Jump to content

User talk:Golbez/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

List of Interstate Highways in Michigan

Since you commented in the last nomination, I'm letting you know that it has been renominated, and your feedback would again be appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

GWU

Hey... thanks for reverting my edit of George Washington University. I didn't see the logo, that obviously says The in it, and had thought someone had put it there because it sounded better. Again, thanks for catching my mistake. I should really look next time I do something like that! CorkythehornetfanTalk 21:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Animation of US states

Hi Golbez, I put all your maps together into this .gif, (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Development_of_the_United_States,_1789_to_1959.gif) but now I find that it won't work on Wikipedia pages for some reason. Do you know why this is, or how to fix it? Cheers, Wikidea 21:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's strange because this one was made small enough to work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_states_by_date_of_statehood3.gif Nothing to be done then? Wikidea 22:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kannapolis, North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Morton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

The Signpost: 01 October 2014

Regions of Ukraine

You were involved at Regions of Kazakhstan. Maybe you can have a look at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine#Requested move, I think both cases are very similar. Derianus (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2014

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

U.S. historical maps with some errors

It looks as if you were the creator of several images that were modified as part of an animated gif image of the historical U.S. expansion series: [File:US_Slave_Free_1789-1861.gif] In that set I noticed a problem with Missouri's boundaries from 1837 until 1861. In 1836 the Platte Purchase annexed the land in the northwestern corner up to the Missouri River. This should be added to the maps. The 1861 map reflects this, but unfortunately identifies Kansas as a territory even though it gained statehood in January of 1861. Kenmayer was the creator of the animated gif, but it isn't clear to me if he is still editing since requests have been made by others without response. I'm wondering if there is any way to get this animated gif updated? Red Harvest (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please Stop Shouting

Your use of BLOCK CAPITALS at Talk: United States is not helpful and is generally considered SHOUTING. Just because an editor has a very non-consensus position does not mean that he should be shouted down as a troll, even if his arguments are ignored. Your shouting is as disruptive as the original questionable post. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Is a higher resolution image possible?

Golbez, I am interested in a higher res version of one of your maps. I am doing a small book for family members of some family civil war letters and your map of the US/seceding states in 1862 would be a great addition. Blurb bookwright tells me I need a higher res image (300 dpi) which I think means 2400 x 3000 since my book is 8x10. (I am an amateur, so help me out if I have the resolution thing all wrong.) Can you help me? lamqua — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamqua (talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "United States". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 December 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning United States, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United States, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

From lamqua re: File:United States 1861-08-1862.png

I am such a neophyte, I am not sure if this is the way to respond to your response to my inquiry about a higher res of a map. This is the map I am interested in: File:United States 1861-08-1862.png

lamqua Lamqua (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

Genarlow Wilson

Hi Golbez. Several years ago, you fully protected the redirect Genarlow Wilson. I'm requesting that you unprotect it, reduce it to semi-protection, or else fix it so that it redirects directly to Wilson v. State rather than being a double redirect. Thank you. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation/United States

I've accepted to mediate this case and we are ready to begin. Please join on the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States. Sunray (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

Merger discussion for Jingle truck

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jingle truck, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. wia (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Request for input on talk page

I would like your input on an edit that is currently being discussed. Specifically, the Proposed formatting change for the article List of Presidents of the United States. Since you have participated in numerous proposals for featured lists of Governors of the United States, I thought you could share insights and information that may be pertinent to this discussion. The edit that is being discussed is this. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Governor of Florida / colonies

Golbez,

As a native Floridian of many generations, I would argue that Florida was designated a territory to be developed - as is supported by the governor's title. Others may refer to it as a "colony" in the context of American colonies, but that is the wrong context. All Spanish documents refer to Florida as a territory then a province(s). It had a capital, St. Augustine, with a coat of arms (a city) and self government through a governor (autonomy in the Constitution of 1812). All of this is furthered in writing in Florida's own constitution of 1838 and in the Ordinance of Secession of 1861s. This ordinance itself was distinct from other Southern states in reference to sovereignty and nationality (side note for who mistakingly place this in the context of Southern nationalism). Florida's government did not start in its modern incarnation, 1845 or 1868 for example. Tallahassee is the capital as a result of a merger between the governments of our provinces in St. Augustine and Pensacola. Lastly, the addition of this content doesn't take anything away from the current page. It just reaffirms the history of the position (how it all started) and who is widely considered to be the first governor.

Thanks for the offer to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.164.46 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Except it is very out of place. The article opens stating this is a list of governors of the U.S. state. The tables themselves entirely are about governors under the United States. Then suddenly we have a paragraph about one colonial governor and that's it. I don't see how his inclusion makes this article better at all, when it could be handled better on the colonial governors article. No, Florida's government didn't start at acquisition by the U.S., but that's what this article concerns itself with. No other states - even the 13 colonies, California, and Hawaii - include governors or leaders from before acquisition, at least not when they've been brought up to featured standards like this list has, except to give immediate historical context, like the immediate preceding entities of Hawaii Territory. I see no reason why Florida should be an exception to this rule. It seems like the better solution is to create an article on the office of governor, separate from this list, in which information like this can be included, as well as expanding the list of colonial governors. But listing him here because he's the first and then have a three century gap until the other 99% of the article makes it seem extremely out of place. --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

The Signpost: 08 April 2015


Rio Grande (Rio Bravo)

Thanks you very much for all your tireless contributions to making the territorial evolution of the U.S. a great article. I have more information that I have compiled from sources, including a list of the 247 bancos that were transferred under the 1905 treaty; some of them even have geographic coordinates based on whatever datum they used in 1910. You are right about the lack of commission minutes from the 1910-12 period. (When I first started researching this, almost all of the minutes from the 1920s were not linked on the IBWC website. Shortly after I emailed to point that out, they added those links.) For those 31 bancos in 1910-12, I have not found any dates other than the statement of those years. While I retrieved most of the information that I have from reading the minutes of the IBWC and by downloading material (including free digitized books of the era), there is also a good reference book called "Restless River, International Law and the Behavior of the Rio Grande". by Jerry E. Mueller. 1975. Texas Western Press, El Paso, TX, that explains the history. Pages 64, 66, 74 and 87 contain a table of figures and some illustrative drawings. Some land cuts are not detailed in the list of areas that I posted on the Talk page. For example, the drawing on p. 87 of Mueller's book shows approx. 25 cuts that were transferred under the 1933 rectification treaty. In addition there were about 7 cuts that were transferred during the river straightening at Presidio (US) and Ojinaga (Mexico) following the 1970 treaty. I'll provide some more of the details that I have found on the Talk page within a few days. Jeff in CA (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

List of Governors of Arkansas

Hello. I see you don't have time to re-examine the dates of governors assuming and leaing office. Would you mind if I wrote at EAR about the issue? --Синкретик (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Henrikh Mkhitaryan - Personal Life

Dear Golbez, While i acknowledge your mild sympathy to N/K and i really appreciate your honesty However, i'm trying to argue within the points that Wikipedia has made. Referring to N/K Vs Artsakh issue, same thing happened with article about Ararat vs Agri dagi where its clearly used Ararat since that is commonly used term. Same applies here even armenian media uses Nagorno Karabagh. The second point i believe is important to stress is that Nagoro Karabagh is NOT a recognized territory even by Armenia so by mentioning it status shows the Neutrality of this point since not mentioning might show biased point or make the reader believe it is recognized territory. Agulani (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Courtesy message

Hello Golbez. Further to the conversation we have had regarding Somaliland (you know where so no need to link), I would like you to know that I am involved in a similar discussion at Talk:Kosovo#Categorisation. Definitely WP:TLDR at this point and due to my edits I admit, but I would like you to know what come what may on either article, I am not intentionally forum-shaping (though I appreciate it may look like it on first inspection). Thank you. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Golbez,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Canada provinces evolution 2.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 1, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-07-01. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Panama Canal Zone

Thanks for your questions! I'll post my responses both here and on my talk page.

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) 9:58 pm, Today (UTC−7)

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) 10:14 pm, Today (UTC−7)

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) 10:18 pm, Today (UTC−7)

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) 14:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your contribution to a successful mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Vostok Island ect

Hello again, just wanted to let you know that i should have access to some rather large legal databases starting next month, so theres a good chance i might be able to answer some of the remaining questions that are left regarding the guano islands for the US territorial evolution page.XavierGreen (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Reference errors on 5 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Your block of N0n3up

Hi, Golbez. You reverted N0n3up twice on United States, the second time with a shouty edit summary stating "i'm too tired to block you because i'll do a bad job of it. but hey champ: CLEARLY THERE'S NO CONSENSUS BECAUSE EVERYONE HERE DISAGREES WITH YOU. KEEP THIS UP AND YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. HOW CAN YOU BE SO BLOCKHEADED ABOUT THIS." Three minutes later you blocked. Your own edit is still the latest in the history. The edit summaries of both your reverts of N0n3up contained block warnings; you haven't warned him otherwise, so I don't know what your "You were warned" means.[1] I don't like your conduct in this; you speak of being too tired, and I assume that's the reason for it. You edit warred, with pretty damn rude edit summaries, and then blocked another edit warrior. I suggest you did do a bad job of this block, as you said you would. And the way you've been power-speaking and triumphing over him on his page since the block is inappropriate. You're an admin, you're supposed to model good behaviour. Please unblock N0n3up. Bishonen | talk 23:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

I stand by my action. My edit summary was harsh but still assuming good faith. When I discovered a few moments later that he was outright lying, I responded appropriately. --Golbez (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Golbez, I don't think an unblock is best; 48 hours seems about right. But when you've had a chance to get some perspective on this, an apology to Non3up wouldn't be a bad idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Nah. --Golbez (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Re your post here on N0n3up's page: no, I don't think so. You explain your sequence revert + revert + block, even though not in a really impressive way — it's an unusual reading of WP:INVOLVED, and I don't think it would find favour if anybody took it to ANI. (Not that I intend to, or would recommend anybody to.[2]) But you don't explain or address the rest of it, which is your bullying of N0n3up on his page, during the block. That's even though two admins you say you respect, me and Floquenbeam, have commented on it ("you've been power-speaking and triumphing over him on his page","mocking you [N0n3up] on your talk page... not good. well, no, worse than not good"). The user's supposed "enjoyment" of his "time off", or his "maturity", isn't really your affair — that's only one example — because you're not just any hothead quarreling with him, you're an admin who has blocked him. You have all the power in the discussion, and it's unpleasant to see how you use it. Since you don't intend to apologize, I really urge you not to post on his page again, certainly not during the block itself. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC).
I haven't been around for a few days, so I'm not sure if it's better to just let something alone that seems to have settled down, or follow up on comments you made to me. I guess I'll reply to an old comment of yours, but please be aware I'm not trying to dredge it back up, just tying up a loose end.
You said "The only thing other that I don't like is that admins I respect disagreed with my action. My hope is by explaining it, I regain their favor." Well first, thanks. And second, you don't need to regain my favor, as people don't lose my favor by making isolated mistakes. I wouldn't be surprised if I've made more mistakes than you the last week. All I'd really hoped is that, after things cooled down, you'd look back and see it as a mistake - or, even, a partial mistake. If that hasn't happened, I see no point in focusing on it further, you've got my feedback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen, as I was the recipient of one of your recent administrative threats (simply for reiterating my opinion and not for vandalizing, edit-warring, or inserting my brilliant POV insight in a WP article), I'd suggest that perhaps we're simply a bit more direct on this side of the Atlantic -- and far less willing to make nice with the really bad boys and girls of Wikipedia. I have often wondered why European admins on EN-WP seek to support and indulge editors who have broken virtually all the rules (both written and unwritten) of WP editorial decorum, while finding time to hector little editors like me, or admins who forget to be 100% courteous.Mason.Jones (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Lt gov succession

Have you checked google books to see if the Calif House or Senate Journal from those years is available?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Your comments

Hi Golbez, your comments at Talk:United States#Redundant regarding N0n3up are incivil and disruptive and honestly I'm shocked that an admin would enter a talk page discussion in order to disrupt it. I see that you have an axe to grind with N0n3up but this is the sort of behaviour one expects from a brand new editor who doesn't understand how collaborative editing works. If you don't like them, then just avoid them continuing to harass them by disrupting discussions isn't going to achieve anything constructive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Speaker

According to things said on the House floor, speaker.gov, and Speaker Ryan's twitter, feed, Boehner was the 53rd and Ryan is the 54th Speaker. This seems as thought the House numbering convention lists each once, and repeat service is not numbered. This means a renumbering of all 54 Speakers, and the list on the Speaker page. Thought I'd give you a heads up, and maybe you can start work on that, I'll chip in too.   Spartan7W §   15:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that aswell. The numbering method isn't the same as it is for the US Presidents. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Bureaucratship

I think you should run for bureaucrat again, pretty sure you'll make it. CatcherStorm talk 10:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

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) 21:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
For the river rectification under the 1933 treaty, the sources for exchanged areas 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) 10:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

re Rio Grande and Arizona

I provided my response to your questions at my talk page. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Cambodian map

Hi, can you modify the Cambodian map to include Tbong Khmum Province like this one? Thanks. SovanDara 07:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Rio Grande before and after rectification

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 and 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 you might find this helpful in your efforts on the territorial acquisitions mapping project. Jeff in CA (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

can sum up the results our discussions?

Hello mr. Golbez. I decided to write for you, because the article about the city of Shusha protected from editing it you. If you go down today on the talk page - [3], you will see that there are participants that do not mind adding the original emblem in the article. I thought that you move up, but you somehow dropped the idea. Farid (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

azeri user

Can you please do something about Rovshanaliyev? His account is only a couple days old and it appears to be a vandalism only account. Thank You Ninetoyadome (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank You Ninetoyadome (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Mr, Golbez, please, stop vandalize the page !!! if you don't have information about laws and status Autonomous Republics then you can find many sources from the web and learn on it.... also you can learn it from this official source: http://www.constcourt.gov.az/laws/23 (Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan: Article 10. Symbols of the Nakhchivan Autonomous state.) Freedom Wolfs (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

RE WP:DOTY/September 11 changes

Please see the discussion here and feel free to participate. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Armed Forces article

Golbez, can you please look at the Azerbaijani Armed Forces article? An Azeri user is constantly changing the military budget from the current 2016 number to the 2014 number, for some reason. I have told them it is incorrect and have warned them to no avail. Also i think i might have violated my 1 revert a day by a couple of hours so if i have to be suspended then so be it. Ninetoyadome (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Territorial Evolution of the Soviet Union/Russia

Just noticed the new project your working on, don't forget that Tartarstan also declared itself a sovereign state on August 30, 1990, before ceding most of its sovereignty back to Russia by treaty in 1994 and then completely surrendering what was left of its indepenedence in 2002.XavierGreen (talk) Sounds good, there were a few changes in the 1920's, the Bukharan People's Soviet Republic which had been a Russian vassal/puppet state was annexed in 1925 and added to the Turkmen ASSR, as was the Khorezm People's Soviet Republic. The Tuvan People's Republic was a Soviet Satillite state which maintained dejure independence to 1944, when it was annexed by the Soviet Union. Also the Soviet Union assumed Japan's lease over Dalian (aka port Arthur), and possessed sovereignty over the concession territory there until it was relinquished to the People's Republic of China in 1955. Likewise the soviets maintained a concession territory in Hanko, Finland to 1947 when it was exchanged for Porkkalanniemi which the soviets retained to January 1956.XavierGreen (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of the mop

As one of the editors involved in the recent expansion of Territorial evolution of the United States, you are an involved editor, and probably should not have been the one to block Onfloatcandles. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Karabakh

I notice that you indefinitely fully protected Karabakh 4 months ago. It looks like there was never really any problem from autoconfirmed accounts. Do you think the protection could be lowered to semi, or even dropped altogether? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Governors of Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Wells. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

PR for Territorial evolution of the United States

  • One of the items on the to-do list is "change May 1, 1915 map to show Punta Paitilla in Panama." I know of one other small change that could be made to that map (and that map only), which most would not notice. I don't want to make even a little bit more such type of work for you, so I'll ask you if you'd like to know what it is? Jeff in CA (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Golbez, you'll recall that I mentioned earlier a small triangle section that the U.S. took from Panama in December 1915? Well, the map for May 1, 1915, prematurely shows that tiny piece as part of the Canal Zone. The way to remedy this is to alter the northwesternmost border of the CZ at the Caribbean on the May 1 map. The straight north-south portion of that border should extend straight northward all the way to the Caribbean coast. That little triangle area that you'll cut out is what was added to the CZ later in 1915. (Note that none of this changes any other to-do items for later CZ maps. It only affects the 5-1-1915 map.) Maybe you can catch this at the same time as Punta Paitilla. If not, oh well. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Golbez. You wrote on 26 August 2016, "If you tell me exactly what entries need to be changed or added, and what to be done in each one, then I'll do it. That's the best way of doing it, just tell me what to do and I'll do it, rather than me read your stuff and try to figure out what has and hasn't been done. :) Is that making too much work for you? If so we can review what there already is, but this is definitely the easiest avenue for me."
It's easy for me also to simply tell you specifics. So here goes.
Omit British West Florida from Georgia on the following maps:
  • United States Central map 1781-03-01 to 1782-10-29.png
  • United States Central change 1781-03-01.png
  • United States Central disputes 1781-03-01 to 1781-04-04.png
  • United States Central disputes 1781-04-04 to 1781-06-16.png
  • United States Central dispute change 1781-04-04.png
  • United States Central disputes 1781-06-16 to 1782-02-22.png
  • United States Central dispute change 1781-06-16.png
  • United States Central disputes 1782-02-22 to 1784-05-12.png
  • United States Central dispute change 1782-02-22.png
  • United States Central map 1782-10-29 to 1782-12-30.png
  • United States Central change 1782-10-29.png
  • United States Central map 1782-12-30 to 1784-03-01.png
  • United States Central change 1782-12-30.png
  • United States Central map 1784-03-01 to 1787-07-13.png
  • United States Central change 1784-03-01.png
On the existing map, "United States Caribbean change 1915-05-01.png":
  • Show Punta Paitilla in the olive color as part of Panama (remove the tiny border on it).
  • Alter the northwesternmost border of the CZ at the Caribbean. The straight north-south portion of that border should extend straight northward all the way to the Caribbean coast.
Add a new map ("United States Caribbean change 1918-08-21.png") that:
Propagate that last change (Zone extending to Piña) to these existing maps:
  • United States Caribbean change 1919-09-18.png
  • United States Caribbean change 1924-06-05.png (also change the date to 1924-02-01)
  • United States Caribbean change 1955-04-11.png (also change text, "Corridor ceded to Panama", to "Panama's corridor re-aligned") (also insert the CZ's corridor between the Zone and Madden Lake – no text necessary)
  • United States Caribbean change 1955-08-23.png (also insert the CZ's corridor between the Zone and Madden Lake – no text necessary)
CZ's corridor between the Zone and Madden Lake:
See image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9LDb9lFYjVPNnZWelc4MGtYQ00/view?usp=sharing The CZ corridor goes from the place marked "Map 5" to that marked "Map 7."
Thanks! I hope that is not too tall an order. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Golbez. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Canal Zone

Please see my response to your last edit on my talk page, two hours after the time of your edit. Jeff in CA (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Golbez.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Golbez. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Golbez/Archive_6&oldid=1143027411"