Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Hello Jeff, could you please help us to create articles about natural luge? We would like to promote this sport ... as in 2017 Neagaune will hoste the world championships. Thanks, greetings from Southtyrol/Italy -- Rodelfreak ( talk) 13:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Rodelfreak reply

Hello Rodelfreak. Thank you for the greetings from South Tyrol! I would love to visit there. As I have a FIL judges license, perhaps I will one day visit. My connection to your area now is only that I have met and spoken with Dominic Fischnaller, who among the senior athletes creates the largest shower of ice particles at the luge start with his glove spikes. All of my experience so far has been with artificial track luge. But I am excited about the natural track event in Negaunee and am planning to be involved. I would be glad to help write articles about natural luge, if you could supply me with some of the information and sources for the proposed articles, preferably in English. (If not English, it would require more time to use Google Translate.) So please let me know what you have in mind. Jeff in CA ( talk) 16:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

hi jeff, can I send you the text about natural track by email? -- Rodelfreak ( talk) 16:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes. Please use Special:EmailUser/Jeff in CA. Jeff in CA ( talk) 00:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Natural track luge

Data FIL brochure

The world of sports is changing. Natural track lug is trending by nature. Sustainability is really easy for us, because we the inside track to nature. Natural track luge can look back proudly on a long history, with sledding races dating as early as the nineteenth century. Using paths for the lightning-fast descents, which keeps everything economical without serious intrusions into the landscape, makes natural luge a trending sport that is on the rise. At a time when climate change and environmental protection are raising reater concern than ever before, we are especially proud of how carefully we work hand in hand with nature so that our sport leaves behind only the tiniest of ecological footprints. Natural track luge is inspiring, natural, and charged with energy. Just like ist athletes. Ice har das rock, runners like razors, and precision technique. Natural track lugers all over the world love the feeling of shooting through curves and along challenging stretches all the way to the finish line at speeds of up to 80km/h. The athlete requires the perfect combination of physical fitness and conditioning along with extensive, comprehensive training and the ideal coordination of materials to turn in a performance worthy of a world champion. Our athletes are not the only ones who love what they do. The public does, too. With a screaming-fast descent, natural track luge exceeds expectations, continuing to surprise with ist intensity. The G forces that are achieved can even be felt right next to the track. The positively electric enthusiasm right in the midst of incredible natural scenery is something that won’t let an onlooker out of ist dutches. It is quite simple to get started with this activity, which makes natural track luge an affordable and very accessible starting point for children to get involved in the fascinating world of sledding sports. The future is just around the bend with natural track luge. Just how trending and close to nature this sport is comes through with the competitive tracks. They result from the simple tamping down and icing over a snow without major technical assistance or large financial expenditures. Thanks to the temporary nature of their construction, they can easily be put into use and then broken down at a variety of locations. And it is easy fort he area that is used to be returned to ist previous state once the season is over: as a logging road or mountain path. But between the end oft he competition and the spring thaw, the tracks are immediately available for all leisure sledders. With a concentrated development program and numerous forward-looking initiatives, the International Luge Federation supports up-and-coming talent and invests in raising the awareness of natural track luge in new countries. Fresh, untapped, attractive. A thoroughly interesting sport. Including for investors. Natural track luge is a long-established yet untapped sport that fascinates the entire family, from tiny children to enthralled grandparents. The target group is thus both extremely broad and very deep. Natural track luge is something special, a sport with unique featurest hat set it apart. It’s time to follow a new track. Natural luge athletes throughout the world: Argentina, Austria, Bosnia and Herzogovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Italy, Kazakhstand, Moldova, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, USA.

Natural Track

dima

Natural Tracks are adapted from existing mountain roads and paths. Artifically banked curves are not permitted. The tracks's surface must be horizontal. They are naturally iced, there is no artificial refrigeration. Athletes Sledding Technique Natural Track Athletes use a steering strap and drag their arms and legs in order to drive around the tight flat corners. Braking is often required in front of curves and is accomplished by the use of spikes built on the bottom of the shoes. The Sled Natural Track

Sled are very flexible to help in steering and use razor sharp blades. The seat is designed to hold the athlete in place while braking and steering on the rough ice. www.fil-luge.org

NATURBAHN LUGE: You've seen luge sleds rocketing down ice-glazed tubes during the Winter Olympics--that's Kunstbahn (or Artificial Track) luge. Naturbahn (or Natural Track) luge is even more exciting because the track winds down a natural, unrefrigerated hill, bordered by boards and snow banks. A Naturbahn luge sled is similar to an old-fashioned wooden sled with metal runners. Naturbahn athletes steer the sled with their feet, hands, and bodies. They use their bodies to speed up, slow down, and steer the sled around the corners of the icy track. Naturbahn luge is a unique sport, and exciting for athletes and spectators.

http://www.negauneeluge.freehomepage.com/

Natural track luge takes place on an un-banked track (4 metres wide) with a base of hard packed snow covered with a layer of ice, enclosed within low wooden walls (1 metre high). Liam Kinraid (above) is on a tourist sled and waiting at the top of the track for his run down the track.

So Naseby is quite different to an Olympic track. Whereas sleds can up to 150kph on say the track in Vancouver and ride the high-lines through the banked corners, the top speed on our track is about 50kph and our sleds ride the bottom of the track.

Worldwide there are over 60 natural-luge tracks and just 20 artificial tracks.

The closest track of any-kind to Naseby is in Nagano, Japan (site of the 1998 Winter Olympics)!

As well as being an excellent introduction to luge, and the basis for developing Luge athletes, a Natural luge track can be used for a wide range of recreational rides, including ski-bob sleds (complete with steering wheels, and brakes). The 360 metre Naseby track provides, everyone the opportunity to experience the thrill-of-the-ice at their own pace,and with a level of speed & comfort of the participants dictate. The Naseby track opens in Late-May/Early-June, weather-Gods willing, and closes in September. The track is the only one of its kind in The Southern Hemisphere. As you can appreciate Luging is a skill one learns step-by-step, under the supervision of an instructor. Hurtling-down the ice is exhilarating, but comes with risks, and it’s not an activity for the uninitiated. For safety reasons, public access to the track is therefore restricted to times where an instructor is on-hand to supervise & offer necessary instruction. http://www.lugenz.com/

The Sleds All Natural Luge sleds have the following components: 2 runners (also known as Kufins) A front bridge A rear bridge A seat or pod usually supported by the bridges A rein Finger guards (also known as wings) Club sleds are very easy to maintain and with normal use they can last for years. Many club sleds 20 years old are still usable and the main problem with them is when new athletes have problems and crash. Occasionally sleds are broken during training but this happens rarely however. Normal care must be taken to keep the steel attachments on the runners from rusting and being damaged by rocks and other hard objects. Usual care requires them having all snow removed after each use and coating them with a wax or other waterproof covering during the off season. The main damage done to sleds is broken finger guards. Finger guards are normally broken during training or competition when an athlete makes contacts with a wall or other hard object while sliding down a hill or track. These finger guards are easily built and replaced by anyone with normal “handyman” skills. In most cases learning to maintain club sleds is done by someone in a club who works with wood or metal as they already have most of the skills to perform necessary maintenance. As experience progresses they learn more detailed skills and progress to higher levels of a sled technician. Torggler Sled Manufacturing: http://www.torggler-rodelbau.com/ Martlen Sled Manufacturing: http://martlen.com/luges.HTM Gloco Sled Manufactuing: http://www.cansled.com/about.htm Gaser Sled manufacturing: (German only) http://www.gasserrodel.at/produkte.php The following selection of photos shows the different types of luge sleds.

The “Laser Luge”:

Typically this sled is used solely for recreational sliding on toboggan hills where a track is not actually used for proper Natural Luge sliding. The Canadian Luge Association previously held the patent for this sled but it has not been produced for several years now.

This sled is made entirely of plastic and does not work well on hard packed snow as the runners to not cut into the snow to enable the sled to turn. It can be fun on the proper snow conditions but is not used for any serious Luge sliding or during Luge competition. Snow sleds: Snow sleds are used almost entirely on snow tracks or ski hill slopes. They can be modified slightly to function as training sleds for first time users on an ice track but are not preferable for ice sliding use. The sleds with the yellow and red runners (kufins) are old now and were built in Europe. The sled with the black runners and red seat is new and was built in British Columbia in 2005.

These sleds all have strips of steel attached to the underside of their runners to assist with steering the sled on hard packed snow. They all function well as club sleds and can be easily adapted to fit most sliders. The reign shown on each of the sled is an important part of the sled and assists the slider with steering around corners. Bachmann Sled Manufactured in Europe – 20 years old. They are great for beginners.

Gasser Sled Manufactured in Europe – 20 years old – They are great for beginners.

This sled is manufactured in British Columbia by a company called Martlen Enterprises. Clubs in Alberta purchased about 25 of them in December of 2005. The cost of each of these was more than $400. They are the only sleds currently being manufactured in North America. These sleds work best on hard packed snow conditions and are easy to drive.

Until recently, high performance ice racing sleds were manufactured only by 1 company (Torggler) in a small town in northern Italy (Latzfons) and are very expensive. To purchase one new the cost is at least $1500 (depending on the exchange rate for Euros). They are usually purchased by individual athletes who are trained and experienced enough to slide on ice and therefore clubs rarely own them. They each have special attachments similar to a ski connected to the bottom of each runner with a Pitex (plastic) housed with steel. The steel is extremely sharp and is what allows the athlete to steer the sled around corners on glare ice.

The single athlete ice racing sled is used in competition such as World Cup and World Championship ice track races. It takes a lot of skill and training to make it navigate ice tracks. They are very exciting to watch. The maximum weight for a singles sled is 14kg.

The doubles ice racing sled is very similar to the singles ice racing sled. The main difference is that it is physically a bit larger to allow 2 athletes to sit on it and as such weighs more than a singles sled. The maximum weight for this sled is 20kg.

The ice racing sled on the left shows the Pitex (plastic) runner. By comparison the smaller yellow sled has a plain steel attachment to the runner and does not function well on ice tracks as it cannot be sharpened as required and the angle of the runner to the ice is much less.

The steel/pitex attachments to the runners are very important to the athletes. They spend hours preparing them prior to, and between each competition run to allow them to have the best control and time in the race. Most athletes take years to learn how to prepare their sleds for elite competition use.

http://www.naturallugealberta.com/85/ Rodelfreak ( talk) 20:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)-- Rodelfreak ( talk) reply

   Thanks for responding to my tantrum over Penn State Nittany Lions, with the improvement that your edit embodies; i'm pleased to have found a colleague with an apparent specific interest in the special problems the topic presents us with.
   You've helped me focus in on what i think may be the heart of the matter: the common name for the topic misnames the entity in question, and arguably our normal practices that work so well with the run-of-the-mill article are going to require improvisation to deal with thes special case. The diplomats have given us the solution of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, but it seems unlikely that any crisis, sufficiently hot to mobilize them, will threaten us over this naming problem, and likewise i doubt searching for a sufficiently particular guideline would work, let alone be worth the effort.
   Specifically, lead sentences almost without exception begin by reiterating the title of the article, and stating the scope of the article, usually by a dictdef. Your enormous improvement is grammatical, but my complaint fixated on that red herring (that presumably was forced on one editor, or more likely a sequence of them, by the FYRM-like problem). There's a solid guideline somewhere that's usually met by having the lead sent mention the title as its grammatical subject, and provide a dictdef for it. It seems to me that here the relation between formal name, practical name, and the scope of the topic is so complex that our task is to find the least confusing way of meeting the usual goals without expecting the guidelines to give us all the answers. I boldly trust myself to do that whenever cases this tough show up (i've done this enuf, and grown old enuf, to be exceedingly vague about whether that's ever actually occurred in my editing!), as long as i have a grasp of the facts about the topic and the colloquial usage. But in this case i'm a complete ignoramus. (Sorry i can't prove that to you by dredging up the sequence of reading and edit by which i stumbled into this topic ... beyond saying i'm sure it didn't really stem from The Knights who say "Ni!" ... even tho my mental pronunciation of "Nittanny" is ... uhh, sort of affected by what i think is a glottal stop in "Ni!". Never mind....)
   Bottom line (while i suspect that the simplest solution, but a sucky one, would be redirecting the title to Penn State University collegiate athletic program or Collegiate athletic program of Penn State University!): Can you tell me whether the verifiable facts are along the lines that PS c.a. is, colloquially, collectively called "Penn State Nittany Lions"? (I would guess that, if it is, "the Nittany Lions" would be equally acceptable, even tho i gather some or all of the women's teams are or were called "The Lady Lions", "Lady Lions", or the like).
   (It'd be great for us to collaborate to thoro'ly work this out, but failing that i'd also be pleased if one of us does the editing, drawing on whatever grudgingly supplied insights from the other they find useful.)
-- Jerzy• t 23:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

You asked, "Can you tell me whether the verifiable facts are along the lines that PS c.a. is, colloquially, collectively called "Penn State Nittany Lions"? (I would guess that, if it is, "the Nittany Lions" would be equally acceptable, even tho i gather some or all of the women's teams are or were called "The Lady Lions", "Lady Lions", or the like)."

The athletic program is called the Pennsylvania State University Athletic Program. The teams in the various varsity sports that comprise the athletic program are officially called the Nittany Lions. I do not believe that "Lady Lions" is an official moniker, although it may be a registered trademark of the university. Only the women's basketball team is today called the Lady Lions, although no one bats an eyelash when someone calls them Nittany Lions. The term "Lady Lions" dates from the 1970s when Title IX was implemented. During that decade all of the women's varsity teams were called the Lady Lions, albeit unofficially. The practice of using the term "Lady" as a prefix to the mascot name was in wide use for many collegiate women's sports teams in the 1970s, e.g, Lady Lobos, Lady Bears, Lady Bulldogs, Lady Statesmen, etc. In the 1980s the practice waned and almost disappeared, which is still its current status. The name of the Penn State Lady Lions basketball team evokes the earlier era from which it has persisted. Jeff in CA ( talk) 10:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

   Thanks, fascinating! Rather than going off half-cocked, i'll add more here in a day or two. EIitFtPtWDFO
-- Jerzy• t 11:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree that they are south of the A-B line, but I can't find any US map that acknowledges them as Canadian. Plus the description says the US uses Nunez Rocks as a basepoint for its territorial sea. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 07:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I doubt there's any official US government map that acknowledges Nunez Rocks as such. That's because, to the US government, they do not exist as land. Being submerged for part of each day, they are a "Low Tide Elevation" (LTE) as defined by the UNCLOS. Although the US has never ratified the UNCLOS, the State Department voluntarily adheres to its terms and the prescriptive methods promulgated by it. Under the UNCLOS, the method for ascertaining a territorial sea around a state's coasts allows the use of LTEs as basepoints, even though they are not "land." The US has used Nunez Rocks as such a basepoint. This is strange indeed, because if part of Nunez Rocks were never submerged (i.e., an island), then the US would consider it to be part of Canada. Of course, Canada considers all lands and waters south of the "A-B" Line to be Canadian. (Note also that UNCLOS does not allow claims of territorial seas that are based solely upon uninhabitable rocks.)

There is a weird parallel situation that involves the US. Quita Sueno Bank in the Caribbean used to be claimed by both Columbia and the US. The US ceded its claim in part because, according to its analysis, none of the features of the bank were islands, just all LTEs. However, in a recent case between Columbia and Nicaragua at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague pertaining to UNCLOS, the court used an analytical method that found one of the 54 features to be an island and awarded sovereignty over the bank to Columbia on that basis.

I'll credit XavierGreen for enabling me to boil down the answers to my many questions into the synopsis above. He and I had a lengthy discussion in Talk:Territorial evolution of the United States regarding the logic of the US position vis-a-vis the UNCLOS. That discussion is interspersed among and within several of the Talk topics there.

So Nunez Rocks is a special situation for practical purposes. On the one hand, it is unmistakably above-water territory for part of each day, while on the other, it is a LTE according to the UNCLOS regime. Ownership of the waters that each day surround that territory is disputed between the US and Canada. So this "part-time island" is certainly not American and arguably can only be Canadian. What is observable to the eye for part of every day is a Canadian physical island surrounded by waters that are claimed by the United States (as well as by Canada). Jeff in CA ( talk) 19:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Thinking about this again, I still don't believe the rocks can be considered an en/exclave. The fact that the US uses them for its baseline means that it claims them to be American. As you say, it can only do this because it doesn't classify them as "land". -- Lasunncty ( talk) 08:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I submit the following points for consideration.

• Islands are physical observable natural masses, some of which are islands for only part of each day.

• An enclave can exist in a condition of occasionally or repeatedly being submerged and exposed by water.

• The concept of "Low Tide Elevations" as "features" to be regarded as part of the water area in which they are located is an artificial one, created for the purpose of inter-entity understanding.

• The concept of "Low Tide Elevation" under the UNCLOS treaty regime does not pose a conflict with the physical observable reality of a natural mass that is exposed above the water that surrounds it.

• Canada claims ownership of everything south of the A-B Line. Nunez Rocks, which are intermittently submerged every day, lie south of the A-B Line.

• The United States, under its interpretation of the 1903 arbitration decision, has consistently maintained and still does maintain that natural masses south of the A-B Line that are normally above water are owned by Canada. This interpretation preceded the later concept of "Low Tide Elevation" under the UNCLOS treaty regime.

• Until the U.S. in the late 1970s declared a sea delimitation about its coast, it regarded any water area south of the A-B Line (covered by the 1903 Arbitration decision) to be international waters.

• The U.S. claim to ownership of Nunez Rocks is based upon the UNCLOS treaty regime construct for promulgating territorial sea delimitations for recognition internationally. Nunez Rocks lies within the coastal delimitation declared by the U.S. That Nunez Rocks is a UNCLOS LTE additionally served to allow the U.S. to enhance its delimitation.

• However, the U.S. claim does not depend on Nunez Rocks qualifying as a LTE. The claim exists simply because the rocks are within a specified distance of the U.S. coast.

• The U.S. is not a signatory to the UNCLOS treaty. In fact, absent a UNCLOS treaty ratification, the U.S. is free to ignore its modus operandi and lay claim to any international waters in the world.

• Only upon declaring a territorial sea area in the late 1970s did the U.S. claim the waters surrounding Nunez Rocks.

• Canada claims and (with Britain before it) has had an uninterrupted claim to ownership of Nunez Rocks no matter what its natural, physical, temporal or conceptual status is.

• International water surrounding a natural mass with claimed ownership does not constitute an enclave. On the other hand, water within the declared territorial sea of one nation surrounding a natural mass that has had an uninterrupted claim of ownership by another nation is indeed an enclave (albeit an unusual one in this case).

Jeff in CA ( talk) 17:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Are you saying that the US considers them to be Canadian only during low tide? -- Lasunncty ( talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

No. Let me say this: Because the U.S. used Nunez Rocks as a LTE in 1977, the U.S. might have in effect "amended," vis-a-vis Nunez Rocks only, its long-standing position regarding land south of the A-B Line. That's debatable. What I do believe is that, given the entire geopolitical history, to consider Nunez Rocks as Canadian altogether would indeed most closely adhere to and support the nearly 113-year-old American interpretation of the 1903 arbitration decision.

However, I think much of that part of the discussion is beside the point in determining whether Nunez Rocks is an enclave. Rather than delving into the legal framework of UNCLOS and its conventions, we can instead accept that overlapping claims have existed since 1977 and reach a satisfactory determination based on the definition of "enclave" and the physical reality of Nunez Rocks. It is not necessary for either government to establish or acknowledge ownership; an undisputed status quo is not a prerequisite. (As for example, Barak is currently an enclave, but Kyrgyzstan fiercely denies that the land around it belongs to Uzbekistan.) Indeed, one can profess that, for Nunez Rocks, the dispute has hatched the enclave. -- Jeff in CA ( talk) 21:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

It still seems this should be a "potential...pending" en/exclave just because the US's position is not clear.

I have seen maps clearly showing the Barak en/exclave. Presumably they must be Uzbek maps if Kyrgyzstan claims the surrounding territory as well. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 06:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC) reply

In the cases of the other such potential exclaves that are listed, there are proposed agreements that if implemented would result in the formation of exclaves that do not yet exist.

Here, it is asserted that the exclave exists in the unresolved current scenario. If there were to be a resolution of the 113-year-old conflict, and either of the parties prevailed on the matter of Nunez Rocks instead of reaching a compromise, there would be no exclave.

The exclave as it currently exists is somewhat abstruse. Because the dispute over the 1903 arbitration wording is unresolved between two parties, the claim status can be shown in a Boolean table as four possibilities. Either one side or the other owns everything, or one side owns the Rocks while the other side owns the water. No one possibilty supercedes any of the others. All four possibilities co-exist but none prevails. The very reason that none prevails is that the dispute is unresolved.

In other words, while it is valid to view one side owning both the Rocks and surrounding waters, that view is not exclusive. It is equally valid to view the current situation as one side owning the Rocks and the other side the waters (i.e., an exclave).

So can we have an exclave existing in the midst of such an unsettled and inexplicit situation? Yes, IMHO.

Jeff in CA ( talk) 02:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I understand what you are saying, but I don't see it that way. To me it appears to be merely disputed territory, with both sides claiming both the rocks and the surrounding waters. It would only become an en/exclave if the US gave up its claim to the rocks and/or Canada gave up its claim to the water.

Another reservation I have about it is that I can find no outside source that mentions even the possibility of an en/exclave here. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 10:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I can't argue with the substance of your reply. I disagree with the word "only." Now then, where have we arrived with our discussion? Do you have a proposed next step? Jeff in CA ( talk) 02:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC) reply

True, there are other ways. I guess I meant the ones I mentioned would be the simplest or most likely.

Should we ask for more input? Is there an authority on the subject we can consult? If not, we could put in the notes that the status depends on the interpretation of the treaties and international laws, or something to that effect.

Thank you for hearing me out, and for your well though out responses. I also appreciate the many improvements you have made to the page for the past 4 years. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 05:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I asked people at the Yahoo Group Borderpoint to weigh in. I received the following response from Len Nadybal:

It takes two to tango. In law, parties needing to decide an issue need standing. You can't have an exclave without a border except in the context of a discussion about the concerned parties' views. Ergo, the subject area doesn't "yet" belong in a list of exclaves/enclaves. I wouldn't call the area "disputed" - just unresolved or ambiguous. The area could also be considered (listed in WP) to be an unincorporated condominium with undefined extent.

Jeff in CA ( talk) 00:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC) reply

I apologize, I haven't worked on this for a few weeks and my mental bandwidth for it completely disappeared, so I have no clue what changes need to be made, etc.

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. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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

This part is DONE. Please review, thanks! -- Golbez ( talk) 04:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Perfect! Thank you! Jeff in CA ( talk) 16:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

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.

This part is DONE. Please review, thanks! -- Golbez ( talk) 05:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

You got it! Thanks! Jeff in CA ( talk) 15:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Add a new map ("United States Caribbean change 1918-08-21.png") that:

• shows Punta Paitilla as a part of Canal Zone.
• shows the area of 3168 acres west of the mouth of Rio Chagres (the area is the northwestern part of the Zone extending to Piña) as Canal Zone territory. (Image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/CanalZone.png)

This part is done. I propagated the change to the other maps, but have not made the other changes detailed below yet. -- Golbez ( talk) 04:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Nice! Thank you! Here's something good that I noticed. When you put in the Canal Zone corridor near Madden Dam, you will have the map not only for April 1955, but also for July 1939. They look the same and only differ in the text. Two for the price of one. Jeff in CA ( talk) 16:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC) reply

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."

1919-09-18 - Done.

1924-02-01 - Done.

1955-04-11 - Why should it be changed to "Panama's corridor re-aligned?" There was already a corridor? I thought it was established on this date. As for the corridor between the zone and Madden Lake - I'm not sure what I'm looking for in that map?

Thank you! -- Golbez ( talk) 15:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Both corridors were created by the treaty effective July 1939. The one already shown in your April 1955 map was one of them. It transferred some CZ land to Panama. The treaty effective April 1955 changed the corridor alignment to match new road construction on the road that defined the corridor. This change is too slight to appear on your map.

The second corridor was transferred to the CZ in July 1939 and was an existing road in Panama between Madden Dam and the CZ border. The road made for a direct route to the CZ from the dam, around the flooded tributaries of the Rio Chagres downstream of the dam. To make it easier to see, I have traced that route in color on the same image on my Google Drive.

Effectively, the maps for both July 1939 and April 1955 will be the same map, just with different text. Jeff in CA ( talk) 18:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Jeff in CA ( talk) 19:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

OK, so to clarify:

• I'm adding a map for July 1939 that includes the corridor presently in the 1955 map. It also includes the road between Madden Dam and Canal Zone.
• I'm removing the 1955 map (replacing with 'too small to map') and noting that there was a change to a corridor on this date but it's too small to show.
• The 1939 map will include the Colon corridor as belonging to Panama, and that red corridor you very helpfully marked on your map as belonging to Canal Zone.

All that correct? -- Golbez ( talk) 18:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Whoops, forgot that there were other changes in 1955. OK, not changing 1955 map at all except to add the Madden corridor. -- Golbez ( talk) 18:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Done. Am I missing anything? :) -- Golbez ( talk) 18:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

That's great. I don't think you're missing anything! Jeff in CA ( talk) 19:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry. I do see a couple mistakes that need to be fixed, and I made one of them. I marked the wrong route for the Canal Zone corridor to Madden Dam. I have uploaded a new version of the image on my Google drive with the red dots showing the adjacent correct route. (See image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9LDb9lFYjVPNnZWelc4MGtYQ00/view?usp=sharing) You can see that I have also marked an area outlined in green dots. This is an area that was added to the CZ on April 15, 1931. There is an entry for that event in the article with "too small to map" noted. However, it needs to be included as part of the CZ Madden Lake area in subsequent maps, i.e., the three change maps that you have been editing currently. Here is another view of an image showing the boundary in color: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9LDb9lFYjVPMzJPTkhpTlpUcXc/view?usp=sharing

Jeff in CA ( talk) 20:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC) reply

No problem, so ...

• Move eastern corridor to the new path in your image
• Add a map for 1931-04-15 for the land area added around Madden to the CZ

Done, please review. Thank you! -- Golbez ( talk) 19:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Looks like the only Canal Zone item left now is to copy the new image from July 1939 and use it to replace the image at April 1955, and modify its text to say the Colon corridor was re-aligned in 1955. Jeff in CA ( talk) 07:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

I did, but in August 1955... It looks like the April 1955 image is supposed to be replaced with 'too small to map'. Done, does it make sense now? -- Golbez ( talk) 13:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes. It works just fine that way. I believe that's all for now and the Canal Zone scope of the work is done. Congratulations! You have produced a truly outstanding, monumental product. Jeff in CA ( talk) 15:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Please stop undoing my changes. I created all of these sections last year and am now splitting them into NCAA team championships and Other team championships.( Paulmec) ( talk)

I created the non-NCAA team championships parts for the very reason that there were national championships other than NCAA championships that are equally valid, national in scope and held in high esteem by each school. There is no reason to separate out NCAA-only. If a school only has NCAA titles, then I have no objection. There are many editors on Wikipedia; no one owns their own contributions. Jeff in CA ( talk) 01:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

How about we have a National team championships section, and under it, 2 sub-sections of NCAA team championships and Other team championships?

That seems like a good way to accommodate this, as at the Virginia Cavaliers article. The sub-section "Other team championships" should only be national, not conference, championships. Maybe that title should be "Other team national championships." Jeff in CA ( talk) 07:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for working with me on this. Please check out the ACC that I just did (except FSU) and I used your naming suggestion. Use the link below and click on the number in the 'Total' column. :) /info/en/?search=Atlantic_Coast_Conference#NCAA_team_championships ( Paulmec) ( talk)

You're numbers aren't accurate. Just for one--UCLA has 120 championships, and I'm not including the 1995 Softball title that was vacated. Folks will stop making corrections when the information is correct. Dsides12 ( talk) 16:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

All schools that won championships from Fall 2019 through 6 April 2021 have been updated with the NCAA’s own numbers. The table does not reflect the 8 phantom team titles that a person using the Dsides12 account added to USC’s total nor the 4 added to Penn State’s total. Jeff in CA ( talk) 05:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Talk:College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS#Remove_College_Football_Data_Warehouse_section Dolenath ( talk) 21:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC) reply

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

• On the 2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida page, your edit caused a URL error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC) reply

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I wonder how you could think this edit is correct? The Collins–Valentine survey of the early 1770s was indeed inaccurate, but according to the Webster–Ashburton treaty of 1842, it stands: the border is where Collins and Valentine put their inaccurate markers, and NOT at the 45th parallel where it was originally intended to be. When the inaccuracy of the survey was discovered, it was decided NOT to correct it. I don't think any of the buildings standing today on the border between Vermont and Quebec were built before the early 1770s, and only if they were would it be before the border was surveyed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I commented on that particular edit here. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

All I meant to indicate was that "demarcation" is the accurate geopolitical term, not delineation. I included the phrase on surveying to touch on the effect of surveying techniques. I agree with the points you have made. Jeff in CA ( talk) 23:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

.

Hey Jeff, Since I tend to do a lot of the NASL indoor edits, I'm happy to fix whatever it was that you were referring to in your edits of the NASL page the other day. But could you please explain what you meant, with some more specificity? For whatever reason I'm completely missing what you're talking about. I guess it's been one of those days. Kind regards - Creativewill ( talk) 02:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I have an indoor mystery that I'm trying to clear up. I was hoping it might be mentioned in one of your back-issues of Soccer America. Apparently the Houston Hurricane hosted a four-team indoor tournament in 1978, on March 14 and 15, involving the Dallas Tornado, LA Aztecs and San Diego Sockers. It was called the Schlitz Professional Indoor Soccer Tournament. I've found a partial recap of the matches from Day 1 (Dal vs LA, 18–7; and Hstn vs SD, 10–5), but very little on Day 2 –only a hint that Dallas may have lost to SD. Anything you can dig up would be helpful. Thanks in advance. - Creativewill ( talk) 12:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply

The information I provided on the Republic of East Florida page came word for word from the George J. F. Clarke page. Yet, I only see you bully the Floridian page.

What's up with that?

EDIT: I apologize for suggesting you are a bully. I've dealt with a lot of bullies before. A lot of people tend to Bully Native Floridians and we don't like it, haha. But my language was not kind to you. How can we work together to ensure that accurate information is but on this page?

Is the information from the Clarke page not accurate? Because scholarly sources are used. It seems like only anti-Patriot scholarly sources are being used. I look at The Republic of West Florida, it's counterpart and they seem to not have this problem with their sources. So what are wrong with mine? I get that you don't want Self Published per WIKI policy. What is wrong with the scholarly sources?

Again, I am willing to admit wrong with using self-published sources. I am only using scholarly sources now. Someone used a scholarly source previously that had B. Harris being assassinated in the wrong year. I corrected it. But most of my edits are being undone by you... You seem to imply that I exaggerate. But from my point of view, you are spreading the wrong information by deleting my scholarly sources. How can we work together? Willing to do it, instead of a back and forth editing war. EastFloridaHistorian ( talk) 02:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Apology accepted and no worries. I am secure in my self-image. So, first let me say, whatever the West Florida article exhibits has nothing to do with the editing of this article. It is this article that we are writing for the encyclopedia. Also, whatever edits of yours have been undone have not been undone mostly by me. But let me admit my mistake: it was I who typed "1815"; the source said "1814," so it was my fingers that betrayed my head.

I accept Clarke's verbatim account in Vignoles as accurate, as he wrote it in 1821 specifically to recount his own experiences. Getting from those words to some of the wording in the Wikipedia passages you noted requires, perhaps not exaggeration, but rather, a leap. As for sources, Vignoles, Wasserman and Wyllys are cited. For this specific passage, Wasserman refers to Wyllys for his statement that the Patriots "finally ended their 'revolution' after four years of attempted conquest." Look up the cited Wyllys page, and you'll see that Wyllys cited C. M. Brevard as his source for his specific statement that "the East Florida Revolution at last came to an end" in 1816. 

Caroline Brevard's book is an elementary school history book published in 1919.  Its treatment of the Republic of Florida is on pages 87-90 of Part I. There is no mention of anything from 1815-1816. Clarke is never mentioned. Wyllys refers to a 1924 edition, which I have not found. Given the simple reading level at which this book is written, I can't imagine that the author would have enlarged this short section to include Clarke's mission in a later edition. She places the Madison 1812 letter after her description of the 1814 events and simplifies all events (after all, it's for grade school kids). The last thing (chronologically) that Brevard mentions is the fighting between Newman and the Seminoles in 1814.  Wyllys' subsequent statement about the East Florida Revolution coming to an end in 1816 is certainly not supported by this Brevard book. I won't attempt to explain why Wyllys cited her work or what actual source he may have meant.

So I have yet to see a reliable work cited that (1) establishes the Republic was continuous throughout four years, in fact and in deed, (2) contains records of the business of the legislature, (3) illustrates that a functioning Republic government exercised control over the area that it claimed, (4) shows that the 1816 malcontents were a direct continuation of the Patriots from a few years earlier, or (5) that Clarke was seeking terms of peace with an organized military opponent, rather than seeking to restore order among the reigning anarchy. These are a few of the potential concerns. (Oh ... and Kindelan was not the governor in 1816 when the trio of guys went out; Governor Coppinger was.)

I am not claiming that all of those things never happened. It is certainly possible that I've missed the relevant sources in my limited finite time. If that's the case, and the reliable supporting works are available, let's share them and celebrate. Jeff in CA ( talk) 22:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I think you make some fair points. By this discussion, I have learned about your point of view. I believe that you are right and is not a complete source on the Republic from any single author. All you and I can do is dig through scraps and pieces of works here and there. You point out reasonable contradictions in works.

I agree that no two things are the same, but I would still like to "model" the East Florida page after the Republic of West Florida page because they are sister republics. Even though West Florida lasted three months, it still gets a "country info bar" on the page. I think that the Republic of East Florida should get one too. Since there is no comprehensive source that fits wiki criteria on the dates, I will leave off the dates, only citing "1812" as the Year.

My biggest concern, and it may be too emotional rather than logical, is that East Florida is not accurately represented. I mostly have lore, which does not fit WIKI standards. But I think that all sources point to the ROEF being a country at some point in time. I won't write this on the page, but for your own knowledge... Religious Liberty was the primary cause of the Revolution, at least according to Lore. It is referenced in the Constitution of East Florida (They claimed that Spain had become corrupt and idolized their priests). Feel free to disagree. I think that historians often record things in a uniform opinion, but people are different. It's hard to say what everyone exactly fought for, other than their country/government. Governments are made of people with different ideas and goals. While I don't believe that McIntosh would ever seek to spread slavery, perhaps Kingsley (the International Slaver trader) did. People are different. I will not remove the discussion of slavery from the page. Although, I think it is worth noting that Spain allowed slavery too (albeit a different form). I won't add that either, just the country bar with the flag. It's a nice flag!

Also, I'm a fan of Caroline Brevard. She is honored by the Florida Historical Society with an award. Deserving. Too Bad Sidney Catts was such a terrible Governor. He allegedly hindered her efforts.

Thank you for the thoughtful response, sir! EastFloridaHistorian ( talk) 02:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC) P.S. Besides the Country Info Bar, I will link the page to other Florida sites. Only to add VERY brief commentary and a link. I think I've seen you undo some of my edits on other pages before. But now I understand what you don't like/take issue with. By keeping it as neutral as possible, I think you will find the links acceptable. reply

While Secretary Hamilton is the scribe of the constitution, McIntosh is credited as the Primary author, as he presided as president of the republic over the constitutional convention. I am not sure if this is what you meant or if you were just referencing the handwriting, but I thought that it was worth a mention.

I'm REALLY trying hard to compromise. ^_^ But I feel that we risk losing history by "making everyone happy."

I guess I am unsure why we have to remove a signature if the Secretary of East Florida was the one who was the scribe. I understand that it makes the signature not an original, but it is still relevant to the page. Maybe we can just note the handwriting? To me, the Secretary of East Florida is relevant to the page on the Republic of East Florida. EastFloridaHistorian ( talk) 14:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The whole document that it is taken from is in one person's handwriting. What is the notability in a signature if it's not a signature? Jeff in CA ( talk) 14:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC) reply

You're invited to The Black Woman is God Edit-a-Thon at SOMArts in San Francisco on Saturday July 22, 1-4 pm. It'll be at 934 Brannan Street (between 8th & 9th). Everyone is welcome to join this editing event, held in conjunction with The Black Woman is God exhibition to raise the online visibility of Black women artists and challenge the gaps in art history that erase or minimize Black women’s contributions as artists, activists and social change-makers. (Message requested by Dreamyshade and delivered on 14:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC). You can subscribe/unsubscribe to San Francisco event talk page notices here.) reply

Ooh, thanks. Saved for future reference. :) -- Golbez ( talk) 17:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Roller hockey at the 1981 World Games requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. AaronWikia ( talk) 21:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United States military occupation. Since you had some involvement with the United States military occupation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 00:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Someone is significantly attempting to change the draft on United States military occupation, and id figure you might want to join in the conversation. Garuda28 ( talk) 17:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Always good to see folks wanting to paint on a broader canvas. Anmccaff ( talk) 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for creating Track speed skating at the 1981 World Games, Jeff in CA!

Wikipedia editor Bri just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for your new article!

To reply, leave a comment on Bri's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

☆ Bri ( talk) 02:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I've been waiting and looking for the announcement of medal reallocations. You have not included sources with your edits. Where are you getting this information? Trackinfo ( talk) 05:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I included the reference in the infoboxes of the 8 affected articles yesterday: Mallon, Bill (26 Sep 2017). "2008-12 OLYMPIC DOPING RE-TEST – AN UPDATE-UPDATE". Retrieved 2017-10-16.

Jeff in CA ( talk) 06:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, that was interesting that you reverted my edit probably without even checking the reference, I did my researched in time to make sure about the medal table, World Games organizers annulled Bodybuilding results one year later and removed them from the medal table. you can compare the original medal table and the updated one here. There is also one more change because of a positive doping test in Sumo (Men's 85 kg lightweight). source. the result section of IWG website is not up to date. as they still show Sandor BARDOSI - HUN as gold medalist while he is disqualified (another source, international Sumo federation) Mohsen1248 ( talk) 18:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply

As a matter of fact, I did check the reference and found it lacking, compared to the research that I did two years ago. It is quite obvious that the current results section of the TWG website is not up-to-date, as there are more errors and omissions than just the ones you mentioned here. I do not rely on the results as currently given on their website. Although the previous medal table that you changed included the 21 medals for bodybuilding, it also contained correct results that are not reflected in the table that you have restored there. Your table does not reflect any of the medals for men's beach team handball (gold - Brazil, silver- Hungary, bronze - Croatia). Also, New Zealand actually won 3 silver medals (W aerobic gymnastics, W open kumite karate, M beach life saving - surf) and 6 bronze medals (W beach life saving - ocean, W beach life saving - rescue board, W beach life saving - surf, M Life Saving Combined Relay, W Speed Skating Track - Point Elimination 10.000m, W Speed Skating Track - Sprint 1.000m ), not 4 silver and 5 bronze. And by the way, the bodybuilding results were once again included in the 2009 World Games results that were available on the TWG website in 2015, so who is to say that all 21 medals were forfeited and never reallocated? Of course, it is probable that it was just another error made by the person responsible for the TWG website. Jeff in CA ( talk) 00:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Holy crap, I hadn't noticed! My watchlist hides bot edits so I hadn't seen any of the updates. Thanks for letting me know! So hopefully now it'll show up on the front page at some point, and I am actually working on something new: Detail images. Basically, I wanted to label - when possible - the features that delineate a border, and these would be way to crowdy for the main images. Here's a couple of ones I've been working on, I'm still not 100% sure this is a worthwhile thing to do, and it would just be extra links, and I'm not sure if this is the perfect way of going about it - but, it's something to do. What do you think? I've taken three that I've done and combined them into this pic just to show it off: work in progress -- Golbez ( talk) 18:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Golbez: I think those images are very nteresting! I like your idea. Links to them would be a good addition to the list. Man, you like to tackle big projects! I'm trying to imagine what an image of McNeil's line with the Orr and Whitner line would look like. As they are so close together, the necessary resolution would make it a wide image, if my memory is serving me. Jeff in CA ( talk) 20:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Not sure if you saw my most recent reply to you on my talk page. I'm wondering if the territorial waters as shown in OpenStreetMap are correct. Anyway, I will restore the places I had removed from the list until this can be confirmed. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 04:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

As someone who has been a party on this topic, I would really appropriate if you would please provide your input on the edit warring United States military occupation by a certain user, especially considering that the previous conversation on the talk page had the consensus to keep the reference to U.S. military occupation codes (as well as on [[talk:User talk:GreenMeansGo#Yo, Shield o' Sham-er]] and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_18#United_States_military_occupation. Thanks!

You're invited to an Art+Feminism Edit-a-Thon at SFMOMA in San Francisco on Thursday March 8, 5-9 pm. It'll be at 151 Third Street, 2nd floor, free to the public. Everyone is welcome to participate in an evening of communal updating of Wikipedia entries on subjects related to gender, art, and feminism. (This message is from User:Dreamyshade. You can subscribe/unsubscribe to San Francisco event talk page notices here.)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Escargoten ( talk) 22:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I have reverted your insertion of an inappropriate table of victims and discussion of the assaults against them. This is inappropriate highlighting of crime victims is in violation of the biographies of living persons policy, and its presentation creates concerns about undue weight . This is a formal warning on grounds of BLP policy. In addition, the presentation appears to be calculated to introduce a disputation of guilt. The table format is itself a problem, and you're edit-warring, so please consider this a warning of edit-warring. In no circumstance should this be introduced in any form without consensus on the talkpage. If it is done again without such consensus I will block you for violations of the BLP policy after warning. Acroterion (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Acroterion: Please comment at Please discuss: trial testimony and police records about victims instead of here. Jeff in CA ( talk) 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm warning you in my capacity as an administrator about BLP violations. I will not take part in substantive editing or discussion, apart from a statement that BLP is a compulsory policy, and we do not re-victimize victims by re-litigating the trial here in a table of assaults upon them. Acroterion (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Acroterion: There is nothing having to do with original research or synthesis. Everything is quoted from a reliable secondary source. If you have concerns about those things, please discuss in further detail rather than make unfounded accusations. Jeff in CA ( talk) 22:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Acroterion:Outside of the table, any names you encountered in the article were not placed there by me. They were already in the article and, again, not placed there by me. Why don't you go after those perps, instead of focusing all your anger on me. Your latest outburst and your determined effort to prevent a discussion with other editors from occurring leads me to believe that you have a very thin skin. Please get outdoors and get some fresh air. Jeff in CA ( talk) 17:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Apart from Victim 1, who is named, the victims are noted in the article as "Victim n" and not named. There is "John Doe A." Throughout the article they're "victims" and "accusers." A curated table naming victims and examining their behavior is a clear BLP violation, which is the essential point you're missing. You're using the encyclopedia to name and cross-examine rape victims. Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Acroterion: Come on. I'm not missing that point. I am not trying to find a way to get any of their names in the article. Any contribution I make in the future will not include such name(s). I didn't think I had to say that. I honestly want to have a discussion with other editors to understand other policy concerns that have been voiced elsewhere. Why is that, when an actual rational, respectful discussion is proposed, some jump to the conclusion of an ulterior motive? If one can understand these other objections and the bases upon which they are made (including how two editors can cite the same policy for their disparate positions), perhaps some unpleasantness can be avoided. Jeff in CA ( talk) 17:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC) reply

.

If it included everything between the Perdido and the Mississippi, didn’t it include some of modern Alabama? If so, how do you think it should be handled? The article says the border was the Perdido, not the Pearl. deisenbe ( talk) 09:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Deisenbe: Please look at the map in the article: ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westfloridaitsre00cham_0010.jpg). It shows the boundaries of the British and Spanish colonies and the independent state. The area of the independent republic is the diagonally cross-hatched area, which stops at the Pearl River. Jeff in CA ( talk) 01:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I’d never seen that map, that I recall. That settles it. Thanks. deisenbe ( talk) 09:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello Jeff in CA,

On medal table for 1900, you write "There are sources, besides the International Olympic Committee (IOC), that display variations in the medal totals, but as the governing body of the Olympic Games, the IOC is the acknowledged source." and the last medal table published by Olympic Movement on Olympic.org for 1900 is [1] with the same number of medals than before your last changements ( [2]). You write too on 1900 Summer Olympics "However, the IOC has never decided which events were "Olympic" and which were not" but your source is 23 years old and on [3], the source code of this page has this commentary "Access the official Olympic database of results. It contains all records since Athens 1896 and is searchable by Olympic Games, sport or event." and there are only two cycling events by example. I believe, even if Bill Mallon did a great job, official sources are preponderant on historian's job to know what is currently recognized as official.

185.24.185.195 ( talk) 11:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

IOC is the source of the current count of medals for 1900. On its page for "Paris 1900", it states that there were 95 medal events, which corresponds to Bill Mallon's recommendation. The woefully incomplete so-called "IOC database" contains at least ten fewer events. So the IOC website itself is inconsistent. I have included and cited the conclusion of Lennartz and Teutenberg, which you mentioned and which Bill Mallon has independently confirmed, in several articles. The IOC in fact has never made any decision on which events are Olympic and which are not. The claim that the IOC had made such a century-old decision was used to buttress an argument that the IOC's flawed medal count was somehow inviolable. The IOC itself must have recognized this when it recently obtained the rights to the OlyMADMen database (the source of the sportsreference.com data), which was created and is maintained by Bill Mallon.

The point is that there are no official sources for "official" Olympic events of 1900, because the IOC has never made such a determination. The statement on the IOC website that there were 95 events is what we must work with.

I have a couple of statements about your comments. (1) The note, "There are sources... acknowledged source," is not mine. I simply toned down one word so that it now says "acknowledged." That entire note should probably go away. (2) https://www.olympic.org/olympic-results is not a source that I will cite (however, I have cited the IOC "Paris 1900" page) . If indeed it does say that it contains all records since Athens 1896 (which by the way I do not see at that url), then it is simply wrong, as you have demonstrated by finding only two cycling events, when the IOC "Paris 1900" web page says there were 95 events, which then must include a third Olympic cycling event (the course de primes).

Thank you for discussing this. Jeff in CA ( talk) 15:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Hey Jeff. I'm writing an article about NCAA Emerging Sports for Women. Because I saw that you wrote a lot about the NCAA I wanted to ask you what do you think about this unfinished article and if you can help me. Thank you. -- Malo95 ( talk) 18:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Malo95:I am sorry to be so late in getting back to you. I have taken a look at your unfinished article. The outline is well-structured. However, it does need fleshing out with more "meat on the bones". For some of the links to main articles, there may be some better ones to link, such as college rugby or National Collegiate Equestrian Association. Perhaps there could be some mention for each sport about which colleges fielded teams under the program, who the strong teams were, which teams won championships, or whether the sport came close to achieving full NCAA status. Maybe there is a prominent coach that could be mentioned, or an athlete who competed in the Olympics. These are just a few ideas. The article doesn't have to be perfect before you publish it. But I think it should contain more information than it does now. I can't help with the research right now unfortunately. I'd be happy to do a little copyediting though. Again, great effort. There is great potential. Jeff in CA ( talk) 06:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alabama Crimson Tide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2016 college football season ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi Jeff in CA,

You removed my edit that I put time into because the format does not abide to a format for U.S. college sports in Wikiedpia. Can you provide a source for that? I see several other sports pages with other formats as well, and I was not informed of this when I was editing the public Division II colleges in Califronia.

Thank you,

SJSU_Moi SJSU_Moi ( talk) 11:34, 02 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ SJSU Moi: Please see #6 above. Jeff in CA ( talk) 00:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Paulmec: Please offer your thoughts. Jeff in CA ( talk) 00:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Jeff in CA: Thank you for the reply! I think your support for the stance you bring is well-done. If I recall correctly, I think you edited my contribution in Humboldt State Lumberjacks by renaming the section to "Championships" Would having the same outline I made, while taking into consideration of other championships, in Long Beach State 49ers be okay? Thank you for your Wikipedia efforts. :) ( talk) 21:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ SJSU Moi: I like your most recent revision on Long Beach State 49ers. Nice job. I think Cal State Bakersfield is in the same situation after my last edit to it, unless you've already tended to it. I think you may need to put UCSD's 6 pre-NCAA and 21 Division III NCAA titles in. Cal State-East Bay's and Chico State's articles appear to need the women's AIAW titles restored. Others maybe? I really appreciate your cooperation and consideration. Jeff in CA ( talk) 21:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Jeff in CA: Yeah I'll go ahead and edit that for CSU Bakersfield. I'll include all championships a school has earned in the future, although I am planning to complete this only for public California colleges. I'll take a look at the previous schools and see what championships are missing. Thank you for your compliment haha ( talk) 21:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Jeff in CA: All of the NCAA Division II public schools in California and CSU Bakersfield, CSU Fullerton, Long Beach State, and Sacramento State are done. The only thing I did not include was the NAIA championships, and there isn't a Wikipedia directory for that. ( talk) 00:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of lakes ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Carp Lake, Birch Lake, Grand Lake, Crooked Lake, Cameron Lake, Granite Lake and Brush Lake

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for picking up the deletion of text. I think I may have accidentally messed up the process while trying to restore those refs. I was cleaning up after an editor who I noticed had been removing proper refs from a wide range of articles over a long time period, and I probably failed to double check and make sure that intermediate edits were left intact. I had no intention of removing so much content in the process. Sorry for making you undo my edits. I'll be more careful in the future. ― A Poor Historian ( talk) 03:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi. Your Undid revision in List of divided islands article on Isla Portillos is the same article in Spanish Wikipedia than Isla Calero. According the English Wikipedia Isla Calero has other names inlucing Isla Portillos and Harbour Head Island. So please don't revise the article Isla Calero from the List of divided islands to Isla Portillos because it is the same island. You can always change the name of Isla Calero to Isla Portillo in the main article Isla Calero. -- 84.248.90.122 ( talk) 08:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Although they are adjacent, they are different islands. Jeff in CA ( talk) 14:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note the following from the Spanish Wikipedia article on Isla Calero ( https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Calero):

A note of clarification: despite all the information that has been generated from the facts, the conflict is not taking place directly on Isla Calero, with 151.6 km², but on the Isla Portillos (located to the north of Calero) which is the eighth largest island in Costa Rica, with 16.8 km² and includes the current National Wildlife Refuge North Border Corridor, according to executive decree No. 23248-MIRENEN of May 18, 1994 . This Isla Portillos has been confused, both by Nicaraguans and Costa Ricans (confusion that, to a certain extent, has been encouraged by the press and the governments of both countries), with the larger Isla Calero. ^[a] In spite of this, for the purposes of international information, the conflict has transcended as the "Calero Island conflict".

Una nota que debe aclararse es que, a pesar de toda la información que se ha generado a partir de estos hechos, en realidad el conflicto no se está dando directamente en la isla Calero, con 151.6 km², sino en la isla Portillos (ubicada al norte de Calero) la cual es la octava isla costarricense de mayor extensión, con 16.8 km² y comprende el actual Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Corredor Fronterizo Norte, según decreto ejecutivo No. 23248-MIRENEN del 18 de mayo de 1994. Esta isla Portillos ha sido confundida, tanto por nicaragüenses como por costarricenses (confusión que, en cierta medida, ha sido alentada por la prensa y los gobiernos de ambos países), con la isla Calero, de mayor tamaño. ^[a] A pesar de esto, para efectos de información internacional, el conflicto ha trascendido como el «conflicto por isla Calero».

Jeff in CA (
talk) 01:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Jeff, the only information I have about this edition of the World Cup is what is published in the HistoFINA book. 5 teams from 4 countries were participating: CAN, NED, USA, AUS and AUS II (AUS did it with two different rosters). The final ranking was CAN (gold), NED (silver] AUS (bronze) USA (4th) and AUS II (5th). FINA only gives credits to the Gold Medallists team, in that case CAN and the Roster was: Sylvie ARCHAMBAULT, Tracy CRANDALL, Odile DELASERRA, Isabel DESCHAMES, Michele DESPATIS, Jocelyne DUMAY, Diedre FINCHAW, Johanne GERBAIS, Janice GILBEY, Heather GIFFORD, Hilary KNOWLES, Denise PREFONTAINE, Sylvie THIBAULT SaGoBCN ( talk) 06:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi! I noticed you removed a borough from the list of boroughs in Pennsylvania. The borough of Monroeville, Allegheny county has a home rule charter. And it is a borough. I think it should be listed both on List_of_towns_and_boroughs_in_Pennsylvania and on List_of_Pennsylvania_municipalities_and_counties_with_home_rule_charters,_optional_charters,_or_optional_plans. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 11:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I added Monroeville back to the list. If a list of towns and boroughs without home rule is needed, then perhaps a new column could be added to the table or a new page could be started. If you do not agree with my edit, please let me know so we can come to consensus. Thanks. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 15:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ SV Resolution: I was simply following the list criteria already stated in the article. It seems to limit the list to only those that are subject to and operate under the Borough Code in Pennsylvania law. My understanding from Wikipedia is that Monroeville simply calls itself a borough. If Monroeville remains in the list, it seems there are a few others that need to added to the list as well, along with a need to add explanatory wording to the criteria. Also, the title of a list article is not, per a Wikipedia style guideline, supposed to contain the list criteria, to avoid long and unwieldy titles. (By the way, when I came across that one title, List of Pennsylvania municipalities and counties with home rule charters, optional charters, or optional plans, I had to shake my head because it is ridiculously long and unwieldy.) Jeff in CA ( talk) 16:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments, which have helped me to understand the stated criteria in this article. Based on this discussion, I will seek to change the list criteria. Counties and municipalities which adopt home rule continue to be counties and municipalities. This article, then, would be more in parallel with List of counties in Pennsylvania, List of cities in Pennsylvania, and List of townships in Pennsylvania, which all list counties and municipalities both with and without home rule charters. In order to bring this article in line with the stated criteria (only those with no home rule charter), I believe several more boroughs would be removed from the list. Because the State of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvanians regard these boroughs as boroughs, I think it makes sense that this article (list of towns and boroughs in Pennsylvania) lists boroughs with and without home rule charters. A list of only those boroughs with no home rule charter does not contribute as effectively to understanding the boroughs of Pennsylvania. Thank you for your comments on the ridiculous title - they helped me to better understand the issue. Thanks. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 14:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC) reply

here, as well as the relevant sections here

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Jeff - I don't mind my edits in Nunatsiavut being reverted, but are you going to go back and fix those awful references with bare URLs. You can use my last edit put some meat on them. PK T(alk) 19:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Sorry. I should have realized that, but I didn't. Reverted my reversion. Jeff in CA ( talk) 00:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC) reply

No problem, and thank you! Cheers, PK T(alk) 01:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi, I just finished creating List of 1993 World Games medal winners after lots of researches of I found some mistakes in IWGA website, I want to fix the medal table of 1993 World Games based on that, but there were so many mistakes I couldn't write them all in the edit summary, unfortunately I couldn't find a second source for some of these sports, so more mistakes are possible. but here is what I found.

I already told about the mistake about Karate 75kg bronze medalist Saeid Ashtian from Iran wrongly listed for Finland.

Taekwondo 83kg silver medalist Paolo Borgato is from Italy but wrongly listed for USA, One of the bronze medalists are also from USA, and we know in Taekwondo you can't have more than 1 competitor per event. Borgato's profile

Taekwondo Women's +65kg gold and silver medalists are "most probably" wrong, I can't say 100% but I'm almost sure about it (still searching to make sure) Source says Germany won the gold and Egypt the silver. they also have the detaied results if you click on the names.

Waterski Women's tricks bronze medalist Julia Gromyko is from Belarus but wrongly listed for Bulgaria.

It seems there was a tie for bronze medal between Belarus and China in women's Group Balance event. the IWGA only gave it to Belarus but the official document here, page 4 also shows China as joint bronze medalist.

The last but the most confusing one was in men's syncro trampoline, the IWGA shows medals for FRA-DEN-SWE in order but other sources show it GER-SWE-DEN which is totally different. I saw sources in Germany and France both giving that gold medal to their own country. but I assume the French sources only took that from IWGA. because German sources had a bit more details and beside that I found an archived newspaper from the Netherlands having a summary of some events (only the gold medalists) and that source also gave the gold medal to Germany. this is the newspaper I talked about, also this Danish source says that Denmark won a bronze that year not silver which makes me believe the second version GER-SWE-DEN is the correct one.

let me know what you think and if you are OK I will correct the medal. Mohsen1248 ( talk) 00:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Mohsen1248:By all means, please proceed. I think you are doing exceptional research. I will update my own personal records with this information, as well. Jeff in CA ( talk) 18:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi again, just finished completing my search about 1989, some few mistakes and some uncertainities, for example I'm not really sure if they award medals for individaul overall events in life saving (or as they called it Tetrathlon event) but since there is no source against it, I'm not going to change but there were some obvious mistakes.

Nadine Visconti gold medalist in Archery is from France but she is wrongly listed for Italy.

Liang Jun finswimming gold medalist is from China. wrongly listed for Chinese Taipei. he even won a relay medal in the same competition for China.

The pair of David Morrison and Kirsten Murphy, bronze medalists in Artistic skating is from Australia, wrongly listed for USA, Murphy even won an individual medal for Australia in the same competition.

3 more Australia medals wrongly awarded to USA, all in inline skating. 1 silver and 2 bronze. Tony Keefe and Tony Hanley they are both Australia but all of their medals listed for USA.

I already fixed the medal table for the main page, let me know if are disagree with anything. I also fixed some other mistakes from other games but I explained the problem in edit summary, you probably want to consider them for the overall medal table. Mohsen1248 ( talk) 20:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Mohsen1248: Thank you again. For the 1993 men's synchro trampoline, a Swedish newspaper dated 1 August 1993 states Germany (Christoff Emmes/Ralf Gehrke) were gold medalists and the Swedes were silver medalists ( Source (paywall)). But the French pair is referred to as gold medalists at the personal website of Hennique ( Source). Here is the Swedish article translated by Google:

Sports

Double trampoline medals

Published 1/8/1993

TRAMPOLINE: In the trampoline competitions at the World Games in The Hague, Netherlands, Sweden took two medals on Saturday. In sync (pair jumping) it became silver for the brothers Lars and Martin von Stedingk from Åkersberga.

This is the brothers' most successful placement so far. They even rank Saturday's silver higher than the fifth place they took at the European Championships in 1991. In addition to medal, their performance in The Hague meant a Swedish record. The German couple Christoff Emmes / Ralf Gehrke won the competition.

In the men's individual discipline, Martin von Stedingk finished in third place. Prior to the results list, Martin had only sovereign Frenchman Fabrice Schwertz who won by 41.0 points, and Sergei Bukovtsev from Ukraine at 40.5 points. Martin's final series was rewarded with 39.4 points, also the Swedish record.

(TT, The Hague)

However, in Google searches I can find no other source for either Christoff Emmes or Ralf Gehrke that mentions a 1993 World Games medal. I'm beginning to think perhaps the IWGA might have the French gold medal shown correctly and then reversed the Swedish and Danish pairs. It seems strange that both Dutch and Swedish newspapers would mention Germany as the winner and then the winning athletes would not be mentioned as World Games medalists in published materials later in life. For example, at this site, Emmes and Gehrke are both mentioned in this 2012 article about German trampolining history, with nothing about the World Games:

"Exciting history of the globally successful MTV department Trampoliner celebrates its 40th anniversary"

The MTV and its successful trampolines can look back on a turbulent club history. The photo comes from the archive of the association.

Bad Kreuznach. In March 1972, Gerhard Krüger founded the trampoline department of MTV Bad Kreuznach. The department has grown from 23 to 160 members today. The successes grew from 1979 with the 1st participation in Rhineland-Palatinate championships and increased to 2011 for the 100th German championship title. The trampolines were at home on all mats in the world and have won numerous medals. Unforgettable: the success of Ralf Gehrke and Christof Emmes, who brought gold at the European Youth Championships in 1984. Renowned Trampoliner is also Jörg Gehrke, who in 1989 created the first German Single title for the MTV Bad Kreuznach won. Pascual Robles won the gold medal at the double mini trampoline in 1993. Heiko Berger with his colleague Jörg Gehrke as the youngest dubbing couple, the bronze medal at the European Youth Championships. Steffen Eislöffel, Jörg Gehrke and Pascual Robles won a double mini-team in 1992 in New Zealand World Cup gold. Today's top athlete Martin Gromowski became the German master student for the first time in 1996, and his colleague Stefan Reithofer was third in the World Championship synchronized competition. There is a lot more to tell about this traditional department in the MTV. But the success of Anna Dogonadze, who moved in 1999 from the TGJ Salzgitter to the Kreuznacher trampolines, is outstanding. The highest goals of a trampoline gymnast she has already achieved with the 3 times Olympic participation including the Olympic gold medal 2004 in Athens was the sport Trampoline gymnastics olympic. With synchronous partner Jessica Simon, the duo won the gold medal at the Synchronizing World Championships in Birmingham. The best move of the club was the move from the Konrad-Frey-Straße in the training center Rose-Barracks, the 2003 in the former American hall originated. MTV CEO Peter Gehrke created here together with longtime head of department, partner and today's wife Tilly his life's work. Gerhard Krüger, the founder of the department, got involved again in the renovation during the event. He formed together with Marianne Brandt the first coaching team. After Hans-Martin Luther took over his then active Pascual Robles, Christof Emmes and Steffen Eislöffel the coaching work. For the first time, Steffen Eislöffel and Marcel Meyer have been appointed full-time junior coaches. Today, Steffen Eislöffel and Heiko Berger are the full-time coaches of the Bundesstützpunkt. Under the coach Hans-Martin Luther also began the numerous and well-known in Bad Kreuznach Bundesliga successes. The Bundesliga round and the finals attracted some Bad Kreuznach fans in the spell coach Steffen Eislöffel decided to resign from the Bundesliga and the team moves to. Tilly and Peter Gehrke also announce their resignation.

Jeff in CA ( talk) 12:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for helping the research. personally I'm convinced the Germans won the gold medal. I assume French sources only took that data from IWGA website. again this is confusing because from what I found two different German gymnasts won the gold medal. Christian Kemmer and Martin Kubicka. for example here in 1994 section they mentioned that Sandra Beck won silver and Christian Kemmer won gold both in the same World Games in Den Haag. Mohsen1248 ( talk) 12:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I am now also convinced that the Germans Kemmer/Kubicke won the gold medal. Jeff in CA ( talk)

While it's very kind of you to not want to mess with student editors contributions to Wikipedia, you really should treat them like any other new Wikipedian. We've provided them with a whole lot of resources to learn to contribute properly, and there's little excuse for the mess they made. If you do run into issues with students and you don't want to mess with what they're doing, please leave me, User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) or User:Elysia (Wiki Ed) a note, or post on WP:ENB. Thanks - Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 17:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 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 2019 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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC) reply

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{ PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 12:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Diannaa: You've got the wrong user. That quote was put there by user RightCowLeftCoast quite some time ago. Jeff in CA ( talk) 20:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Here's a link to the bot report. If you click on the iThenticate link you can view the overlap.— Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 20:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

	Fuel for future editing
	For recent edits to the article about the Battle of San Pasqual, improving its quality, I present to you this California Burrito. May it fuel your future edits, and efforts to improve content on Wikipedia. RightCowLeftCoast ( Moo) 05:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British North America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Fontainebleau ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC) reply

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mythical national championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AAU ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

It is good to see another editor interested in the early years of college football history. There are not so many of us with this odd passion. As to the tiptop25 blog site, I have long found the opinions there to be interested. However, I have some questions with your usage of it.

First, what is your source for the author's name? I don't see it readily available on the web site but maybe I'm missing it. If you could provide a link, that would be great.

Second, there is some question as to whether the site is a reliable source. Per WP:BLOG, "Anyone can create a personal web page ... or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as ... personal websites ... personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above) ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Are there any reliable independent sources recognize tiptop25 as an expert?

Third, WP:OR does not permit us to use our own opinion or judgment to declare someone to be "a modern authority on college football". To make such an extraordinary claim about a self-published blogger, the assertion need to be backed up by reliable, independent sources.

The debate over who was the 1901 national champion will never be resolved. All we can do is accurately report what the various NCAA-recognized selectors and other reliable sources have asserted. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Rather than responding to my note here, you again reverted to refer to tiptop25 as "a modern authority on college football". When asked to discuss a matter such as this, it is considered good form to engage in the discussion rather than engaging in repeated unilateral reversion. The latter is considered edit warring and is frowned upon. Please respond to my questions above. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry, the two edits were occurring at the same time. I did not see your note here until a few minutes later. I'll respond when I have more time. Jeff in CA ( talk) 03:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I became a grandfather last night. Mother and daughter are doing well. ... James Vautravers has an "about me" at http://www.tiptop25.com/about_me.html. Although tiptop25.com is his website, I would not call it a blog. A blog has (or if inactive, had) frequent, often daily, content additions in an ongoing manner.

Vautravers' football work has been referenced in several books on college football history. In them, authors refer to him as "college football historian", "poll historian" and "modern football scholar". One uses the term "revisionist" but not as a pejorative. I do not think it is puffery to describe him in one of those ways.

The always-to-be-missed SportsonEarth.com in one of its features rated Vautravers' website as highly as Sports-Reference.com, the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia and cfbstats.com.

My interest in the early days of college football is born from a passion for history. I agree with you and my wife that it can seem odd. I have no axe to grind, no rooting interests for or against the teams of Michigan or Harvard or any schools other than the ones I attended (and there I scrupulously try to avoid writer's bias). I admit to the lazy potential copyright violation (thank you for pointing that out) and the puzzling bit about non-scheduled opponents. That was an awkward attempt not to offend; I should have discussed the particular concern on the Talk page. I do admire the far more prolific work you have done to advance the history of this era on Wikipedia.

Jeff in CA ( talk) 17:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Congratulations on the birth of your healthy granddaughter! I hope that you are in a place and situation that allows you to share the event to some extent despite the quarantine.

My interest in the early days of passion is born from the same passion. An internal debate decade ago between history and law was resolved then in favor of law but the passion for history refuses to subside.

I did some searching myself, as well, and concur that the tipto25 web site qualifies as a reliable source. However, I am not yet comfortable with referring to him as "a modern authority on college football". When time permits, can you identify what authors/books referred to him as "modern football scholar"/"college football historian"?

I hope that you enjoy grandfatherhood. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Here are some links to Google book searches: "modern football scholar" and "college football historian" and "poll historian". Some authors simply refer to him and the website, for example, "The Greatest College Football Rivalries of All Time", "When the Lions Roared", Miracle Moments in USC Trojans Football History, and a book about Ted Williams. Jeff in CA ( talk) 12:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi. I was wandering whether, given the additional evidence I have provided in the Talk section, you have changed your mind regarding my edits in the list of enclaves and exclaves page. By the way, the page Borders of Akrotiri and Dhekelia calls the areas “enclaves” so I believe it would be correct, at least for the sake of consistency, to also add them as enclaves/exclaves. KnolGua ( talk) 12:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I do have responses to your comments yet to post on that Talk page. I will do that shortly. I have not changed my mind yet. Thanks. Jeff in CA ( talk) 03:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello again. I realized that the UK definitely claims the waters, so there is no need to discuss that, and I apologize for my previous mistake. In light of the existence of a dispute, I provided proposals for edits to maintain a neutral tone in the dispute. I also proposed that Akrotiri and Dhekelia should be considered “enclaves that are also exclaves,” seeing as the UK maritime claim is still completely enclosed by Cypriot waters, so they are not ”undisturbed.” Please tell me if you approve of my new proposals regarding neutrality as that would mean there would be no reason for me to gain consensus. Regarding the inclusion of Akrotiri and Dhekelia as an enclave that is also an exclave I don’t think it would be necessary for me to gain consensus or approval as it has not been disputed and even if the article remains as it is, i.e it pretends that only the UK claim exists, Akrotiri and Dhekelia would still be considered enclaves that are also exclaves (except if we consider that they are not “sovereign,” as the article currently does). I shall be awaiting your reply. Cheers, KnolGua ( talk) 12:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello. I have explained on the talk page why an ambiguity exists regarding the Cypriot (and British) claims to the waters around Akrotiri and Dhekelia. I hope I cleared up any confusion, and I ask you if you approve of my proposals as per NPOV. I'm sorry if this is getting a bit annoying, I've just read your previous messages explaining why you may not always be available. Congratulations on your baybe granddaughter! If you're not as available as you normally are, by all means do not reply. KnolGua ( talk) 14:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi. While I am happy to have reached a conclusion on the Power Station issue, and sincerely apologise for for my baseless assumption that the UK did not claim maritime areas in Dhekelia, I believe the article must be further edited to mention that Cyprus does not recognise the UK’s "exclusive sovereignty" over Akrotiri and Dhekelia, as per various sources I have already linked to. As no source mentions any impact arising from the Cypriot claim as to the status of enclaves/exclaves of the two Cypriot villages and the two EAC areas, I don’t think they should be moved to "Potential exclaves pending international resolution" yet (if ever). I Instead, think these four areas should be kept as they are but with the addition of a mention of the Cypriot claim as to the status of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, without, of course, in any way pretending this claim is accepted or in any way superior to that of the UK. I though that before making these edits I should consult you, considering you are an interested and a more knowledgable wikipedian. KnolGua ( talk) 17:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ KnolGua:,Thank you for the kind courtesy. I have no objection to appending a plain statement that Cyprus does not recognise the UK’s exclusive sovereignty over Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Following that with a citation would be good. Cheers! Jeff in CA ( talk) 02:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your prompt reply. I always had in mind this ^[1] in mind as a source. However, since it was drafted by the UK government maybe this: http://www.rcenter.intercol.edu/newsletter/In%20Depth/volume%206%20issue%205/article04.htm or this: http://www.assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=11651&Lang=EN#P264_45459 would be better. The main reason I wrote in your talk page was because I was thinking of adding this information as an EFN note so that it wouldn't obstruct the flow of the article. I was unsure about this as the article has no notelist. Should a notelist be added just for this? KnolGua ( talk) 09:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ KnolGua:, I don't think it would need a notelist just for this. I think a regular citation would be fine. Jeff in CA ( talk) 21:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the long delay. I was moving and wifi access is limited. Anyhow, I decided to only add a sentence specifying the dispute on one of the four areas. However, I was wandering if the sentence shoudl be added to all of them, as with the first sentence, "Small exclave surrounded by Dhekelia, a British Overseas Territory". I opted not to do that, because the sentecne I added is much longer and would take more space. KnolGua ( talk) 09:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ KnolGua: I moved the two citations to immediately follow the sentence that you added, as well as a minor copyedit to stress the two ideas in the two citations. Jeff in CA ( talk) 18:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Jeff in CA: Thanks a lot. I didn't realise that I placed the citation in the wrong place. The parts of the article which you copyedited are separate from the part which I copyedited. Due to the mixed views of the Cypriots regarding the areas there are many inconsistencies in the views which they express. (Is the "legitimacy of the military presence" or the "legitimacy of the areas" disputed? Should the British "pay" or "leave"? Do the British have "limited sovereignty" or "'sovereignty'"? Or is it "British Base Areas" as maps of recent agreements between the UK and Cyprus call them in their Greek translation) You specifically mentioned the British Military presence, something which I wold have avoided seeing as not all of the areas have a military presence. Relevant maps showing the location of the actual bases have been published. Xylotymbou is a major example of an "enclave" that is not surrounded by bases. The roads surrounding it are in fact policed by the Cypriot police, not the SBA police. I have thus decided to remove references to he military presence. KnolGua ( talk) 19:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Florida Parishes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pearl River and Civil War.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much, though I must always share that it was a team effort, and you and all the others helped make it possible. :) -- Golbez ( talk) 15:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

"striking miners constructed tent colonies, the largest of which housed about 1,200 strikers, in Ludlow. The striking miners were a polyglot of ethnicities, including a large number of Greeks and Italians." This does state that all in the tents were either miners or families of the miners, I am confused did you even read the source? It is Britannia a reliable source. What issue do you have with the source? It states so clearly, it also states in the article itself that all involved were miners. Thanks. Vallee01 ( talk) 09:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Vallee01: Did you place your edit in the correct place in the article? It doesn't make sense in the spot where you put it.

1. The edit that you inserted states, "Despite those killed being family members of the militia." This is not a sentence and is, therefore, quite confusing.
2. There is no mention in the source you cited that those who were killed (i.e., strikers, their wives and children) were family members of anyone in the National Guard or other militia.
3. If you meant for your edit to be a dependent clause within the previous sentence on the topic of looting, the source you cited states nothing about looting.

The edit is incorrect on its own, and it is incorrect as an appendage of the previous sentence. Jeff in CA ( talk) 17:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply

If it was you who recently revised the Bush v. Gore article, I think that you misunderstood what SCOTUS was saying in its decision in that case. Please take a look at this sentence from SCOTUS's per curiam opinion in that case:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

"Furthermore, the citizen who marks two candidates, only one of which is discernable by the machine, will have his vote counted even though it should have been read as an invalid ballot."

Law professor Nelson Lund also makes this same point in one of his articles about Bush v. Gore:

https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1061VeryStreamlinedIntroduction.pdf

(On page 7:)

"What’s more, some ballots that a human observer would interpret as an overvote (and thus treat as no vote) could have registered as a valid vote in the machine count."

This actually makes sense. After all, just like voting machines could mistakenly reject votes that should have been counted, theoretically speaking, voting machines could also mistakenly accept votes that should not have been counted. Nelson Lund also discusses this a bit more in another article of his:

https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/01-17.pdf

(On page 28:)

"Furthermore, the need to treat “undervotes” and “overvotes” the same way is only the most obvious requirement of a recount aimed at determining the will of the voters. If one were actually serious about designing a recount that was more accurate than the machine counts, one would also have to recount all of the ballots identified by the machines as “legal votes.” Whatever criterion is adopted for changing “undervotes” to “legal votes” (the presence of hanging chad, or the presence of dimpled chad, for example), that same criterion should be applied to ballots containing both a machine readable hole and a hanging or dimpled chad. That means that some “legal votes” would have to be changed to “overvotes,” and thus deducted from the vote totals. This could be quite significant, for ballots containing both a clean hole for one candidate and a dimpled or indented chad for another candidate were quite common.71"

Futurist110 ( talk) 01:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you. What you have described, from both the SCOTUS opinion and Professor Lund's paper, is and has been my understanding, as well. The previous wording was clunky and confusing. The sub-note that I included ("The opinion does not suggest a method for searching for and manually identifying such ballots among the thousands of legally cast and counted ballots with which they would be mixed.") reflects the same understanding as Lund when he says, "... one would also have to recount all of the ballots identified by the machines as 'legal votes.'" For example, in Miami-Dade County, to accomplish such an undertaking, in addition to looking at the ~10,000 undervotes, all ~620,000 valid votes in the county would have to be examined manually to ascertain the unlikely instances of ballots with two marks being counted by mistake by the tabulating machine. Requiring such complete manual recounts is a much more massive undertaking. It would have required an inordinate amount of additional time to perform such a recount. No wonder the SCOTUS opinion did not mention how this could be done, if the writer of the opinion even considered it. Jeff in CA ( talk) 04:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Also, there are many ways that overvotes can arise. Almost all overvotes can be identified using the same method as for undervotes, by looking at the machine-rejected ballots. Indeed, if the overvotes that were later identified in optical-scan counties as being valid votes had been counted, it would have changed the outcome in Florida. The type of overvote that SCOTUS identified in its "furthermore" clause (and upon which Professor Lund amplified) is very rare and is the only kind of overvote that would require clawing through all of the legal ballots to find. It would be a massive undertaking with a very small measure of return for the expense, time and effort. Jeff in CA ( talk) 04:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, I know that there were a lot of pro-Gore overvotes in Florida that could have been reclassified as legal votes in a manual recount. As for what we were talking about here--as in, a legal vote that is actually an overvote--I don't know just how rare they were in Florida in 2000. I mean, in the last sentence of Professor Nelson Lund's quote from above, he talked about how "ballots containing both a clean hole for one candidate and a dimpled or indented chad for another candidate were quite common." So, Yeah, we're not really going to be able to know just how rare such legal votes (actually overvotes) were without doing a full manual recount of all of Florida's ballots. It might have only changed the vote gap between Bush and Gore in Florida by dozens of votes, a hundred votes, or a couple hundred votes, but even this in itself might have theoretically been decisive in such an extremely close election! So, Yeah, if we really are determined to try figuring out who won, we should manually recount all of the ballots regardless of just how long and difficult this will be; after all, SCOTUS explicitly said that time constrains don't excuse equal protection violations. And if there was no time to manually recount all of Florida's ballots, then maybe what SCOTUS did--albeit possibly not its reasoning for doing this--of outright halting the Florida recount altogether might have unfortunately been the best move.

Interestingly enough, Nelson Lund also complained about this before SCOTUS's Bush v. Gore ruling (this article is dated December 18, 2000, but it must have been written before SCOTUS issued its opinion in Bush v. Gore a week earlier, since Lund obviously doesn't reference this opinion in this article; maybe this article's publication was delayed?):

"Third, the supreme court has systematically rigged the recount. The trick lies in the court's decision to limit the manual recounts to ballots that the machines did not count for any presidential candidate. Under almost any rule for identifying which varieties of chad manifest an intent to vote, some fraction of these "undervote" ballots will be reclassified as votes. Whatever rule is chosen, however, should also be applied to ballots containing both a machine readable hole for one candidate and an indication of "an intent to vote" for another candidate. These ballots, which the machine counted as votes for one candidate, should be reclassified as "overvotes" and therefore deducted from that candidate's total.

Palm Beach actually used this approach, in which undervotes that are changed to votes are at least partially offset by votes changed to overvotes. This is one reason why Gore picked up fewer than 200 votes from the recount in heavily Democratic Palm Beach, much to everyone's surprise. The Florida justices, however, have made sure that won't happen again because they only ordered undervotes to be manually recounted. How convenient."

As for your claim that Florida's overvotes (those that could have been converted to legal votes) would have delivered Florida to Gore, that's very possible, but please keep in mind that there was also this ruling by US federal judge Lacey Collier that required several Florida counties to count even more absentee ballots, ballots that were likely to benefit Bush:

https://casetext.com/case/bush-v-hillsborough-county-canvassing-board-ndfla-2000

So, if Florida's overvotes would have given Gore a ~100 vote lead in Florida, and this ruling by Judge Collier would have given Bush an extra net 100 votes relative to Gore, then we'd have quite literally been stuck with an extremely close dead heat! So, Yeah, this is why manually recounting all of Florida's ballots to see if any legal votes are actually overvotes is so crucial; in an extremely close race, it could have potentially made the difference. And this is not to mention the different standards that were used to count absentee ballots in different parts of Florida--though unfortunately no one ever actually challenged this in court: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/us/examining-the-vote-how-bush-took-florida-mining-the-overseas-absentee-vote.html (IMHO, if conservative Florida counties used--or were forced by Judge Collier to use--lenient standards for counting absentee ballots, then liberal Florida counties should have likewise been forced to use lenient standards for counting absentee ballots--at least if one is willing to take the equal protection logic of Bush v. Gore to its logical conclusion.) So, Yeah, we don't actually know for sure who won Florida in 2000 and probably never will. It might have been Gore, but again, we simply don't and probably can't know for sure. Futurist110 ( talk) 05:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

A reference to the Judge Lacey Collier ruling mentioned above here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/12/us/contesting-the-vote-the-florida-courts-in-a-shadow-other-cases-go-on.html

"On Friday Mr. Bush won a partial victory when a federal judge in Pensacola ruled in a lawsuit that Mr. Bush had filed contending that seven counties had rejected overseas absentee ballots that should have been counted.

The ruling by Judge Lacey A. Collier of Federal District Court could add to Mr. Bush's slim lead in the Florida count. Judge Collier rejected several of the Bush camp's arguments for reinstating votes, but agreed in two areas. He ruled that any signed absentee ballots that were rejected solely because they lacked a postmark, or solely because there was no record on file that the voter ever requested such a ballot, should be declared valid votes.

The seven counties involved invalidated a total of 337 overseas ballots received after Election Day."

When the media consortium did the recounts for Florida for 2000, none of them to my knowledge have ever actually tried to factor in the results/outcome of Judge Lacey Collier's order (up to 100 extra votes for Bush, I presume) into the final Florida vote outcome. Futurist110 ( talk) 05:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Cool. Yeah, NORC's count of Florida's rejected undervotes and overvotes for the media consortium began at a baseline consisting of each county's certified vote total and looked at all ballots in each county not in the certified total. If the types of ballots affected by Judge Lacey's ruling were not in the total that Katherine Harris certified on November 26, then they were targeted to be among those in the ballot pool examined by the Florida Ballot Project. Jeff in CA ( talk) 06:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I thought that the 2001 media consortium study of Florida's ballots only looked at Florida's undervotes and overvotes and not at Florida's absentee ballots, though? Judge Lacey Collier's ruling specifically pertained to absentee ballots--with him telling seven Florida counties that rejected absentee ballots on certain grounds to accept them instead. (The Bush campaign apparently only sued seven Florida counties for this.)

But Yeah, back to my overall point here, Florida had around six million ballots that were classified as legal votes in 2000. Even if only 0.1% of them, or about 6,000 votes, would have actually been reclassified as overvotes in a manual recount and thus been subtracted from the vote totals, this could have still been significant if this would have affected the Florida vote gap between Bush and Gore by even dozens of votes--let alone a hundred votes or a couple hundred votes (for instance, if out of these 6,000 ballots, there would have been 3,100 votes deducted from Gore and 2,900 votes deduced from Bush, thus making Gore lose an additional 200 votes relative to Bush). Interestingly enough, the US Supreme Court opinion in Bush v. Gore said that the four Florida counties who did manual recounts in November 2000 manually recounted all of their ballots, so presumably it should not have been too much of a problem or a hurdle to have all of Florida do the same thing. Futurist110 ( talk) 19:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

After re-reading the baseline description for the NORC Florida Ballot Study, it's now clear to me that when NORC discusses the "uncertified" votes that it examined, it does mean only undervotes and overvotes. These are the ballots that NORC asked county elections officials to make available to them. The votes examined by NORC did not include other uncertified ballots that were excluded from the certified total for deficiencies, such as rejected absentee ballots.

With regard to Judge Lacey Collier's ruling, it applied to five counties (Hillsborough, Okaloosa, Orange, Polk, Collier, with Polk and Walton being dismissed by the plaintiffs). It was alleged that the seven counties involved invalidated a total of 337 overseas ballots received after Election Day (both state and federal write-in). NORC describes federal write-in overseas ballots: "Some overseas voters use generic, write-in ballots available at embassies, Army bases, etc., if they fear they won’t get the [state] overseas absentee ballot they requested in time." Judge Collier's ruling applies to the federal overseas ballots, not the state overseas absentee ballots. So from the 337 overseas ballots must be excluded those that were "state absentee ballots". Also to be excluded were those from Polk and Walton Counties. Also to be excluded were those that were indeed rejected appropriately, per the judge's ruling (i.e., that federal ballots could not be rejected for lack of a postmark or state ballot application). So the number of 337 ballots gets whittled down to smaller subset, and then some small number of those may have been votes for Nader or someone else other than Bush or Gore. Having said all that, your point is taken.

A look at the actual numbers of federal overseas ballots that were included in the certified count on November 17 is instructive. For the five counties (Hillsborough, Okaloosa, Orange, Polk, Collier), their certified vote totals included 173 federal overseas votes for Bush, 101 for Gore and 16 for others. Statewide, Florida's certified vote totals included 1575 federal overseas votes for Bush, 836 for Gore and 79 for others.

Also, when the Supreme Court opinion said that Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties manually recounted all of their ballots, it was mistaken. Those county election officials manually looked at only ballots rejected by the tabulation machines. For example, you may recall that three election officials in Palm Beach County examined every such ballot. Had they looked at all 433,186 ballots cast in the county, at five seconds per ballot working non-stop, it would have required 601 hours to perform their recount. You may recall that they took a fair number of breaks and took Thanksgiving Day off. Jeff in CA ( talk) 10:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply

There were only three vote-counting officials (vote-counters) in all of Miami-Dade County? That seems extraordinarily low for such an extremely massive county! Is it the same for manual recounts in other places and in other years? As in, a county containing several hundred thousand voters (not people, but specifically voters) having just three vote-counting officials for this entire county? Futurist110 ( talk) 04:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply

A person on the Wikipedia Reference Desk likewise expressed significant doubt about this information. Futurist110 ( talk) 06:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Not the initial vote counts in November 2000, just the recounts of ballots rejected by tabulation machines, which were much smaller numbers of ballots, that had to be reported to the state by November 26. I know that Broward, Palm Beach, and Miami-Dade Counties each had three elections commissioners (don’t remember exact titles), who examined each ballot, with 2 out of 3 agreement necessary to declare who received each reclaimed vote. Each county of course had a staff of workers who culled through all the rejected ballots to create the stacks of ballots to be reviewed by the commissioners. In the case of Palm Beach County, and probably the others as well, there were Democratic and Republican party observers at every stage. Jeff in CA ( talk) 08:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, I understood that you were talking about the recounts here as opposed to about the initial count. I thought that this is what I was asking about on the Wikipedia Reference Desk; do I need to clarify my question for the people on the Reference Desk? Also, Yes, I understand the need to have three people look at a ballot in order to make sure that, for instance, a particular ballot indeed has a dimple on it or whatever (thus deciding whether or not this ballot actually counts as a vote), but technically speaking, a county could have theoretically had more than one group of three people to do this but instead several groups of three people--or even more than just several groups of three people--doing this. Futurist110 ( talk) 02:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Also, back to the topic of my original post here, Nelson Lund did discuss in one of his articles how such ballots could be identified. (As for searching for such ballots, we agree that they would require a full manual recount of all of the ballots that Florida's voting machines classified as legal votes.) Specifically, Professor Lund mentioned identifying the ballots that contained both a clean machine-readable hole for one candidate and a dimpled or indented chad for another candidate. Such ballots would presumably be different from ballots that contain either a clean machine-readable hole for one candidate or a dimpled or indented chad for another candidate but not both of these things. Anyway, should this information be included in the Bush v. Gore article? Futurist110 ( talk) 03:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I really don't think that this information should be included in the article. This kind of detail is extremely down in the weeds. By the way, I personally don't agree with Professor Lund that ballots containing both a clean machine-readable hole for one candidate and a dimpled or indented chad for another candidate were overvotes. But that's neither here nor there. Considering how impractical and time-consuming it would be to do a full manual recount of the millions of ballots that Florida's voting machines classified as legal votes, it strikes me as a rather rhetorical proposal by Professor Lund. Jeff in CA ( talk) 11:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I think that there are four categories here: Ballots that were classified by Florida's voting machines as legal votes and actually are legal votes, ballots that were classified by Florida's voting machines as legal votes and are actually overvotes, ballots that were classified by Florida's voting machines as overvotes and are actually legal votes, and ballots that were classified by Florida's voting machines as overvotes and actually are overvotes. The ballots that we're talking about here fall into the second category here. (There are, of course, also undervotes, but they're irrelevant to this discussion and thus I neglected to mention them here.) I also really don't think that Professor Lund's proposal here was rhetorical given that he mentioned in one of his articles that this is what Miami-Dade County actually did in Florida during its manual recount in November 2000. So, if one Florida county could do this, it's not unreasonable to think that all of Florida could likewise do this, in spite of the extremely massive effort involved in doing this. Futurist110 ( talk) 20:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I find it hard to believe that this is what Miami-Dade County actually did in Florida during its manual recount in November 2000. Jeff in CA ( talk) 23:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Apparently they might have initially wanted to do a manual recount of all of their ballots, then of only their undervotes (due to time shortages), and then cancelled everything (in response to the Brooks Brothers riot):

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/24/us/counting-vote-miami-dade-county-protest-influenced-miami-dade-s-decision-stop.html

"Only that morning, the board, facing a tight deadline mandated the night before by the State Supreme Court, had concluded that it did not have time for a hand count of all 654,000 ballots cast by the county's voters. So the canvassers voted to proceed only with a manual count of 10,750 ballots that machines had not counted.

Now even that limited recount was being abandoned, a decision that brought whoops and applause from the crowd." Futurist110 ( talk) 03:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply

This Washington Post article confirms what the New York Times article above says: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/11/23/miami-dade-county/32257290-b044-42ad-afa6-7d130448d931/ Futurist110 ( talk) 03:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply

FWIW, this article here appears to be implying that the initial goal was to have 625,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County, Florida all manually examined by three people in 2000:

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20001119mag-shoptalk.html

"Feingold: It was hysterical when I heard that the Democrats were asking for a hand recount. Do you have any idea what it takes to do 625,000 ballots by hand, when each one has to be looked at by three people?

Salem-Karoui: And a lot of tired eyes."

I don't necessarily see why exactly it must be the very same three people looking at all 625,000 ballots, though; the goal might have instead been to have all of these ballots looked at by three people, but not necessarily the same three people for all of these ballots. It would be like if Bob, Jim, and Mary reviewed my essay while Madeleine, Patricia, and Edward reviewed your essay. Both of our essays in such a scenario would be reviewed by three people, but it would not be the same three people in both of these cases. Futurist110 ( talk) 02:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Each county had a three-person canvassing board. There must have been a law or regulation at the time that required those three people personally to judge each ballot in a recount. The Florida election administration laws at the time had been written for administering local and county-level elections with little thought given to effectiveness in a highly contested national election. Jeff in CA ( talk) 07:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm amazed. What I wonder, though, is what exactly their initial logic was in aiming to have the very same three people look at 625,000 ballots by hand when it was clear that this process could not be finished in two weeks' time. Thoughts? Futurist110 ( talk) 17:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note the authority given to the county canvassing boards in the Florida statutes. Each board got to decide what ballots would be recounted.

http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/7B9B91DEE730DFFA85256997004AA82E

Florida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion, dated 11/14/2000, stated:

"Section 102.166(4), Florida Statutes, permits a local canvassing board, upon request of a candidate or political party, to authorize a manual recount to include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate. Section 102.166(5), Florida Statutes, provides "[i]f the manual recount indicates an error in vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall" among other options, manually recount all ballots. ... if a voter has clearly, physically penetrated a punchcard ballot, the canvassing board has the authority to determine that the voter's intention is clearly expressed even though such puncture is not sufficient to be read by automatic tabulating equipment. ... The Florida Statutes contemplate that where electronic or electromechanical voting systems are used, no vote is to be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter as determined by the county canvassing board."

Section 102.666(5)(a) ( http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0102/Sections/0102.166.html) states:

(5) Procedures for a manual recount are as follows:

(a) The county canvassing board shall appoint as many counting teams of at least two electors as is necessary to manually recount the ballots. A counting team must have, when possible, members of at least two political parties. A candidate involved in the race shall not be a member of the counting team.

With a Democrat and a Republican in each two-person counting team, any ballot that did not contain a clearly punched hole ended up in front of the canvassing board to review. It seems as though some canvassing boards realized that would be the case if they utilized counting teams, so they just decided go straight to the task of looking only at the ballots without clean punches. Jeff in CA ( talk) 00:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

What about ballots that did contain a clearly punched hole but also contained a hanging or a dimpled chad?

Also, a part of footnote 47 in this article might be of interest to you in adding to the Bush v. Gore article: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1617&context=lr "Well, perhaps, but there could not have been very many of these ballots, and to discover them would require reviewing every punch-card ballot in the state;" So, Yeah, apparently to find which legal votes were improperly counted by Florida's voting machines, one literally had to look at every single one of Florida's punch-card ballots. Futurist110 ( talk) 06:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 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 2020 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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

In regards to this part of the Bush v. Gore article, I've got an additional source that might be of value to add there. Specifically a part of footnote #47 in Richard Friedman's article about Bush v. Gore:

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1158&context=articles

The relevant part is this: "to discover them would require reviewing every punch-card ballot in the state;". Basically, Friedman is arguing that in order to discover the ballots that were improperly counted by Florida's voting machines (as in, counted when they should not have been counted), what would be necessary would be to review every punch-card ballot in Florida. The reason that this is relevant is because this information could be useful in being added to the relevant section of the Bush v. Gore article (linked to above) due to this information telling Wikipedia users about a specific method to discover such ballots. Does that make sense?

I'd personally add this reference to this article, but I'm not very good with citing long references such as this one‐hence me asking you to do this if you are indeed able to do so. This should only take a couple of minutes to do–I think! Thank you.

Best regards,

Futurist110 ( talk) 21:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

FWIW, I have figured out how to make the relevant changes myself and have already done so by now! Futurist110 ( talk) 02:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Jeff, while redlinks are of course allowed, redlinked names in lists of people are subject to the more specific WP:LISTPEOPLE. This states that in a list of people, inclusions must meet the Wikipedia notability requirement by having an article about him or her, or "If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E." Dialectric ( talk) 13:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply

OK, good to know. Jeff in CA ( talk) 14:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Missouri State Bears and Lady Bears, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NAIA.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The changes I made were based on the IOC data, according to their website, I placed the references .. Please read first what he did before reversing ... We are all collaborating https://olympics.com/en/olympic-games/paris-1900/medals https://olympics.com/en/olympic-games/paris-1900/results/athletics/marathon-men In marathon is the medal for Luxembourg

@ Javierosendo: All you need to do is include a citation when you make your changes. If they are all coming from Olympics.com, then it should be easy. I even assisted you in one of your changes today in which you did include a citation (at Shooting at the 1900 Summer Olympics, by repairing the citation template). Please use that as a model for using inline citations with future changes. Jeff in CA ( talk) 05:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

What are you doing?? I made the changes based on what the International Olympic Committee has on its official website. They are not changes that I invented and placed the reference .. If they decide to take 10 medals from France, it is their decision. https://olympics.com/en/olympic-games/paris-1900/medals

@ Javierosendo: Before making changes to existing information in this encyclopedia, it is simply best practice to perform a quality check to understand completely what the changes are and why they are being made. It is not enough to say the IOC has the information on its website and accept it at face value. In the past I have found errors on the IOC website, and in fact, yesterday I found two errors in the medal winner information that is now on the IOC website. The changes warrant some investigation before being incorporated so that we are all convinced that errors are not being propagated. As apparently no one had done this quality check, I did it myself. The results are at this discussion on the Talk page for the article. Having satisfied myself of the veracity of these changes in the medal table, I have reverted to the new table. Jeff in CA ( talk) 13:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

I see you reverted an edit at 1899 European Rowing Championships. That editor is currently tidying up Belgian rowers. No edit summaries and poor at communicating. But when pushed, he can point to reliable (French or Dutch language) sources. Just wanted to let you know that nothing untoward is going on. Schwede 66 23:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, Jeff in CA,

I found this page in the talk space of the encyclopedia so I've moved it to your User talk space. If you no longer need it, just tag it for deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Actually, the same goes for User talk:Jeff in CA/Table of bancos transferred between Mexico and United States (1910–1977). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Jeff, saw your message on the talkpage of the editor responsible and just thought I'd drop you a line to let you know these pagemoves have been fixed after a request at WP:RMTR. Good grief; what a mess! Cheers, -- Jack Frost ( talk) 07:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Jeff. Noticed you edited the Motorsport at 1900 Olympics page to its original content. The update I had was directly from the IOC, which says it didn't recognise motorsport as an event, including the one held at 1900. Let me know what you think... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Up82 ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Up82: Ubaid Parker is not an Olympic historian. He helps run a sports fan engagement company. The expert Olympic historians who are currently cited have performed original research and publishing within the field. Their findings are much more authoritative than Mr. Parkar’s. The fact is that the IOC has never made an official determination of which sports in 1900 were Olympic and which were not. According to criteria proposed by historians, which the IOC website now uses to display the results for 1900, motorsport is not included. However, for this to be an “official” determination, the IOC would need to approve it at one of its regular sessions. This has never been done. Jeff in CA ( talk) 08:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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 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 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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello Jeff, I saw you removed my edit to Olympic demonstration sports regarding snow volleyball and was curious as to why you did that. Or if you had any insight as to why it wasn't considered an official demonstration sport at the Olympics. Thanks,

Wiscipidier ( talk) 19:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Wiscipidier reply

Snow volleyball was not a demonstration sport. Austria House at the international visitors' center decided to play a few games with beach volleyball players as a publicity gimmick. Actual demonstration sports are placed on the Olympic Program years in advance by the IOC. The organizers prepare for them as they would other sports. They are in every way, except by designation, actual competitions authorized by the sport’s international governing body. In recent times the IOC has moved away from demonstration sports and gone to an “events-based program”, allowing the organizers to nominate other sports for the official program (with IOC approval). Neither of these was the case for snow volleyball at the 2018 Games. Jeff in CA ( talk) 21:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi

See here.

• Las Californias Alta y Baja serán un Departamento
• En el Departamento de las Californias, el gobierno designará provisionalmente la capital y las autoridades que deben funcionar, entretanto se hacen las elecciones constitucionales-- Panam2014 ( talk) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

We need an article about 1836 Californias.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I have started a redirect.-- Panam2014 ( talk) 12:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Panam2014: @ WCCasey: - Before we change an article that mentions 1846 Alta California, we need to make sure the 1836 scheme of “Las Californias Alta y Baja” was still in effect ten years later and had not again been split apart. Jeff in CA ( talk) 01:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NSCRO Champions Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holy Cross.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Jeff, I understand that while the notions of enclaves and exclaves are primarily defined in relation to "foreign" powers, these can be also applied at lower administrative levels. However, anything below national or federal state level is rather inconsequential in terms of limiting physical access - which is the main reason for having these geographic terms in the first place. Most articles in the Category:Enclaves and exclaves are national or federal state enclaves/exclaves. If one would start populating this with villages, municipalities and counties from all around the world that would become a huge and encyclopaedically largely meaningless category. -- ELEKHH ^T 06:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Looks like we're the only ones doing work recently on National Scholastic Surfing Association. Wanted to ping you to see if you've seen any sources (I noticed you added an old not-online quotation from Surfer magazine) that would indicate a 1979 Summer collegiate team championship? Similar to 1984, the space was omitted in the 2015 championships program that I've added, but figured if 1984 definitely was a thing they maybe 1979 was also. Additionally, any idea if any championships occurred for 2020 or 2021? The website lists none. GauchoDude ( talk) 15:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ GauchoDude: We know Orange Coast College did not win the title in 1979. I have a source that strongly implies that Golden West College won the 1979 title. It’s a 1982 article from the LA Times that states, “For the past five years, Orange Coast and Golden West colleges have had the country’s best collegiate surfing teams.” ^[1] Because OCC won 1978, 1980, 1981, and 1982, the implication is that Golden West won it in 1979, assuming a title was awarded. I had briefly entered this in the table for the NSSA article, but changed it back because the “Team-n/a” in the 2015 program leaves room for doubt. It would be nice if there was information available at Golden West College that could clarify this. As fo 2020 and 2021, I can only assume they weren’t held, as I have no sources. Jeff in CA ( talk) 19:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

FWIW, I emailed Janice Aragon at the national office of NSSA and haven't heard back. I think it's odd that 1979 distinctly put N/A for the team title whereas 1984 just overlooked it and it sounds like there was a champion based on those other sources. I think unless we find hard evidence somewhere along the line, we should leave as N/A. At the very least, at least the table is now accurate and there isn't any confusion over the rest of the history. Progress! GauchoDude ( talk) 19:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree with you. Thanks for your work on this. About five or six years ago I also emailed Janice Aragon and got a reply that she would get back to me after Nationals were over. I haven’t heard back. Jeff in CA ( talk) 20:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jesse Hawley, 2010 college football season and 1966 college football season.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply

You reverted my edit on Doping at the Olympic Games because "Washington Examiner officially determined by Wikipedia as unreliable source" so I went looking since you didn't link where it's "officially" stated. I can only find this which obviously has the "this is an essay not policy" banner which states that it depends on how it's being used, not that it's considered unreliable. As far as I can see it wasn't an opinion column and since it's on an athlete thrown out of the Olympics years ago with multiple other sources, it's hardly exceptional. Here's what qualifies what's on the list: "For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability." Washington Examiner is not on the deprecated sources list. I'm no policy expert so where did you see that Washington Examiner is "officially determined by Wikipedia as unreliable" so I can make a note of it? Penguinmlle ( talk) 21:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply

OK, you’ve looked into it in far more depth than I am inclined or have the time to do. I myself dislike it when Wikipedia articles state that something is “official” when it is not, so I am embarrassed that I used that word myself. Apparently I jumped the gun, and I withdraw my objection. Jeff in CA ( talk) 22:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply

It's fine (we're all human). Since there's now conflicting intermediate edits, I can't simply undo your reversion and it might be a day or two before I can re-do it manually. The Dead URL tag is what prompted me to fix it in the first place. If you would like it fixed earlier, you'll have to do it. Penguinmlle ( talk) 17:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Just wondering, are you aware of who inflated the 1,100 figure to 1,268, and why, and which source listed the membership figure at 1,268? Epitome of Creativity ( talk) 04:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I am not aware of who did that. But see here for the 2021-2022 NCAA directory, which lists active membership schools (1094), provisional membership schools (8), and conference members (145). The sum is 1247. The high-water mark for school membership in the NCAA appears to have occurred in 2015 with 1119. So the 1268 number likely dates to that time. The Google certainly shows a lot of websites apparently using the 1268 number from Wikipedia, including CBS Sports in 2020. Jeff in CA ( talk) 18:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I firmly believe that the conference member statistic (145) is most surely an overcount. What do they mean? NJCAA members? NAIA members? Colleges without athletic programs at all? Maybe even non-North American international universities outside of United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico? They have to be more precise and throughly explanatory when describing their statistics. Epitome of Creativity ( talk) 09:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1974 college football season.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC) reply

Hi,

I want to clarify something on your recent edit on the Bush v. Gore article. As I understand the per curiam opinion:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

This is the relevant passage:

"In addition, the recounts in these three counties were not limited to so-called undervotes but extended to all of the ballots. The distinction has real consequences. A manual recount of all ballots identifies not only those ballots which show no vote but also those which contain more than one, the so-called overvotes. Neither category will be counted by the machine. This is not a trivial concern. At oral argument, respondents estimated there are as many as 110,000 overvotes statewide. As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a machine because he failed to vote for a candidate in a way readable by a machine may still have his vote counted in a manual recount; on the other hand, the citizen who marks two candidates in a way discernable by the machine will not have the same opportunity to have his vote count, even if a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indicia of intent. Furthermore, the citizen who marks two candidates, only one of which is discernable by the machine, will have his vote counted even though it should have been read as an invalid ballot. The State Supreme Court’s inclusion of vote counts based on these variant standards exemplifies concerns with the remedial processes that were under way."

The per curiam is saying that it's problematic that the recounts in three of Florida's counties applied to all of the ballots but the rest of Florida's recount only applied to undervotes. But saying (or implying) that a constitutionally proper recount would include only the undervotes and the overvotes would not be accurate. I'll quote two legal articles:

https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1061VeryStreamlinedIntroduction.pdf

"It should hardly be surprising that Gore asked for a recount that

was biased in his favor. The Florida court sought to reduce this

completely obvious bias by ordering a statewide manual recount. But why

limit the statewide recount to undervote ballots? The only apparent

reason was that these ballots resembled the 9,000 undervote ballots that

Gore wanted to have recounted in Miami-Dade. But why exclude overvote

ballots, either in Miami-Dade or elsewhere? Indeed, why exclude the

ballots that machines had registered as valid votes, some of which may

have proved to be invalid when subjected to human scrutiny? The partial

statewide recount only reduced the one-sided geographic discrimination

in the initial manual recount, without curing it."

---

"The initial recounts conducted in the Gore-selected counties

covered all ballots, but the statewide recount ordered by the

Florida court was limited to undervote ballots. Undervote ballots

are analytically indistinguishable from overvote ballots. In both

cases, the machine registers no vote, and in both cases a human

observer might decide that the machine had erred. What’s more,

some ballots that a human observer would interpret as an overvote

(and thus treat as no vote) could have registered as a valid vote in

the machine count. The Florida court’s restriction of the statewide

recount to undervote ballots thus arbitrarily treated voters in the

counties initially selected by Gore differently than voters in other

counties."

That's from Nelson Lund in both cases. Since Google Books is blocked at my house, I can't quite see this article, but I vaguely remember Pamela Karlan writing that reexamining the overvotes would not have identified the ballots that were mistakenly accepted by the machines and that doing this would have required reexamining all of Florida's ballots; it might be in this article, but you yourself can check:

https://books.google.com/books?id=UMy-1YdP7jQC&pg=PA84&dq=pamela+karlan+overvotes&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiu76Srwur4AhWhJUQIHYYsDGoQ6AF6BAgGEAI

Anyway, what do you think? A ballot that's mistakenly accepted by a voting machine won't be found among the overvotes because those are ballots that were rejected by voting machines. Now, it would still be an overvote but it would be mixed in with the legal votes, not with the other overvotes. Does that make sense? 68.4.99.100 ( talk) 00:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Here is the article where Pamela Karlan wrote about this topic:

https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3937&context=nclr

"This third category is problematic and distinctive. It is

problematic, because it does not in fact exist. The problem identified

by the Supreme Court arises from a failure to re-examine all ballots

and not from a failure to re-examine overvotes. By hypothesis, after

all, these ballots are unidentifiable as overvotes: they were counted,

improperly as it turned out, in the mechanical process. No amount of

re-examining overvotes would identify this category.

More significantly, this injury is distinctive, because it concerns

the only category of ballots identified by the Supreme Court as to

which other voters are necessarily injured by their inclusion in the

official count. The injury-in-fact occurs because voters who cast valid

ballots have the value of their votes diluted by the inclusion of these

invalid ballots.75 With respect to each of the other injuries, by

contrast, the injury is produced by the exclusion of valid votes."

68.4.99.100 ( talk) 00:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Also, you got to give Nelson Lund being credit for being consistent. He complained about the Florida recount ever since it was ordered:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/travesty-in-tallahassee

"Third, the supreme court has systematically rigged the recount. The trick lies in the court's decision to limit the manual recounts to ballots that the machines did not count for any presidential candidate. Under almost any rule for identifying which varieties of chad manifest an intent to vote, some fraction of these "undervote" ballots will be reclassified as votes. Whatever rule is chosen, however, should also be applied to ballots containing both a machine readable hole for one candidate and an indication of "an intent to vote" for another candidate. These ballots, which the machine counted as votes for one candidate, should be reclassified as "overvotes" and therefore deducted from that candidate's total.

Palm Beach actually used this approach, in which undervotes that are changed to votes are at least partially offset by votes changed to overvotes. This is one reason why Gore picked up fewer than 200 votes from the recount in heavily Democratic Palm Beach, much to everyone's surprise. The Florida justices, however, have made sure that won't happen again because they only ordered undervotes to be manually recounted. How convenient."

68.4.99.100 ( talk) 00:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of enclaves and exclaves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Međurečje.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi!

Wikimania is happening and hopefully you're enjoying the sessions. While it's fairly last minute, you're warmly invited to participate in the local Wikimania-themed meetup in the Wikimedia Foundation office this Friday (tomorrow!). You will have to register in advance, but we would love to see more people from the WikiSalon community participate! For more information and registration, please check out meta:Wikimania 2022/San Francisco Meetup.

The event will involve hacking, teaching, learning, and celebrating and we'll have snacks. We will have the opportunity to watch live sessions at Wikimania together in the afternoon. The rest of the day we'll have opportunity to participate in the hackathon, and we may have some on-demand workshops/learning sessions.

In case we run out of space, it's first-come-first-serve so let us know soon! Hope to see you there.

( Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

On behalf of the Bay Area Wiki Salon team and Bittakea, Effeietsanders

Template:8TeamBracket-2Elim-B has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Aidan721 ( talk) 23:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi jeff,

The reason I deleted the template is because the template is typically used if there is a page for that specific species or subspecies in the IUCN Red List. In this case, there is no page for U. a. californicus, only this page which covers the species as a whole. Heh0002 ( talk) 20:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Regarding this: I am not too sure if the "port area" would fall within the definition of pene-enclaves, since its contiguity is not quite conventional. Only the northwestern third motorway bridge has been made to be under the jurisdiction of Hong Kong law (the southern two thirds lies within Hong Kong waters per the 1997 agreement and the State Council order the same year). The airspace and the sea and the clearance between the sea and the bridge are not part of the lease. (It is also not known whether the Basic Law applies in this so-called port area.) 112.120.39.217 ( talk) 03:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This is exactly analogous to the situation of the historic Panamanian enclave of Colón, which was an exclave of Panama from 1903 to July 27, 1939, being surrounded by the U.S. Panama Canal Zone. It ceased being an enclave in 1939 when a treaty provision connected it to the main part of Panama via a corridor, which included bridges over U.S. sovereign territory that excluded airspace above and below. Evgeni Vinokurov (The Theory of Enclaves, 2007), widely cited authority in this article, called this a “tube of sovereignty”. There were several such tubes of sovereignty in the Canal Zone. Just as Colón ceased being an enclave upon the existence of such a connection, so too is the "port area" not an enclave. Jeff in CA ( talk) 04:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This is interesting. But from what I read these tubes of sovereign Panamanian jurisdictions weren't the only corridors between Colón and the rest of Panama. There was an earlier corridor since 1939 from Colón to Cativa. Got to read further and find out what the Colón corridor case was like and whether that would be comparable with the Deep Bay bridge. 112.120.39.15 ( talk) 08:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Re - Jakub Krzewina If you look at the 2nd link I provided ^[1], you'll see a note which says "Period of Disqualification of results - since 30/3/2021" Cheers. Topcardi ( talk) 10:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

My bad. I failed to look at that link, which includes an all-important column, “Period of disqualification of results.” None of the other reports that I consulted mentioned that information. I hope that you have reverted my reversion. Jeff in CA ( talk) 06:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I am confused by the date here. The lede text and the Justia link indicate 1954. The Library of Congress page says "December Term, 1854", but their description of the document says "U.S. Reports: Florida v. Georgia, 58 U.S. (17 How.) 478 (1855)". Should the lede text (or the title) be changed? BD2412 T 16:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I am confused also. This situation appears to exist for most or all of the cases in Volumes 58 and 59 (those are just the volumes I spot-checked) as compared between the Library of Congress website and Justia. It appears that in Justia, the cases are recorded by the year in which the term of the Supreme Court began and not necessarily the year that the decision was handed down. Perhaps that was the customary way of reporting in the 1850s, followed by a change in this custom later on. I'm speculating. Jeff in CA ( talk) 08:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

You reverted me here. FYI, the dates I added that you removed were his birth and death dates, not the dates of his governship p b p 16:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry. It appeared, to me at least, that the time span indicated the years that Alta California existed. It didn’t occur to me that those years were Pio Pico’s lifespan. I would question why the years of a lifespan would be in the short description, unless there was a similarly named governor of Alta California with whom he could be confused. Jeff in CA ( talk) 05:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Having birth and death dates in a short bio appears to be fairly standard. p b p 18:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC) reply

.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi,

“To be included in the table, there must be reference to the game described in contemporaneous reports as being for the national title.”

for this, will I have to find something specific like a newspaper or film or will something like a website suffice? Please advise. Alex9234 ( talk) 14:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Something specific, as in print or film, that shows that people at the time described it as a national championship game. User PK-WIKI did most of the research for that table. Jeff in CA ( talk) 18:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Dear Jeff. I hope I'm not disturbing (much). Thank you very much for your contribution and corrections in the World Games article, at the Sports table. I only have a few questions: you removed "Casting:1981" from Casting, while it appears at the relevant page of Casting of IWGA. Could you please clarify? You also added Para dance sport (2025). Do we have a reference on this? As for Rollersports, IWGA, for the moment, seems to talk about Speed Skating without clarifying yet if it's track or road. If I understand well your amendments, there will be both in 2025? But not separate? Do we have a reference on that? Finally, it seems that you add to Speed Skating Road the years 1981-2001. Is that correct? I cannot see it in the relevant page of IWGA for Rollersports, it only notes Speed Skating Track for those years, not road. Could you please clarify? If it's necessary, could we add a clarification note there to explain? Thank you in advance. Harry Deconstructing ( talk) 15:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Harry Deconstructing Hi Harry, Thank you very much for your thorough and constructive edits to this table.

(1) The column from which I removed "Casting:1981" is a column listing sports' disciplines. The casting disciplines for 1981 are indeed listed there, so there is no need to restate the name of the sport. (By the way, I was among a handful of public attendees at the 1981 casting events. Several of my photos are on the IWGA website. The events were held at a high school not far from where I was living.)

(2) Para dancesport is listed at this IWGA web page. Apparently, the exact discipline (wheelchair dance) of para dance is still being confirmed.

(3) Here is the IWGA list of almost all events to be held in 2025 (underwater sports are missing). It makes sense for both road and track speedskating to be on the program, and indeed they are. They have both been in all World Games since 2013 (albeit, road skating was inexplicably labelled an invitation sport in 2013 but is undifferentiated here and here). The table in that last website explicitly calls out four invitational sports and does not indicate that road skating is one of them. In addition, the TWG's own medal tally page for 2013 (click on "Medals" tab) counts the road skating medals among the main medal tally and not in the invitational medal tally.

(4) Road speedskating was certainly held at the 1981 Games. Here are the results in the marathon and half-marathon, which are listed at the IWGA results lookup page, but not as "road" skating. The cited newspaper account even mentions that the athletes complained about the rough street surfaces in Santa Clara. These two events did not occur on the track that was set up in the amusement park car lot. However, you are correct that no road events appear to have been held from 1985-2009. Good catch. Jeff in CA ( talk) 23:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jeff in CA Dear Jeff. Thank you so much for the thorough research and your detailed reply! As for points (2) and (3) one thing I understand is that different IWGA pages have different information for 2025, which is a bit confusing. And I can't seem to find even the date that were published, so I don't even know which one is the most recent and thus, perhaps, the most updated one. Anyway, sooner or later it will be clarified... As for point (1), if I understand well, the IWGA page about Casting, cites "Casting" at the 1981, meaning the "Allround". Which, if I understand well, it was held only at those Games. So, I believe, we could add something like "Casting Allround:1981" or "Allround:1981" in order for the table to be consistent with the relevant IWGA page, and avoid confusion and future back and forth of amendments. What do you think? As for (4) I appreciate very much the clarifications. I understand now. I still believe though that either (preferably) some explanatory note or (at least) some citation, or even both, should be added. Because other people might have the same questions as I had. Would you like to add something? Or do you want me to try? I still believe you are in a far better position than me to explain. All the best. Harry Deconstructing ( talk) 07:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Harry Deconstructing Hi Harry, I would be fine with adding "Allround:1981" for consistency and to avoid confusion. In fact, the allround was not a separately contested event, but rather a combination of athletes’ results in all three disciplines. Regarding road skating, I have added an explanatory note with citations to the Sports table, which is actually very close to and based upon the note that presumably you had added for the Editions table. Please take a look to see if it is sufficiently clarifying. Jeff in CA ( talk) 08:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jeff in CA Dear Jeff. Thank you again. At casting I added "Allround:1981", accompanied with a note. You can check to see if it's clear. As for the note for Speed Skating Road, the note you have put is absolutely fine. However, I was referring to a different issue. A note to be put at "1981", to explain that Speed Skating Road existed in 1981, although it is not clearly shown in the relevant IWGA page for Roller sports. The note could be something like the following: " Speed Skating Road was held at the 1981 Games, consisted in men's marathon and women's half-marathon, but in the IWGA page for Roller Sports is not indicated as a separate discipline, but rather as part of Speed Skating Track". Or something equivalent. Also, a reference could be added in the note, although it's not absolutely necessary if there is the link to the wikipedia article for Road speed skating at the 1981 World Games. Harry Deconstructing ( talk) 08:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Harry Deconstructing Hello, Harry. I put a note at Speed Skating Road for 1981, as suggested. Jeff in CA ( talk) 02:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Repeated edit warring with multiple users on the 1945 college football season page in order to maintain your personal entry that lacks quotes from the AFCA itself and unbiased sourcing. 137.48.255.225 ( talk) 18:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note that the previous two socks used by this IP editor were recently suspended and banned, respectively. In this case, which is another example of the IP editor's persistent WP:DE, the quote that the IP editor inserted is WP:UNDUE in the short intro and was simply moved to the footnote for the cited source, which is from CBS Sports, not the AFCA. The second cited quote, which was deleted by the IP editor, had also been in a footnote. Jeff in CA ( talk) 18:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The quote is from the AFCA executive director himself. Your quote is from a "Barry Tramel" who fails to source any of his claims, such as the one you continue to push as factual. 137.48.255.225 ( talk) 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

(Sigh) The parameter "quote=" in the CS citation template refers to a passage from the article, not direct quotes from people mentioned in the article. Jeff in CA ( talk) 19:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

And again, using "passages" from an article that are not backed up in any way by any source, while relegating quotes from the AFCA themselves, is horrific editing. 137.48.255.225 ( talk) 19:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

How old are you? Jeff in CA ( talk) 19:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Embarrassing response to someone criticizing your consistent edit warring to push unsourced claims from opinion articles to push your personal opinion on the topic. 174.213.160.170 ( talk) 19:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Malformed report by another user failed to post notification to you. Meters ( talk) 18:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello Jeff,

I don't understand why you reverted this edit: [4] Your edit reason states "Michigan won both USIBA titles in 2017," but that's exactly what the page displayed before. Since Michigan won both titles, it would be redundant to have them separated, which is why I joined them into a single column. The same would go for Washington in 2024. Caivu ( talk) 01:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

One combined entry on the line means that USIBA combined the men’s and women’s titles into one overall championship and handed out one team trophy. I checked the video, and it is still two separate men’s and women’s championships. This is also the convention for all the other sports listed on that page. Jeff in CA ( talk) 05:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply