| Revision as of 05:02, 29 October 2006 editAntarcticwik (talk | contribs)376 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:17, 23 November 2021 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,139,126 edits →ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (129 intermediate revisions by 50 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == ] moved to draftspace == | |||
| ==Fitzroy border== | |||
| An article you recently created, ], is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from ], ]. <small>(])</small> Information that can't be referenced should be removed (] is of ] on Misplaced Pages). I've moved your draft to ] (with a prefix of "<code>Draft:</code>" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Misplaced Pages's ] and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your information about the Fitzroy border. | |||
| == ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message == | |||
| The cited document mentions a 1:50,000 map. I have some accurate topographic maps of southern Chile, but these maps have many no data areas, and there are other areas, particularly around the border, for which I have not been able to get maps. For the Fitzroy area I have a tourist 1:50,000 map with no borders shown, but I have no Chilean maps. Also, I am trying to find out the exact elevation of Cerro San Valentin. Chilean mapping gives 3,911m but other sources give 4,058m and ] data supports the higher figure. Please see also ]. I would like to have accurate elevations for these summits; official Chilean IGM maps show no elevations, and the most often given elevations, especially that of Paine Grande, are not compatible with photographic evidence. Any information you can supply would be greatly appreciated. ] 04:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
| :I am an amateur in these matters. In any case, I can give you some useful info. See the following link: . That is official info, although not necessarily true. Recent maps and the most of the Chilean websites give 4,058m for Cerro San Valentin. In relation to Paine Grande, almost all the sources give 3,050m. See this article: and this another: . ] 23:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| Thank you for these interesting links. The Garibotti photo from Paine Grande summit is particularly interesting, despite the low resolution. Assuming it shows Fortaleza in the centre (I am sure about this, what else could it be?) and the Torres on the right, then the heights that the border zones link gives, PG 3050m, F 2681m, Torre Sur 2850m, cannot all be correct. Consider the geometry, if they were all correct, the Torres would appear higher than Fortaleza, which they clearly do not. I am not alone in claiming the Torres are only 2500m, see . It seems to me that the 2,850m Torre Sur elevation was estimated on the basis of 3,050m for Paine Grande, and that the 3050m claim is at the root of the other errors in the Paine range. You are right that this is given by almost all sources, but perhaps they all copy each other. Also, my ChIGM 1:50,000 map of Cerro Macá (section XI) has no summit elevation or topography, and ] clearly shows that it is no more than 2,300 m. The northern Chile data looks good; here the IGM maps are in excellent agreement with SRTM, but I think that some of the Patagonian summits are in need of a new, modern survey. ] 07:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Evidently, most are copies of data from a few sites or sources. It never pretended to be a proof of true elevation. ] 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| </td></tr> | |||
| </table> | |||
| :A that climbed the San Valentin in 1993 included two surveyors, who calculated an elevation of 4,080+-20 m by using a Global Positioning System (GPS). A measured 4,070+-40 m by using GPS too. | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1056563129 --> | |||
| :In the next photos, you can see the ] from a different angle, near . I calculate that Cerro Paine Grande is, approximately, at least 3 percent higher than Cerro Paine Chico and about of 30 percent higher than Cuerno Principal. What is your opinion?. ] 02:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| Hi, thank you for these links. I have split and transferred this discussion to ] (which I have created) and ]. ] 11:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I found information about Macá volcano. The Macá, according to the maps, has an elevation of 2,916 m, but the first ones and the second ones to climb it, consider that is not higher than 2,400-2,500 m. ] 15:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* in Spanish | |||
| ::Thank you for this link too. It shows that the elevations shown on many maps of Patagonia are often much too high. But the errors are not generally found on official ChIGM maps, which merely show no data areas. Interestingly, the above link gives over 1,913m for Volcan Burney, but ] and ChIGM mapping agree that it is about 1,500m. The quality of high resolution ChIGM topo maps is usually very good. ] 15:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Checkuser == | |||
| If you think that someone is illicitly using a sockpuppet, including tag-teaming from an IP address, you can either bring the matter to ] or ]. Or you can ask him outright: were these edits yours? They may say "yes" (which really simplifies things). They may say "no", which means that if a later checkuser shows that the edits ''were'' theirs, then there is no doubt about deceptive intent. | |||
| By the way, you are clearly way above an en-1 level English-language writer. An en-1 is usually someone who can read, but cannot really express himself in English. I suggest you change your user page accordingly. - ] | ] 18:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :My edits are not done in real time. For that reason, I think that my english level is not what it seems to be. I spent time, for example, comparing the number of results found by Google in the search for words or phrases, with the aim of reducing the number of errors in my edits. Please feel free to correct my spelling and grammatical errors. ] 22:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Check out this link: | |||
| :http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=teresa+of+the+andes | |||
| The vatican link you spoke of: | |||
| :http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_19930321_teresa-de-jesus_en.html | |||
| calls her ''Teresa de Jesús "de los Andes"'' and then ''TERESA OF JESUS OF LOS ANDES''. | |||
| I'm pretty sure "the Andes" is a reference to the geography, and not the town. If you're really concerned about the article, I'd go rewrite it, because it is a pretty obvious {{tl|copyvio}}. Cheers. --] 19:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I want to clarify that I'm not a specialist in this area, it is only my opinion. At the end of the Vatican page other saints are mentioned: ] ( monastery of the Incarnation of the Carmelite nuns at ]), ] (Carmelite monastery at ]) and . If it was consistent, the name would be "Los Andes" for the town where the monastery is located. ] 00:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thank you== | |||
| Just a note to thank you for watching my user and talk pages, and de-vandalising them before I noticed the vandalism. ] 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| '''MANO DURA CON Al Vandalus ''' QUIEN es sumamente hostil con Chile, se le nota el resentimiento a kilometros, debe ser habitante de alguno de los paises que nos rodean y envidian, o quiza un español que no puede entender que nos desarrollamos sin necesidad de mendigar dinero a la Union Europea, como lo hicieron ellos por mas de dos decadas.- saludos desde Puerto Montt.- | |||
| ] 04:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:17, 23 November 2021
Independencia Avenue (Santiago de Chile) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Independencia Avenue (Santiago de Chile), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Misplaced Pages). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 19:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |