info. Or at least, with a quick look, little of the material in the article (except the Prem info) could be found in the two remaining websites listed (Peakware should be moved to ext links, I think). However, all of the info in the article can be sourced from the books I have added, so I think adding them is worthwhile. Other editors are free to look things up in them and make direct inline citations if they wish (as you have done on Shasta, thanks very much by the way). I will eventually go back and do so myself, too, since I think the majority of all these volcano and mountain articles can be at least GA (many like Shasta could also make FA), and so inline citations are mandatory. But I have no time right now to make detailed citations, since I'm too busy "lighting up watchlists" as I'm going around assessing and incrementally improving over 1000 articles. Completing the assessments is the first priority for my Wiki time right now, and I have been adding various book refs to many articles mainly so that I can remember where to look things up later.
I also do not think that any reasonable editor could have an objection to adding legitimate books in the refs section of an article, and any such objections would not be mollified by moving the books to "further reading" either. In fact, adding them to "further reading" looks more like spam, doesn't it? It implies that they are not essential for the article, while placing them in references says that they are important or essential to writing a well-sourced article and it would be difficult to do so without these sources. I also think that if an article currently has no inline citations, then having published books as the refs is much better than just websites (or nothing at all). For example, I added references to another book, Volcanoes of the Antarctic Plate and Southern Oceans, to about 50 articles yesterday. That book is the only published source for most of those, and in many cases the info in the article had to have come from that book even though it was uncited (or it came from a website which was using the book as its sole source). If another hostile POV-pusher / hidden-agenda-pusher like anon shows up and starts deleting the refs, then I am prepared to deal with them. I think your solution of immediately making direct inline citations to the books in question is an excellent one, and that would be my course of action in any future dispute.
Thanks again for your help on Shasta. Any interest in trying to help make that a GA and FA? I guess I could ask the same question about many other mountains, too. I'm sure it will be done eventually. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine. If your time is better spent elsewhere, then the specific citations can wait. I have to say that I don't recall anyone before anon complaining about books, listed as references, being spam.
About Shasta: sounds like a good project; it certainly deserves to be at least a GA. Maybe I'll look at it again in detail and see what I think it needs. -- Spireguy 21:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
One more thing about references. Something was still bugging me and I just realized what it was. It's the fact that something listed as a reference supports the current content of the article---making it look more correct---even if the reference has not been used (yet) to check the article. The example that was bugging me was actually also in Bolivia: Illimani used to claim that that peak was an extinct volcano, and for a long time I refrained from changing that, even though I was pretty sure it was false, because Simkin & Siebert was listed as a reference. I assumed that someone had actually used S&S as a source to check the claim. Well, after looking at S&S myself, I discovered that (naturally enough) there is no mention of anything in the Cordillera Real, since the range isn't volcanic. That was pretty annoying. I don't know exactly who put S&S in as a reference, but in that case it was actively misleading. Anyway, that's another reason why I am shy of putting in a book specifically under "references" when it hasn't yet been used for a specific citation. If the editor putting in the book has used it to check the article, in a general way, but not with a specific cite, that's OK, but it's not as clear to other editors that such care has been taken unless the cites are put in. -- Spireguy 03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
All good points. I've also often seen Illimani listed as an extinct volcano, probably this widespread misconception is based on nothing but its appearance. Regarding the S&S / GVP references, I've been trying to replace the generic {{Global Volcanism Program}} with the more specific {{VNUM}} in every article where I find it. In a few cases, the "volcano" can not be found on the GVP website even under alternate names, so I have deleted the generic GVP template. In one case, Nevado Anallajsi, it is no longer in GVP but a Google search finds that it was there, under VNUM 1505-013 (which is no longer valid). So I left the GVP template, and don't know what to do to properly source that article. Anallajsi is listed (as Annalajchi, with a single line in a huge table) in the slim volume, Volcanoes of the Central Andes, but not in the 640-page magnum opus, Volcanes de Chile, which is the best and most comprehensive book on that region (it includes almost all volcanoes in Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, and even Antarctica). --Seattle Skier (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question at your RFA

I have asked you an entirely optional question at your RFA. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have chosen to answer your question. --Seattle Skier (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Skukum

Hi Seattle Skier, do you know if Mount Skukum is a volcano? because I have herd it's a caldera complex, but I can't find anything about it. Black Tusk 01:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I left a question for you. I would really appreciate it if you answered it. Esperanza Ortega 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have answered it. --Seattle Skier (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ski areas and resorts at AfD

I am confused by your terms "troubles me" , "feel like a slap in the face", and "likely to only cause ill-will and hurt feelings". I am only attempting to delete those articles that are non notable. I understand if you guys want to make a list of ski resorts, but I don't think you should make an article about every ski resort, regardless of its notability. Perhaps you are "troubled" because your notability standards are skewed from being inside the ski culture

I do now understand that some of the resorts I nominated for deletion were a mistake. I understand being fairly popular in a local area seems to be enough for the article to be included(as long as it is sourced). This is why I am changing directions and only nominating small, obscure, and unpopular ones.

I don't agree with the goal of "creating articles on many ski areas, including some which may be small or obscure" If a ski resort is small and obscure, then it shouldn't have an article. the fact that Yawgoo Valley has been the topic of "many magazine and newspaper articles" means it is NOT obscure, IMO. There should be a list of sources at the bottom of that article with those publication names and dates for it to remain an article.

I sincerely apologize if I offended you in any way. C5mjohn 20:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to apologize for comparing ski resorts articles to restaurant reviews, because, as you said, they are completely different. C5mjohn 20:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, C5mjohn. I'll try to clarify the confusion you mention (and I prefer to keep conversations together in one place if possible). I said that it "troubles me" because I don't think that a systematic campaign to find and delete all small obscure ski area articles is a worthwhile goal, or one which should be pursued at all. I said that it "felt like a slap in the face" because it seems to be an effort to undo our hard work done to improve Wikipedia (and see below for what happened to me last night). That is also why your actions will likely "cause ill-will and hurt feelings" among those who created the various ski area articles you are looking for and AfDing. I have a thick skin and am not easily offended, but others may react with great hostility to your deletion campaign.
However, I was shocked to see all those ski areas on AfD yesterday, and after commenting on them, I rushed to add references to Mount Shasta Ski Park, an article I've created about a fairly small and fairly obscure ski area (yet it still easily surpasses notability standards). I did not enjoy having to go through my book collection in a rush last night, looking for specific page refs under the implied threat of a systematic campaign to AfD small obscure ski areas. That is not fun. Would you like that to happen to you? To rush to find refs for an article you started?
By the way, I freely admit that my personal standards for ski area notability are skewed from being a skier for over 25 years, but that doesn't mean I can't make an unbiased evaluation of worthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia. Regarding Yawgoo, it is both very small and fairly obscure, and I only know of it because I used to live about 50 miles away. But despite being small and fairly, published articles about it can be found hidden deep in stacks of old Ski and Skiing magazines, or in the archives of the Providence Journal or Boston Globe newspapers. If you AfD it, no one will enjoy being forced to suddenly drop what they're doing and go find references. That is what will cause offense, anger, and hurt feelings for other editors. The same applies for any other small obscure ski areas you find and AfD.
Regarding obscurity, that does not imply unworthiness for inclusion, either. For example, many historical figures are very obscure and unknown to the general public, but still easily worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Your statement that if something is "small and obscure, then it shouldn't have an article" is simply not true. Encyclopedic quality and worthiness are not reserved only for the large and well known. The reason that almost all ski areas, no matter how small or obscure, do have published articles about them somewhere is that ski journalists and outdoors writers for major newspapers like to search out and write about obscure ski areas every so often. This is done, I believe, to give a human interest element and hook to their stories which is missing when writing about a giant corporate colossus ski resort like Aspen or Vail. The end result is that (as I have stated on the AfDs) almost all ski areas, no matter how small or obscure, meet the notability standard, since they are covered in multiple, reliable secondary sources. The only hard part is finding the references in less than a week under the threat and hassle of an ongoing AfD, because they may be available only in printed form.
Having articles about tiny ski areas, even non-notable ones, does not harm Wikipedia or its integrity in any way. Having and hosting vanity / promo / spam / hoax etc. articles IS harmful and does undermine Wikipedia's reputation and its integrity as a useful, reliable knowledge source. By instead waging a deletion campaign against more deserving targets such as those, you would avoid offending dedicated good-faith contributors here.
Obviously, you are free to do as you wish within policies and established guidelines for conduct. But I hope you'll realize that your campaign, even if partially successful, is unlikely to improve Wikipedia in any way. The project will not be better off because Yawgoo or any other small ski area article got deleted. That alone is reason enough, I think, to not pursue it. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I am glad you explained your rationale for feeling bombarded. I will definitely slow down my AfD actions. I feel bad, too, because I should be contacting the creators and editors of these articles before I decide to nominate them.
"Having articles about tiny ski areas, even non-notable ones, does not harm Wikipedia or its integrity in any way" I would like to disagree with you about the "not harming wikipedia". When I read through some of these articles, IMO, they felt more like advertisements rather than encyclopedia articles. I believe a ski resort has to be notable outside of being popular to a niche group of people. Otherwise it feels like a directory of businesses, which wikipedia is not. Many (if not most or all) of those resorts are businesses. It hurts wikipedia to be a place where people flock to advertise their business.
I guess I am focusing too much on the "small and obscure" aspect of notability. You are right, many historical figures are obscure. But they have to be notable in some way for inclusion. I think you should create these ski resort articles in the opposite direction. Look through that pile of magazines and find the articles that make the resort notable and then make the article. Articles like Black Mountain of Maine are not sourced at all, other then self-promotion. It makes no claims of notability at all, other then "its a ski resort" When FURUBA fan created that page he should have found the articles that made that particular resort notable. Otherwise, it turns wikipedia into a link dump for random businesses.
In short, I DO feel like I am improving wikipedia by making sure that these BUSINESSES are notable. C5mjohn 22:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with you, that making sure businesses included here are notable does improve Wikipedia. I also see that some of the articles look like promotional material, and that is not appropriate. But it may not be easy to dredge up refs quickly enough and completely rewrite the article within the one-week timeframe of AfD, so an article about a ski area which is actually notable enough for inclusion may get deleted in this process. Maybe that's not a big loss if the article is mostly promo now, and the eventual stable article would need a full rewrite anyway. In any case, an admin can recover the deleted text if needed to write a new article at some later date.
I also agree that the method of looking through references first and then writing the article is the best way. It's too bad that the creators of those ski area articles did not follow that path. That is what I've tried to do for most of the 50+ articles I've started, but I haven't always been thorough enough initially, as I discovered when I looked at Mount Shasta Ski Park in light of all the sudden AfDs. So in a sense, the AfDs of those 6 ski areas have already forced an improvement to be made to an entirely different article, but I wish the improvements I made could have happened under different circumstances and at a more relaxed pace, instead of a sudden rush.
Thanks for slowing down the pace of your AfDs. I also think the step of informing the main contributors is an important one (as you've realized), it is a good course of action for all prods and AfDs, and really for anything but the most obviously speedy-deleteable spam or nonsense articles. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I, Darwinek, hereby award you this barnstar for your excellent and tireless work with volcanoes articles. Your contributions help keep this area of geographic knowledge coherent. Darwinek 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Photo of Herðubreið

Hi Seattle Skier, your crop of Herðubreið looks very good and I would have been perfectly fine if you had even just replaced the original with the cropped. When I originally cropped it I just wasn't sure if it was cropped enough and figured someone would do it if they saw fit.

Yes, the photo was taken from about a southeast/east point, as we were driving north and the mountain approached on our left. I can add this to the captions. Best regards, Icemuon 09:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator - with pretty much unanimous support! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats and enjoy that mop! Vsmith 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations -- Spireguy 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You are very welcome! :) As I said, you did a great self-nomination, and your answers were great too. I was more than happy to support. Acalamari 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats...I'm glad you're an admin.--MONGO 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're welcome – I know you'll mop wisely! KrakatoaKatie 21:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Congratulations and thanks for the kind words. Look forward to seeing you around (perhaps you might help close some CfD debates ;) ).
Xdamrtalk 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Congrats mate. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations :-) PeaceNT 03:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Get out there and enjoy the buttons :) – Rianaऋ 08:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Horay!
Horay!
Yeah, I'm a little bit late but Congratulation's. You've earned the trust of the Wikipedia community, good work; and, for the future, good luck. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Before you click the delete button remember: External storage space is free for Wikimedia. We have many terabytes of apache hard drive space that we have no other use for. -- Tim Starling from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Reduce_size_of_the_database --Khunter 07:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Khunter. But deletion has no effect on storage space, since all deleted edits are retained, and can be restored. However, just because we have terabytes of space doesn't mean that spam, filth, and nonsense need to remain online here. I'm trying to carefully look through any articles I do delete to make sure they fit CSD criteria, especially because I'm a new admin and would prefer not to make any errors. You'll see that many minutes pass between my deletions, unlike some admins who delete dozens of items per minute (they have more skill, more experience, a semi-automated script, something?). So far, everything I've deleted had to go. Things that are even close to borderline remain in the CSD categories for someone else to deal with. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: RfA thanks

Hey, great, I'm glad to hear your RfA was successful! Have fun with your new buttons! Cheers mate gaillimhConas tá tú? 00:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cats

I dont know if youve had much to do with creation or deletion of categories - I strongly suggest that the volcano project (and have said there on talk page) dosnt get carried away with too much coming and going with categories - it can attract attention of the cat police - and where some articles can beso over categoriesed - there can be issues about that with multiple volcano cats being seen as a problem! cheers SatuSuro 04:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could use some help with new and exisiting glacier articles

A few months ago, I have noticed that there are too many glacier red-links especially in the Washington and Oregon section of List of glaciers. A few months later, that hasn't changed much with the exception of a new article about a glacier in China and maybe a few more. Recently, a break in my college schedule has allowed me to go on a massive Mount Rainier glacier article creation spree. I just thought that I could use some help expanding some of the existing articles and creating new articles, since you probably know more about the Pacific Northwest than I do. The decision is totally up to you; if you are too busy or do not reply, then I will singlehandedly create all of them in about a month. Hydrogen Iodide 06:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I completely spaced out and forgot to reply to this. I can start creating some (many) of those glacier articles once the assessments for WikiProject Volcanoes are completed in the next couple of days. Maybe this weekend, especially if it rains up here. I'd be happy to write articles for all of the Oregon glaciers, plus those on Mt Adams, Baker, Glacier Peak, and Goat Rocks. That should eliminate most of the red links in OR and WA. I actually have photos for many of these glaciers (and the ones on Rainier and Shasta), which I'll eventually upload to Commons. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, could you help me delete Crater Glacier 1, the redirect page. I accidentally made it during moving the content to Crater Glacier. Thank you. Hydrogen Iodide 19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes

How do I more formally be a part of this project? Is there a secret vote? Initiation ceremony? Handshake? Cool ring? Seriously, I don't know if there is a formal process, but I've taken a keen interest in the project. I've really only made significant edits to a few articles, Minoan eruption being the biggest. However, being a relative newbie (OK, after 4000 edits or so, I guess not, I just mean in what I've involved myself), I thought I'd ask if there was a process. Thanks. Orangemarlin 04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no secret handshake or ceremony. You can just add your name to the list of participants, and then contribute to any articles you are interested in. Some of the currently listed participants are very active, others less so, some not very much, so there's no obligation either. Also, feel free to edit or expand any of the project pages, too. By the way, I'll try to help out some on Minoan eruption, after the project assessments are completed in the next couple of days. I found some useful free images which would nicely enhance the article. I thought the GA reviews were a bit harsh, but I think it's not that far away. It's already better than several articles I've found listed as GAs during the course of assessing over 1,400 articles the past few weeks (maybe those should be de-listed?). I think GA and FA standards keep getting higher over the course of time, so some older articles had it easy. Anyway, keep up the good work. --Seattle Skier (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I was looking forward to the decoder ring. Damn. Your help on the Minoan eruption article will be very useful. I've worked it quite a bit with a few others, and I think it's just a tweak here and there from GA status. Orangemarlin 23:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
If you can spare a few moments (cough, hours) to clean up the geological part of Minoan eruption, I would be humbly in your debt. It is so close to GA status, but I can't quite get it there. I'm begging now. Bribery is next. Orangemarlin 05:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure. It's a(nother) rainy Sunday here in Seattle, and the WP:VOLC assessments were finally completed yesterday, so I'll have time to take a look today. I have the book Fire in the Sea and have been reading it this morning, so I should be well up to speed on the Minoan eruption before making any edits. I also found several useful topographic/bathymetric diagrams of the caldera on the NOAA website here and here, which are public domain and could be used to enhance the article (and also perhaps Santorini). The panorama of the caldera wall from Santorini might also make a good addition, since it show the constructional layers of the volcano so nicely. Two more free photos of the caldera wall and eruption deposits are on the GVP site here. I think 4-5 images would nicely enhance the Minoan eruption article, since images are one area where the article is lacking (even though images are not required for GA). --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One of your blocks requesting unblock

Please see Tarkyn 24 (talk · contribs). I have no opinion on if they're worth a 2nd chance. —dgiestc 05:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to give him a second chance. I'll unblock him, but we should keep a close watch in any case. --Seattle Skier (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers mate

You're doing a great job. Keep the good work up. - Tarkyn 24 14:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Edziza

Hi Seattle Skier, there's something going on with User:Edziza. He is making edits to Canadian volcanoes commenting that they are not part of the Pacific Ring of Fire, which is incorrect. Black Tusk 10:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Black Tusk, after looking through Edziza's edits, it seems to me that he takes a very narrow definition of the Pacific Ring of Fire, including only subduction-related volcanoes. But I think that most references take a broader, more inclusive definition which would include volcanoes in extensional rifting areas like the NCVP and also most of the western USA other than the Cascades (i.e. southern California, Arizona, New Mexico) as part of the Ring. Some refs even include the rifting-related volcanoes in Antarctica as part of the Ring of Fire. Personally, I prefer the broad inclusive definition, and so I agree with you that the NCVP should be included in the Ring. The Pacific Ring of Fire is largely an artificial construct anyway (more popular than scientific), so there is no harm in being inclusive as long as reliable references support it. Both Volcanoes of Canada and the book Volcanoes of North America support including the Canadian volcanoes as part of the Ring.
Perhaps we should discuss the issue with Edziza on his talk page? Based on this info, he seems to be quite knowledgeable and experienced, and probably has a good reason for his edits. Discussion is probably better than just blindly reverting his edits. I'll go ahead and ask him. --Seattle Skier (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I agree, but even Hoodoo Mountain, he says it is a stratovolcano but is actually a tuya, since it formed under glacial ice. Black Tusk 3:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Most references I've seen call Hoodoo Mtn a tuya, including Volcanoes of North America and also http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/volcanoes/hoodoo_e.php which says "The volcano is a flat-topped tuya" . . . but then look at this page: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/volcanoes/cat/volcano_e.php?id=svb_hoo_032, which mentions the word "Stratovolcano". Maybe we should include both terms? With references to each of those pages? --Seattle Skier (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess it is both, since it was formed under glacial ice and has had renewed activity, unlike many other tuyas in British Columbia, making a more stratovolcano-like volcano. Black Tusk 10:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sphinx

Hi Seattle Skier, do you know if The Sphinx is volcanic? I have found a subglacial volcano called Sphinx Moraine in the Catalogue of Canadian volcanoes [2] but I'm not sure if they are the same thing. Black Tusk 12:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plinth Peak

Hi Seattle Skier, do you think Plinth Peak would be a major volcano? Because I was thinking about adding it to the {{Cascade volcanoes}} template, since it is the highest peak of Mount Meager, and because I seen Shastina in the {{Cascade volcanoes}} template, which I know is the highest satellite cone of Mount Shasta. I just want to know because of the mistake about Franklin Glacier Volcano. Black Tusk 10:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting a semi-protect on Landour

Hi---can you take a look at Landour, including its history, and Talk:Landour? The page was apparently written by one editor, who now has a strong sense of ownership of the page. It has a lot of good stuff, but his/her version, to which he keeps reverting, is rife with POV and tone concerns. I'm getting very tired of the repeated reverts with no attempt at discussion, so I'd like to ask for a semi-protect, if that's appropriate. I don't see any other way to prevent the repeated reverting and force some sort of discussion. Thanks -- Spireguy 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again---Looks like you've been away. Anyway, if you look at the recent posts on Talk:Landour, you'll see that discussion of a sort finally happened. Unfortunately it was unproductive, unresponsive to the concerns I expressed, and full of personal attacks. I'm rather tired of that particular battle, so I'm disengaging for a while. Hence the semi-protect might not have any point right now. However if another editor comes along and wants to take up the issues I brought up, I would expect the anon IP(s) to revert/edit-war similarly, in which case protection may be useful. Thanks anyway -- Spireguy 19:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of response, Spireguy. I've been largely offline / off-Wiki this summer, but I will be more active again this fall. I'll keep Landour on my watchlist. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent deletion of the Andrew Meyer page

It was wrong of you to delete that page, and your actions were unjustified by the wikipedia rule you invoked. It was in no way an "attack page." It simply summarized the content of two news stories on the tasering incident in a totally neutral way. For reference see Ucla taser incident. You've sure taught me a lesson about the nature of wikipedia, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addisonstrack (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, Addisonstrack, I don't know what you're talking about. I've never even seen (much less deleted) any Andrew Meyer page. See the logs for Andrew Meyer for proof. Perhaps you've left this message on the wrong admin's talk page? --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Outburst Floods, GLOFs, et.al

I note the following as an applied geologist, rather than from the acedemic side. I was able to to wiki GLOF, but was unable to wiki the more generic Lake Outburst Flood until I was within the Volcano Project. I believe a more general categorization (or a link correction) would be more helpful for those searching for knowledge. I'd be more help, but lost Lake Outburst Flood again.

My experience with them is riverine at lower altitudes, not necessarily at the peak, from a volcanic or glacial perspective. In this environment, they are more related to landslides (erosion or seismically indiced). My experience would indicate that high gradients, youthful topography and weak/recent semi-consolidated sediments along/above river banks are a general (non-glacial, non-volcanic) trigger for causing the lake itself.

The downstream results of the outburst are well described and can be disasterous. You could also add Vajont Dam , if you want a man-made one. --CasualObserver'48 05:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC) --CasualObserver'48 06:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[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) 09:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] List of ski areas and resorts in Canada

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of ski areas and resorts in Canada, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May I ask you . . .

Not having ever communicated with you before, this will no doubt seems a bit rude, but where have you been? I know that that's potentially a personal question, but I ran across a comment of yours on a talk page earlier today, and was so impressed by the clarity of your thinking that I've spent probably an hour now reading your contributions, your talk page comments, even your RfA. You are a most impressive editor/administrator, yet you virtually disappeared shortly after gaining adminship. I do hope that you have not been hit by some personal tragedy, but if you are never able to return to your previous form, please know that you left more impact in your four active months than 95% of editors do after several years of editing. Good form, Skier. Unschool (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Ferry

FYI: You asked on the template's talk page to be kept in the loop. Template:Infobox Ferry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — - Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)