User talk:Jeff in CA/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Great work in United States Intercollegiate Lacrosse Association / USILA page.
It is such a messy history, that I always had problems with the original design. Great work in redesigning ! 10stone5 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC) |
Books and Bytes - Issue 10
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)
- New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
- New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
- TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
A new reference tool
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
- Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
- Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Bancos
This is in reference to the passage you pasted on Talk:Territorial evolution of the United States, and I hope you know something about the subject matter because I need help finding some information. In the table, it mentions bancos being transferred in 1910 and 1912; unfortunately, this was before the IBWC began maintaining minutes. The source is not available online; do you know of a secondary source that can back this up, or am I going to have to go library diving? Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. :) Fortunately, adding map frames for the bancos is very easy, so it's okay if they aren't done as I pass by them in this project. Also, I'd love to have zoomed in views of as many as possible, right now I only have zooms for the two big ones, Horcon and Chamizal. --Golbez (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 11
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
- New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
- Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
The Wikipedia Library
The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
- Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
- Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
- Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
- Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Canal Zone
You say that the agreement of June 15 1904 specifies a 30 meter circle around the lighthouse; I don't see this in the text, and my source doesn't include the maps. Where did you find that? Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- At https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=dxovAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA2304 , it's on the 379th page of the downloaded pdf (or page 370 of the Google Books GUI), which is page 2304 of the actual volume, "Investigation of Panama Canal Matters..." of the Senate Committee on Interoceanic Canals. Citation includes: "INFORMAL PROVISIONAL DELIMITATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OP THE CANAL ZONE (See 1904 Ann. Rept. 78 and 91-93), Signed at Panama June 15, 1904 (Senate Doc. No. 401, 59th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. III, p. 2300)"
- Also, just to be sure I'm reading it right: The order of December 22, 1904, is moving territory from Panama City and to Canal Zone, right? --Golbez (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- The December 22, 1904, reference is a recommendation by the Isthmian Canal Commission Executive Committee that instructs General Davis to arrange the described transfer of territory. Although it seems to make sense, the passage in the ICC minutes for 12/22/04 does not explicitly say it’s from Panama City to the Canal Zone. I think we would need to confirm that it was followed up with an arrangement with Panama. The passage on page 284 states:
- "December 22, 1904
- In the matter of changing the delimitation line of the Canal Zone, near the City of Panama, the Executive Committee recommended as follows :
- That General Davis be informed that the plan as outlined in his letter of December 6, 1904, and as shown on his accompanying map, is approved, and that he be requested to arrange with the Panamanian Government for the changing of the line of the Canal Zone so as to include the Cemetery, the adjacent ground to the north thereof, the remainder of the Estate "El Trapichi," and that known as "Santa Rosa," that known as "Juan Vasquez," and a portion of the grounds belonging to some private owners and the City of Panama. The recommendation of the Committee was approved."
- Eight years later, the Panama Canal Act of August 24, 1912, gave the President great leeway and power to change the delimitation of the Canal Zone. However, in 1904 it also would seem that Executive Branch (ICC) approval given to Davis to implement his written plan would mean that the "arrangement" was a fait accompli. (In particular in the 1912 act:
- "The President is authorized by treaty with the Republic of Panama to acquire any additional land or land under water not already granted, or which was excepted from the grant, that he may deem necessary for the operation, maintenance, sanitation or protection of the Panama Canal and to exchange any land or land under water not deemed necessary for such purposes for other land or land under water which may be deemed necessary for such purposes, which additional land or land under water so acquired shall become part of the Canal Zone.")
- Also [this might go on for a while], you wrote, "By giving the directional coordinates for the boundary of the city, the 1914 agreement did enclave Punta Paitilla. The first boundary point was on the Pacific shore of Punta Paitilla and crossed that promontory to attach to the next point.". Did you have a map or did you run the coordinates yourself, or is this just hopeful thinking? :) --Golbez (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- I should have said 1904. Punta Paitilla was enclaved in the 1904 agreement, and then was de-enclaved by the 1914 agreement’s metes and bounds for the new boundary . On page 2302 of the above 1904 volume, it is stated, ”Beginning on the shore line of the Pacific Ocean at a stake driven above high-water mark on Punta Paitilla, thence on a straight line northwesterly to a similar stake driven upon the summit of Cerro Pelado …” The map that appears in the Canal Zone Record newspaper along with the 1914 agreement shows both the old and new Canal Zone boundaries with Panama City. On the map, the tip of Punta Paitilla is crossed by the old boundary.
- Jeff in CA (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 12
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
- Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
- Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
- American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco
The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 13
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
- Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
- Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
- Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Re Closure of List of Deaths in Labor Disputes
Jeff,
Whenever you make an article move in response to an RM, as you did with the Labor dispute list, please follow the closing procedures at WP:RMCI. If you do not close the RM it will remain open in the Backlog and the fact that the article has already been moved can cause confusion. If you need help, ask an Admin for assistance. I closed this one for you, Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 14
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
- Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
- Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians
The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Pre-minute bancos
What is the source you use for the bancos in Banco Convention of 1905 that don't have minutes? --Golbez (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- The are two volumes of International Boundary Commission proceedings with maps of each banco, published in 1910 and 1912. Digitized versions can be found at https://babel.hathitrust.org (http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015027926859 and http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015027926867).
- Volume 1 with maps is also on Google books at https://books.google.com/books?id=3zMxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA13&dq=International+Boundary+Commission+Proceedings&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin6v6GzafKAhUKwWMKHao3AC0Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=International%20Boundary%20Commission%20Proceedings&f=false
- I'll put these in cited references on the Banco Convention of 1905 article. Jeff in CA (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- The sources are Minute 144 (page 4 of the pdf) for the first portion to be constructed and Minute 159 for the San Elizario Island portion (page 6 of the pdf). They state the total areas as 1767.41 hectares and 304.98 hectares, respectively, split evenly between the U.S. and Mexico. Adding and converting to acres gives 5121 acres total, or 2560.5 each. Jeff in CA (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 15
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)
- New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
- #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
- New branches and coordinators
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
LTEs
Regarding our discussion of LTEs, I still have slight confusion. Let me see if I can state my understanding accurately:
If a LTE cannot be claimed as emergent land within a territorial sea, but rather is simply a part of the territorial sea, then, logically and to be consistent, a LTE can not be a land mass.
To turn that around, suppose that Nunez Rocks are indeed viewed by the U.S. as a land mass. Then by the U.S.'s own stated interpretation of the 1903 U.S-Britain treaty on the Alaska boundary, that land mass would belong to Canada.
However, countering this supposition is this: The U.S. viewing Nunez Rocks as a land mass is necessarily not the case because the U.S. has used Nunez Rocks as a basepoint for a territorial sea claim.
Question: is my use of the word "necessarily" in the previous sentence accurate? Jeff in CA (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be accurate. If the United States does not view the Nunez Rocks as a land mass but still uses it as a basepoint for its territorial sea, then it must consider it to be an LTE in order to use it as such a basepoint under international law. However, the United States is not a party to the Law of the Sea Treaty though it does adhear to most of its principals as customary international law. As a non-signatory, there technically is nothing preventing it from claiming areas beyond the scope of the Law of the Sea treaty, yet in practice it has virtually always made its claims in accordance with the treaty.XavierGreen (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Mesabi strike section.
Sorry about that, already had it open for editing while you did your edit. Anmccaff (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
source for strike details
Hi Jeff, and thanks for the thanks... a "patience" button would be nice to have too, sometimes. I've been meaning to share a source with you. It is here, a "Roll Call of the Dead" appearing as an appendix to 1950 book, listing striker fatalities 1934 through 1949. A quick glance suggests this may help resolve a handful of those wonky Ferguson citations, with leads on many fresh ones. Warm regards --Lockley (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
That's worse than Fergusson on some of them; it includes a trespasser who electrocuted himself. Anmccaff (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
re Rio Grande Rectification
So we have the map you scanned [1] and I know what book it's from [2] but I still have some issues with this. One is, these changes were made at different times, whereas I'd be putting them all in a single entry in 1933. Because of that, it seems ideal to link to the map, but that's not possible because 1) the Google Book version is snippet-only, and 2) can't very much link to your google drive. So the next best thing would be to make my own map, as a zoom in of the area, and I'm okay with doing that, despite it not being the best solution. But I can't tell right off which part of the Rio Grande I'm looking at. I mean, I see El Paso and Juarez there, but that doesn't mean I know which curves we're dealing with; I don't know just how far from the cities the map starts. Can you drop a couple of pins on a Google Map showing the extremes of the map? --Golbez (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also, reviewing the Arizona banco map you made (and thank you for that), I went back to the USGS to look at historic maps of the Yuma area... and the map in 1903 bears very little resemblance to the map of 1993. Could most of that just be the natural movement of the river (which does move the border)? And the only artificial movements (which don't automatically move the border) were those two bancos? And, if that's the case, should the map showing the bancos, if made, be based on the nearest USGS map of the Colorado River available (1905) rather than the present day? In which case, we'd have to rethink the map you made of the bancos? And I'm rambling, so is this making sense? And is this just another attempt by me to get out of dealing with the US-Mexico border? --Golbez (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I dropped some pins on a map of the El Paso-Juarez Valley area that you can find here. I refer to a 1980 IBWC map that is here. I have realized that the map in Mueller's book is only the northernmost 20 miles or so of the rectification, which he chose to illustrate. The extent of Mueller's map is indicated by the middle pin on my Google map. However, the southern end of the complete rectification is south of Fort Quitman, which is another 60 miles downstream. I think it is important to convey the large scale of the whole rectification, and that would mean (I think) abandoning the mapping of the many small cuts. So rather than mapping at a small scale, perhaps it would be effective to show side-by-side sketch maps of the before- and after-rectification path of the Rio Grande from El Paso in the north to Little Box Canyon in the south. I don't know how easy it would be to find a "before" map from the early 1930s (19 of the 20 banco exchanges along this section happened in early 1930 , and the last one was in May 1932, all before the rectification). Perhaps an earlier 20th century map would suffice for a sketch map if it's at a high enough level that would still serve the purpose of illustrating the difference in the boundary. This is all just a suggestion, and you are free to do it as you see fit, as I don't have your practical knowledge.
- Regarding the Arizona border, my sense is that yes, the movements in the river after the 1903 map were the natural slow and gradual movements of the river (and thus the border also). And in the 1920s someone showed that the two bancos had been cut off by an avulsive mechanism (e.g., flood): Fain Banco in 1902 and Farmers Banco in 1905. Under the Banco Convention, that fact allowed the border to be artificially moved to match the river that flowed, not in the cut-off channel that resulted at the time, but to the actual 1927 flow of the river (if it was different). Based on the maps in Minute 99, the distances of each banco from the 1927 Colorado River location were less than they are from today's river, significantly so for Farmers Banco. However, the bancos' respective distances from today's border are very nearly the same as they were from the border in 1927, because today's border at these two banco locations is nearly the same as the river locations in the maps in Minute 99 from 1927.
- At some point in time after 1927, it seems as though the two governments stopped maintaining the actual course of the Colorado River as the border. It can be seen in aerial maps on the internet that today's international border is crossed numerous times by the water-filled Colorado River. It appears that the border has for some time remained static based on a previous course of the river, as it does not coincide in the least with the current course of the river. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just to see what it would look like, I overlaid a current map of the U.S.-Mexico border in the El Paso-Juarez Valley (over the entire distance of the 1935-38 Rio Grande Rectification) with a tracing of the border as it existed well prior to the rectification (and before the 20 banco exchanges done there). I obtained the tracing of the old border from 1908 and 1894 USGS maps that are available at the USGS website. I have shared the file I made here. In this SVG file, I used three layers. The current border from OpenStreetMaps (aquamarine color) is overlaid with the 1908 border in black (the northern half of the tracing) and the 1894 border also in black (the southern half of the tracing). Perhaps this might be helpful in your efforts on the territorial acquisitions mapping project. Jeff in CA (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 16
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)
- New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
- Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
- A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
- Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)