User talk:Pfly/Archive 6

Lewis and Clark

I was looking at your Lewis and Clark River sample of a Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) citation just now, and it looks fine to me. Ordinary readers won't be able to easily verify the WBD claims, but they can't easily verify the National Hydrography Dataset claims either. I think, though, that both meet the WP:RS guidelines. It's wonderful that you can work with the WBD. I keep thinking I should learn to work with GIS datasets; someday maybe when things settle down (in 2100 C.E. or thereabouts). I really like your upper Lewis and Clark River image. Finetooth (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've downloaded and installed ArcGIS Explorer, and I'm trying to figure out what to do next. I'm looking at the Geospatial Data Gateway page and, clicking through various choice pages, I've gotten as far as "Select Format". Which of the four choices should I choose? Which "Projection" should I choose? Any tips about these choices or anything else would be appreciated. For example, I'm not sure what to use for a base map, and I have no idea how making a map will yield any quantitative data. Finetooth (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I can answer a bunch of that. For format usually you're going to want shapefiles (a .shp file extension) which has become the de facto standard for GIS data. For projection, most datasets will have a default which you can stick with - if not Albers Equal Area is a good all purpose projection for U.S. maps, if prompted for projection parameters use the defaults except that the central meridian should be something in the middle of your map. For more data to use for a base map I have a bunch of links at User:Kmusser/Sources. As for getting at the quantitative data, you don't actually need to make a map. GIS is really a combination of a graphics program and a database. GIS datasets contain not just the location of features, but a bunch of data about each one - to get at the database portion you need to open the GIS file, and then you can query features individually using the "i" icon or left click on the dataset name and choose view attributes to browse the whole thing. Kmusser (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Karl, I just got back from a camping trip and hadn't gotten to responding. On the Geospatial Data Gateway downloads the projection choices are, Geographic, State Plane, and a couple types of UTM, I think. Geographic is Equirectangular projection, sometimes called "unprojected", and is widely used for raw data (not so much for maps). State Plane is in one of the various State Plane Coordinate System projections. UTM stands for Universal Transverse Mercator coordinate system--I don't know it very well). In theory it shouldn't matter as long as one's datasets contain info about what projection they are in. The downloaded data from the Geospatial Data Gateway does, so it shouldn't matter too much what projection you choose. Still, "geographic" seems a generally safe bet. The formats they offer, at least for the watershed boundary dataset, are "ESRI Shapefile" and "ESRI Geodatabase". I picked shapefiles, which worked fine in ArcExplorer. I'm not sure if ArcExplorer can deal with geodatabases. ESRI invented both formats, I believe, but shapefiles have been around longer and the format more widely supported (of course we have Shapefile, a pretty good page, and Geodatabase, less good). As for base maps, ArcExplorer seems to come with a bunch of general purpose datasets, like US state boundaries, counties, and so on. I found it useful to use state and county boundaries along with the WBD, to help orient myself. The display of state and counties are "filled polygons" by default, using a random color for the fill. In order to view states, counties, and watersheds (all polygons), you need to turn off the fill colors for states and counties. In ArcExplorer you do that by right-clicking the layer name (control-click in Mac OSX) and selecting "Properties" from the popup menu. The fill and outline color choices open up. I made the states and counties "transparent fill". There's various ways to color things to show different aspects of the data--or just use a default single color. There's also a "Labels" tab under properties. With WBD polygons, I found it helpful to set "label features using" to the "HU_10_NAME" field. The watershed names are then displayed in each polygon (unless you are zoomed out such that the labels would overlap, in which case some are not shown--but you can always zoom in, or set the font smaller).

But as Karl said, you don't even need to make a map or fiddle with display setting if you don't want. If you right-click on the WBD layer (it downloaded with the name hu5, for 10-digit basins for me), and from the popup menu choose "Attribute table", you can view the data in table form. Fields include "ACRES". It took me a while to figure out which basins were relevant. Sometimes I wasn't sure unless I opened other datasets, like NHD stream lines, and turned labels on, zoomed in, checked what I was seeing with topo maps, and so on. At first it can be a little tricky to get the hang of it, but it gets easier the more you do it. Anyway, must put kiddo B to bed. Pfly (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'm saving this and printing it to use as a tutorial. We got PR comments on the List of longest streams of Oregon from two reviewers, and I've made changes accordingly. I posted a note to the article's talk page, and either of you are welcome to weigh in on the changes I made or any remaining issues. Basically, I think it's ready for FLC. Finetooth (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing occurs to me. When downloading shapefiles, it is often useful to create folders for them. A "shapefile" is actually a set of files and managing a bunch of them can be unwieldy without making some folders for them. The GeoSpatial Gateway shapefile comes as ZIP archives, which unzip into a number of individual files (with extensions like .shp, .prj, .dbf, and such). Sometimes shapefiles are zipped up with folders in them, so they unzip into folders, but often they unzip as files without folders. For the WBD and NHD shapefiles I just made a folder for them and unzipped everything there. If I was being careful I would have made specific folders for each "shapefile" (set of files), with folder names that made sense to me--shapefile names can be, um, less than intuitively named. I'll take a look at the longest streams page and see if there's anything I can do. I've never seen a page go up for FLC--it never even occurred to me to think about trying. Makes me think about List of rapids of the Columbia River--although the page might be too...randomly worded. Anyway, should be interesting to watch. Pfly (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Good tip. I've sometimes downloaded a zillion image files from my camera without creating a folder first. It takes a couple of herd dogs an hour to corral them all. On the other point, I've never nominated a list for FLC but have reviewed quite a few at PR. They are a bit different from regular articles, and I thought it would make me a better reviewer to do one myself (though that was not my main motive). Finetooth (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll also offer a warning for if you do go making maps, the data that ESRI bundles with ArcExplorer generally carries an ESRI copyright - so it's useful for orienting yourself, but you'll want to download copyright free basemap layers if you're making Wikipedia bound maps. Kmusser (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this tip too. I got singed early on in my Wikipedia career when I used a copyrighted British map of a chunk of Antarctica for a base map. I downloaded the map from a NASA site, thinking the map was a U.S. federal gov doc in the public domain. Wrong. I've been more cautious since then about map copyrights and copyrights in general. Finetooth (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Empire map again

Hello again. I want to thank your last comments in the talk page of Spanish Empire. After the same user causes to relapse repeatedly the topic of the colors with identical arguments on February 2009, March 2009, April 2009, December 2009, and now September 2010. I do not hope to intervene, because I see too much premeditation, and in addition, all it is already said, and in a few months the same issue will appear with the same reasonings. Best regards. Trasamundo (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sacramento River

Hey, Pfly, I’ve had the Sacramento River up at FAC for a while, would be glad for any suggestions before it gets pushed off the list by ignorance. :) Shannon^talk _contribs 05:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Peakbagger

As you'll note at the top of peakbagger's various range descriptions, he outright says his range-designations are "bogus"....he uses the term "Pacific Ranges", which in BC has a specific definition, to mean waht Cdn geographers call the Pacific Coast Ranges (which is not the same as Pacific Cordillera LOL....). Peakbagger is only marginally more reliable for range-definitions than bivouac.com (Bivouac used to be reliable until Robin, the site-owner, did away with a lot of my years of work there....)Skookum1 (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, peakbagger plays fast and loose with range names and delineations. I added it to the North Cascades page mainly because I felt that another example using Stevens Pass as the southern limit would be good, especially since the page itself uses that delineation. Maybe a better example can be found. I wouldn't mind if the peakbagger ref was removed. Mainly I felt some addition ref was needed after I discovered that Beckey uses the term North Cascades rather loosely. Searching all three of his Cascade Alpine Guide books and the Range of Glaciers book, I could find only one place where he used Stevens Pass as the south boundary--and that in a geologic sense. Otherwise, he frequently refers to peaks like Rainier, Adams, St Helens, etc etc, as part of the North Cascades. Sometimes he writes "northern Cascades". Since our North Cascades page explicitly says it uses the Stevens Pass definition, and since the reference to Beckey on the matter was weaker than I thought, I felt that an additional reference would be good. I'm sure something better than peakbagger can be found though. Pfly (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

	<font=3> Thanks again for your help. We couldn't have done it without you. List of longest streams of Oregon made featured list today. Finetooth (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK - will step back

...and go back to articles I am currently working on...but I'm being followed there too. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

HBC article history section

I happened to look at it because of some new-user edits tonight (i.e. red-linked user), and noticed the 19th C section here is more than a bit on the weak side in terms of HBC west of the Rockies, or for that matter anything about the war with the North West Company. I'm on the road, so there's no way I can delve into this in great detail...more by email, thought I'd toss this one by you to see what emendations you might be able to make.Skookum1 (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll see what I can do. I know a bit about the HBC-NWC stuff west of the Rockies. Sources like Mackie get into it. I know much less about the conflict east of the Rockies, except that it was quite nasty. It's been a while since I looked into it, but wasn't the NWC nearly or totally dominate west of the Rockies, and the HBC "took over" after the forced merger? Hmm, email, ok. Pfly (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Salish Sea edits

There are some useful grammatical adjustments in this edit but the deletion of "Pacific Northwest" and the substitution of "many towns and cities" with "gateway to the Pacific" is a bit mono-directional; it's not why most of them were founded. I'm in Montreal, gonna go enjoy my last afternoon/evening here so trying not to wiki, just checking what's up....off to Ottawa in the morning, connecting with a drive to TO, more by email....Anyway our pet peeve article bears some watching....certain phrases I note in various articles tend to be prop-copy, as with this gateway thing, which is a "branding" of the area in some ways and part of the gov-prop machine, but absorbed by the general populace through mediafication....maybe you can re-insert some of the terms he's left out...logging/pulp and the fishery are the basis of most of the towns, it's not like they're all ports or "gateways". To me it's a bit of a Asiacentric political conceit, but that's a longer discussion, and not for here....Skookum1 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Tallest trees response

Your cited comment is still in the article. I just found it interesting that in the Coast Redwood article you placed something like Doug firs and eucalyptus were larger than coast redwoods before logging, but there is likely evidence that coast redwoods were larger. This was placed in the intro of the article? I read it and wondered what the point was. Then I looked to see a slightly different version, something like Doug firs were bigger than coast redwoods before logging began placed in a non-intro location in the Doug Fir article, without the half of the cited material that sort of denies the point just made. I just made sure they both said the same thing and placed the discussion of what may have been regarding tallest trees in the Tallest trees section of the coast redwood article. Fair and balanced if you ask me. Norcalal (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this is in the Coast Redwood Article (with three citations): A tree claimed to be 129 m (424 feet) was felled in November 1886 by the Elk River Mill and Lumber Co. at the south fork of Elk river in Humboldt County, yielding 79,736 marketable board feet from 21 cuts. Norcalal (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's late and I'm not thinking very clearly. Perhaps tomorrow I'll try again and better. Pfly (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Its all good. I was surprised to see this kind of edit from you actually. You are and have been a scholar and a (supportive) gentleman in every encounter I have had with you. Good night. Norcalal (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. With a clearer head I looked at those pages and my book again. I removed my addition to Pseudotsuga menziesii. It was poorly worded and not exactly what the book says anyway. I was about to also remove my addition to Sequoia sempervirens, but, with your move to "Statistics" it seemed alright and more in line with what the book says--that these two other tree species may have been taller but Coast redwoods were probably the largest by volume. So I left it. But feel free to remove it if you think it best. I'm not very knowledgeable on this topic and unsure how much faith to put in this book by Van Pelt. I had the impression that he is a reliable expert, but I'm not sure where I got that impression. Oh, also, I think the "point" I was trying to make, or found interesting anyway, was that the seemingly simple idea of "world's tallest tree species" might be more a result of logging than "nature". Maybe that should be obvious, I just hadn't thought about it before. I had assumed redwoods had been the world's tallest for a very long time. Pfly (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your question: The hike you refer to is well known to me. There is the hike you mention and a hike on the north side of the creek that leads to the mouth of the Bull Creek on the Eel as well as a third. Both hikes (or make it a loop if you like) along Bull Creek are magnificent. Along the way, if you are good, you can identify several of the tallest trees on the planet-they are inconspicuously marked with small metal dog tags, which are numbered. The hike is relatively level and easy due to the flats you refer to from the book. OF note is the fact that you rarely see other people on these two trails unlike across the Eel at Women's and Founder's Groves, which can be teaming with visitors for brief periods of the day, but are so remarkable, you must see anyway. Another crazy, amazing hike (due to the nearly psychedelic growth of more than a few trees) is the Boy Scout Trail in Jed Smith State Park. This one is not so level and the trail dead-ends, which causes you to see this most amazing and unusual old growth forest from the reverse view on your way back. Before the journey, you cannot deny your soul the opportunity to worship among the giant trees in Stout Grove. Located near the beginning of the trail (just a bit upstream on the Smith River), this is my favorite cathedral. There are so many giants in this loop, I cannot count. One more recommendation includes the James Irvine/Miner's ridge loop in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park. From the Elk home of the prairie to the Fern Canyon at the ocean, this is another magnificent trail that you must see. IF you do these three areas (and described trails) in all three parks, you will have seen the best of society's work at conservation and preservation of the Coast Redwood. By the way, Redwood National Park was an afterthought from the 60's and 70's. Lumber giants knew it was coming and cut as much as possible in designated areas previous to park creation. However, the four major State Parks, those adjacent to Redwood National and Humboldt Redwoods were created in the 20's and 30's and it shows. They are pristine in their primeval grandeur...whilst Redwood National Park is really a master plan for the coast and all connected lands between the State Parks, to create a cohesive unit. There are magnificent examples of old growth all through it though, including Tall Trees Grove, which is a great, if long, day hike up the Redwood Creek. Norcalal (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ack, now I just want to go all the more! But it is not possible for some time to come. I'll definitely keep this info for future reference though, thanks! Pfly (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nebraska Sandhills photo

Thanks for the fix on the date of the Nebraska Sandhills photo. It looks more like June than July, except in an unusually wet summer.

Any chance you could supply location? The Sandhills is a pretty big region, and it might be a good thing if we could be a little more specific—say, to county, or to nearest town.

--Ammodramus (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Too bad you don't know the exact date, but it's still a nice photo. May's probably closer than June, since in the summer the grass usually starts turning brown. Depends on how rainy it is, though—this year, we had an insanely wet June, and it stayed green for a long time after.

Getting lost in the Sandhills is great; I try to do it reguarly. It helps to carry a Delorme atlas, which has lots of imaginary roads.

Speaking of getting lost, a friend and I did so in the Wallowas once: only for an hour or so, not long enough to get seriously stressed. I see you've been there and like the place; it's got to be some of the finest country in the world. Kind of chilly when you slip and fall in the fords, though...

--Ammodramus (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your Bingham-to-nowhere experience sounds like dozens of mine. One of Delorme's pseudo-roads even had a name: they'd labelled it "Alliance-Refuge Road" or something like that. Despite that, I soon found myself on a cowpath, and had to turn around and go back.

For your future information, though, in case you ever find yourself in the Sandhills again: Out there, roads often run right through ranch-house yards, without there being a distinct driveway branching off the road. Generally you'll go over a cattle guard through the fence around the yard, drive past the house, then go across another cattle guard on the other side and keep right on going and going and going. It can be hard to tell at times whether you're on a real county road or a private drive. Of course, if the road runs straight into a shed, it's probably the latter. And although I've never yet had to make use of the adage, remember that the guy with the shotgun is always right...

Ammodramus (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One of those things—I've missed out on dozens of potentially interesting conversations because I was feeling worn out, and not up to the stress of approaching strangers, although they probably would've been friendly. I've got friends who don't know the meaning of shyness, and I badly envy them.

Haven't seen the latest Nat'l Geo, but this stretch of the Platte is a major crane hotspot in the spring. You can drive the gravel roads south of the river and see tens of thousands of them standing shoulder-to-shoulder in the fields, foraging for waste grain and bugs and frogs and things. Hard-core birders will spend hours scanning those flocks, because in those tens of thousands of Sandhills, there's likely to be a single Common Crane—common in Europe, but extremely rare in the New World.

Until you mentioned it, I hadn't realized that the Kearney, Nebraska article didn't mention the cranes. To tell the truth, it's a pretty sorry article, and one of these days I need to do a major revision of it. It's going to take a lot of research, though, and I'm currently focusing on other things. Too, while there's some very interesting local history, sources are frustratingly hard to find, and most of them are of the find-your-ancestors sort.

Belatedly thought of a story that sort-of connects the Wallowas with your mention of the size of Bingham, Nebraska. I spent about five days in the W's with a friend; he was coming up from San Francisco, and I was coming down from Seattle. We set a rendezvous in Medical Springs, Oregon; and since this was long, long before the existence of Google Maps (indeed, Rand McNally had only recently switched over from clay tablets to paper), we had no idea how big the town was; so we decided to meet in front of the post office. Got there and discovered that MS consisted of about two buildings. Made finding one another fairly easy, although it meant that the one who arrived first couldn't hang out in a cafe or bar until the other one got there...

--Ammodramus (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Republic of ..." articles

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Texas (1861), you had some information on Republic of South Carolina which indicated that it was a historically legitimate name for that time in history. Do you have any information on the other states listed in the infobox in Confederate States of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? When I went to cleanup the listing for Texas, I discovered that the article lists:

• Republic of South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Republic of Mississippi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Republic of Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Republic of Georgia (1861) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Republic of Louisiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alabama Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (note: this one is only a redirect to History of Alabama)

My guess is that some of these also need to have AfDs created, but I don't have the time available to research and validate if these are legitimate historically used names, or if they are also original research created by someone on Wikipedia at some point in the past. --- Barek (talk) - 23:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I thought the only other one we had was Republic of South Carolina. Didn't look too closely I guess. I didn't research any of the others and don't have anything about them, and unfortunately won't have much time for a while. If I get a chance I'll look into it, but don't hold your breath! Pfly (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I will do a bit of research. These appear to follow the same format as the ROT(1861) article, so I suspect a common origin. This will take a little bit, but I'll get back to you - I strongly suspect everything but South Carolina is going to need to be deleted, because most of the others have only a few days between secession and accession - not enough time for a legislature to declare and organize a Republic, then turn around and accede to a larger confederacy. I will let you know.Professor Storyteller (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I've found:

-I encountered official references to the "Sovereign Republic of Mississippi," including information on the current State of Mississippi's description of its historical flags, but the Ordinance of Secession merely declares the state to be a "Free and Independent State" in an echo of the language of the Declaration of Independence. This one I would recommend flagging as needing additional sources and perhaps linking it to the Mississippi article to get more voices and researchers who can settle the question.

-The "Alabama Republic" is complicated. The redirect points at an article with an unsourced claim that Alabama was referred to as the "Alabama Republic" informally during this period, and never claims anything official was done. I think the best case here is to request a source to back this up (I can't find one other than a stray reference on a vexillology website with no sourcing of its own and a dispute among its members) within the existing article. If no one can produce the source, then I would recommend removing the reference in the main article and calling for the redirect to be deleted, if that's how that would work for a redirect.

-The "Republic of Florida" has no official references for 1861. I can't find a scrap of evidence that Florida declared itself a republic between secession and accession. Much earlier failed attempts in the early 19th century to pull Florida out of the Spanish empire before the Adams-Onis Treaty did use the title "Republic of West Florida." But . . . that's well covered in the current Wikipedia article on Florida's history already, so I don't see any reason to convert this article to that. I recommend we initiate the AfD process for this article and include the flag for disputed accuracy in the interim.

-The "Republic of Louisiana" has no official references in the documentation as the ordinance of secession declares Louisiana to be a "free and independent state." I recommend we initiate AfD process for this article and include the flag for disputed accuracy in the interim.

-Same for "Republic of Georgia (1861)." No credible references, ordinance of secession declares Georgia to be a "free and independent state." I recommend we initiate AfD process for this article and include the flag for disputed accuracy in the interim.

-To Pfly - you had mentioned that you found references to a reconstitution of the State of South Carolina as the Republic of South Carolina - could you let me know what those were? I couldn't find any, and the book "South Carolina Goes to War - 1860-1865" covers the legal maneuvering in detail and alleges that the term "republic" was only used in an informal sense. If you can get me some of the sources on any use of "Republic of South Carolina" in an official sense, I'll see if I can find out what the delta is.

Let me know what you both think - thanks again!!Professor Storyteller (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The main source I found on the topic was South Carolina goes to war, 1860-1865, p. 79 (the first page of a whole chapter called "The Republic of South Carolina"). It wasn't so much that the government officially adopted the name "Republic of..." (they might have, but I'm not sure), rather than the Republic of SC, or Palmetto Repubic, was informally used in a widespread way--and continued to be used long after the Civil War. This book was published in 2005, for example. The book's p. 79 describes a series of laws and ordinances made to deal with the state's suddenly de facto status as a (technically) independent republic. A footnote says, "These various changes practically effected a new constitution. In short, I'm not sure there was any official move to make the name "Republic of South Carolina", but that the term seems to have been in widespread use then, and today, made me think it worth some extra consideration; and research no doubt. Gotta go. More later. Pfly (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep looking - that was the only source I could find with any reference, and since it's unofficial I think if we can't find any other support we might just add a note to the South Carolina article that during this period many people referred to the "Free and Independent State of South Carolina" as the "Palmetto Republic" or the "Republic of South Carolina" in an unofficial sense, rather than have a whole stub for it.Professor Storyteller (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

quadripoint - origin of the term

I know of two instances where the term quadripoint was used in the International Court of Justice. In 1984 it was used in a concurring opinion of Judge Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga on the application by Italy to intervene in the case Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta).[1] He was writing in English, although referring to submissions that had been made in French.

The second instance of which I am aware is in the transcript of oral argument by Professor Abram Chayes in 1999, as counsel for the Republic of Namibia in the Kasikili Island dispute. The word here is spelled “quadrapoint”. You can find it at page 53 of this pdf under the heading “The cartographic record”.

I expect that if you scoured the primary documents of international law, you might be able to find the word in some decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice. —Mathew5000 (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hungry Horse Dam spillway

Hey Pfly, nice addition to the spillway article. I was looking through the U.S. BOR's photo database (public domain and awesome) for pics of the Hungry Horse Dam's spillway and came across one neat one. I was thinking of adding it to the article, particularly to replace one pic of a similar spillway in the gallery at the bottom. In the first link I provided, you can see a ton of pics relating to the dam and there are a bunch of the spillway. Would one of it in use or not in use be best? When not in use, you can see the circular gate around the rim. Also, I saw you categorized the dam (power plant) as run-of-the-river. It is a tall dam and doesn't appear to be characteristic of run-of-the-river. I did a quick search and couldn't find a source for that. The BOR describes it as conventional as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh you found photos, great! I looked briefly and didn't find much. Gotta run for now, back later. Not run-of-the-river? I admit I don't know the meaning exactly, so please change if I was wrong. Thought it just mean any dam that fully crosses and blocks a river. Pfly (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Run of the river" is a p.r. game and not connected to reality; many extant "conventional" power projects are comparable to modern "run of the river" ones in shape and style; the existence of that category is highly questionable to start with, as is the notion of "conventional". Long discussion, I think it was on Talk:List of conventional hydroelectric power stations or somewhere like that I started challenging it; in BC it's a big political football, meant to cover up large-scale development as if they were mom-and-pop operations, when in reality many of the new so-called RoRs are larger than extant conventional and/or diversion projects....Skookum1 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh hey, heh, for a moment I forgot you've got a BC Hydro background, Skookum, and first-hand experience with this kind of thing. Last night I discovered the Hungry Horse Dam page was a mess. While fixing/improving I looked at various other dam pages in the PNW. Seems that most of them are of fairly low quality. Many major BC dams have little more than stub pages. A shame... Nearly all the Columbia River basin dams have acceptable but stubby pages, except Grand Coulee Dam, which is heading toward FA, it seems. Anyway, that's interesting about the use of the term "run of the river" for PR reasons. Pfly (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of dam articles need work. I think less than 50% or so of them have been tagged and are in the WP:DAMS assessment. Hopefully in a week or two, Grand Coulee will be at peer review and on its way to FAC. Skookum has some great points about run-of-the-river and the negative effects of the larger "r-o-r" dams are covered in the run-of-the-river hydroelectricity article. I presume a portion of the designations are PR stunts as well and would be interested in seeing some sort of a study on r-o-r. Right now, the most environmentally-friendly r-o-r projects are rather small and most don't have articles. I will make corrections at Hungry Horse.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

NortyNort, I didn't get much time to check out the photo links above, but could this evening. Unless you already have or are planning to, I'll upload some to the Commons. The first one you linked is very nice. Those kind of spillways look so weird. Pfly (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can upload, I was wonder which one you liked. I don't want to start uploading a lot of images from that site because I know I'd get hooked and spend an entire day doing it. That site is a real treasure trove.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and reading the run of the river page, I remember now the thing about not having massive reservoirs (or supposedly not). I seemed odd to me to see them described as "green" (or often claimed to be), when one of the main examples given is Chief Joseph Dam--a gigantic dam which, although without a huge reservoir, stands as the first complete barrier to fish migration up the Columbia, iirc. Pfly (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I kind of doubt if Chief Joseph qualifies as a run-of-the-river facility -- it has more than 500,000 acre feet sloshing behind it. That's good sized compared to most of our reservoirs down south in California, also pretty big compared to many other reservoirs in the eastern USA. Shannon^talk _contribs 01:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The [USACE labels it as run-of-the river. My assumption for such a label is that is the less than 75 m height and less than a billion m3 reservoir, when compared to the major river the project is on. I am curious what the capacity factor is for the power plant. It does definitely appear to be a not-so-friendly run of the river project though, when compared to the much smaller projects. I have trouble finding a good universal definition for run-of-the-river.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a couple BoR photos to the Commons, one of which you apparently already uploaded. They are linked like the others via http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Hungry_Horse_Dam,_Montana ...didn't have time for more tonight, got caught up watching election results. Pfly (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I know your big into rivers; if you search for some river names in there, you may find a pic or two of it unadulterated.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

RDEAs

List of regional district electoral areas in British Columbia is another one for the trashcan; there's no reason for all those redlinks to become articles, they're only boundaries used for property-tax collection/rep voting and have no other function; they're not communities or geographical realities, other than being used by StatsCan in the same way they use RDs without thinking twice, i.e. as manageable units for information-gathering. It would be sufficient to list and describe them on the individual RD pages, any further importance attached to them by earnest Wikipedians is undue weight.Skookum1 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, oh yes. We need pages on every BC regional district electoral areas like we need a page for every US zip code. Not. Pfly (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Skokomish

Nice job on the well-cited research for your update to the name origin of Skokomish (tribe) and Skokomish River. Give yourself a pat on the back. travisl (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I needed a pat on the back this morning. Pfly (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

:-)

That was for rah rah. I wonder whether I can give you a branstar for your sense of humour. being witty. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You made me laugh, I wife came to the room wondering what happened. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

New map of divides

(Copied from Talk:Continental Divide of the Americas#New map of divides. Background: This map, File:NorthAmericaDivides.gif, has long been in use on several pages, but leaves something to be desired--the "Arctic" divide from Snow Dome for one. It's a fairly old, less than beautiful map from a USGS page. It is/was used on these pages: Continental divide, Laurentian Divide, Eastern Continental Divide, Pigeon River (Minnesota–Ontario), Central United States, Indian Reserve (1763), and Continental Divide of the Americas.)

I finished a new map, at the Commons: North American - Water Divides. I'll use it on this page for now. Feedback welcomed. Some of the terminology might not be ideal. I ended up using the term "Arctic" for the Hudson Bay–Beaufort Sea divide, a term I saw here and there. Realized "Hudson Bay Divide" would not work because that would include the so-called Laurentian/Northern divide as well as the new one I added. I'm not devoted to the term "Arctic Divide", but not sure about "Hudson Bay–Beaufort Sea Divide"--anyway the new line goes clear to the southern end of Baffin Island, far from the Beaufort Sea). Also, I'm thinking of adding some additional text, like identifying the various closed basins along the divides (Great Divide Basin, Bolsón de Mapimí, etc). Also thinking about uploading an SVG version with PNGs at various sizes, but have to learn a bit more about how to do that. Anyway, it may not be the best map in the world, but it should be an improvement over the old one. Pfly (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe the Yukon basin divides could be shown....I'm always dicey on considering the Bering Strait/Sea to be part of the Pacific Ocean (which technically it is); but then that kind of predisposes towards showing hte larger Pacific basins like that of the Stikine, Fraser, Columbia and Sacramento...and Colorado...it's a slippery slope; similarly the Rio Grande/Mississippi divide might be added (or maybe ther'es another basin in between somewhere in Texas?) but in the same light the Churchill River/Gulf of St. Lawrence one could diverge off the Hudson Bay divide where it meets the Labrador boundary.....but none of these are continental divides, except maybe the Yukon; with the Mississippi and St. Lawrence it's because their basins are so large and unique I think they could/should be shown separately/additionally.Skookum1 (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I considered doing something similar to this cartographically pleasant European basin map, Europäische Wasserscheiden.png, but decided to focus on the "continental" divides instead. But a North American map in the style of that European one could be nice. It could show the major watersheds you mention and then some. And the major divides could be identified by different colors. And yea, there are several sizable Texas rivers between the Mississippi and the Rio Grande.I think the Brazos River is the longest.

I think the original USGS map showing these divides was made with a highly US-centric POV. It comes from this page, the text of which comes off US-centric, informal and essay-like, and, it seems to me, somewhat dubious in places. As far as I can tell it is the source of the term "Three Waters Hill" for the triple divide in Minnesota. No other US government source mentions the name. It isn't in GNIS or on any map I can find. Looking at topo maps, it isn't even clear which hill it would be, given the topography and drainage in that area. I suspect the author might have made it up, perhaps along with some of the divide names, like the "St. Lawrence Seaway Divide". One result of the US POV is that relatively minor divides, like the "Eastern" and "St. Lawrence Seaway" are shown. They are of note within the United States, of course, but there are others in Canada at least as important. The "Arctic" divide, or whatever it ought to be called, is clearly important despite not being in the US. And I have to wonder if there is a Canadian equivalent of this map's "St. Lawrence Seaway" divide that is important in Canada--as it is, the map shows the southern divide between the Great Lakes & St. Lawrence, but only a portion of the northern part--that being the part that following the "Northern" or Laurentian divide. Somewhere in Quebec there's a divide between waters that drain to the St. Lawrence & Gulf of St. Lawrence, and those that drain to the Labrador Sea. It's hard to imagine that this divide is not significant. Anyway, all this just to say I think the original USGS map is rather biased toward the US. Perhaps someday a basin map like that European one would do well for showing a broader perspective. There's an interesting and fairly attractive map of major Canadian basins here. Interesting how that map shows both the "Northern"/"Laurentian" and the "Arctic" divides as ocean drainage divides. The important basins that stand out on that map are the Mackenzie, Nelson, St. Lawrence, and Yukon (esp. if one pictures the Yukon's basin in Alaska as well).

While I'm at it, here's a couple other useful looking drainage basin maps from the Atlas of Canada: North America Watersheds, Drainage Basins (Canada).

Also, on the idea mapping the divide in South America, since the page claims to be about both continents (and the issue has been raised at Talk:Continental Divide of the Americas#South American Map)--I'll put that on my list. Perhaps two maps instead of one big one.

Okay, I've written enough. If anyone has feedback or suggestions, let me know. I think I will do a general replacement of the old USGS divide map with the new one I made. I realize my new one is not all that great. The cartography is rather lame, for one. So feel free to make suggestions. Pfly (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment that I really like the new map. Only other basin I'd consider would be the Bering like Skookum mentions, but don't think it's critical. I wouldn't recommend doing any additional large rivers - I think it would get too busy. Likewise I don't think the smaller closed basins need labeling. The Great Basin should extend a smidge into Mexico. Kmusser (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, because that would mean that that closed basin somehow crosses that of the Colorado River; the Great Basin is entirely to the north of the Colorado basin, the northern boundary of which is entirely in the US.....unless you're thinking a tidge of the area between Mexicali and Tijuana??Skookum1 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's entirely north of the Colorado, check out the recent Great Basin map I made - area to the SW of Mexicali, it's the basin of Laguna Salada (Mexico) which is contiguous to the Salton Sea basin. Kmusser (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Admins

Hi! I saw your comment on YellowMonkey's RFC/U. I thought about answering there, but as this is just my own thoughts, and not directly related to the RFC/U, so ... generally, there's been resistance to making it too easy to remove the admin bit, as admins need to have the freedom to make difficult and sometimes controversial decisions, and if it was too easy to have the bit removed it would be difficult for people to make those decisions. There have been attempts to make something work - such as Admin Recall - but they've been problematic: for example, Admin Recall is voluntary, so not all admins would agree to take part; the conditions for recall have always been a bit flexible and not well defined, IMHO; and there is nothing stopping someone just saying no, they won't take part after all, when there is pressure to go through with it. Thus the decision has been left to ArbCom, and that is, as you said, a big deal. To counter this, RfA seems to have been getting harder, with an apparent fall in participation to match - if it is difficult to remove admins, the general view seems that it should be difficult to create them, as we need to be very sure that we can trust the people who get the bit. But if it is too much of a trial, why would editors put themselves through it? If that continues there is a (debatable) risk of having too few admins to properly manage the system.

The short answer is that nobody has yet figured out a reliable system that has community consensus and manages to straddle the line between being too easy to lose the bit and too hard.

Anyway, if you're feeling masochistic, the recent thread on Jimbo's talk page explores a lot of this. It also turns up at various forums from time to time. - Bilby (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I can see why this is a difficult aspect of Wikipedia. Just now I was wondering whether admins could have some kind of "permanent record", akin to a block log, for things like YellowMonkey's bad block, but realized how problematic it would be. It could be one of the "desired outcomes" of an RFC, for example, but that would still have all the voluntary issues like you mentioned for recall. I guess there's a balance between the necessity of giving admins "the freedom to make difficult and sometimes controversial decisions" and the occasional cases of admin abuse and associated damage such as driving away good/promising editors. Maybe the system as it is, far from ideal, strikes the balance, more or less. Hmm. Anyway, thanks for writing. This whole thing is a topic I usually avoid--I much prefer focusing on content, of all things! Pfly (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the current system is correct. It just seems that there's yet to be a suitable alternative gain consensus. The main push seems to be to make it easier to remove the bit, but equally easier to get it - that approach might be worth taking. - Bilby (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Favor

Hi, Pfly. Questions about the basin size of the Petitcodiac River in New Brunswick have come up during two FACs and on the Petitcodiac's talk page, and I thought you might be able to help. (I'm one of the reviewers of the article but not one of the main contributors.) Although I've made headway with using ArcGIS Explorer to figure out basin sizes in the U.S., I'm still a newbie with this software, and I have not figured out the apparently equivalent Canadian watershed database. The basic question that is as yet unanswered is whether the Memramcook River is or is not a tributary of the Petitcodiac and, therefore, of its watershed. A watershed map in Rivers of North America includes the Memramcook and part of Shepody Bay, but User:Cornforth added a map during the last FAC that excludes the Memramcook. Cornforth has cited Natural Resources Canada as the source from which he or she got the data to make the map. Would it be possible for you to determine whether Cornforth's map is or is not supported by the cited source? Finetooth (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick check and Cornforth's map looks correct. For another source the Geonet Names Server [2] agrees defining the mouth of the Petitcodiac as being upstream of the Memramcook - i.e. they both flow into Shepody Bay. Kmusser (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That is quite helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oop, hi. Are things resolved then? I haven't had much time today... Pfly (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, Geonames Canada gives the mouth coords as 45°51′59″N 64°34′29″W ("Petitcodiac River". Geographical Names Data Base. Natural Resources Canada.), which seems to confirm what Karl said. Pfly (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm not aware of a Canadian GIS database with basin sizes similar to the US WBD (which isn't to say there isn't one). Pfly (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw your note on the Petitcodiac talk page as well. Looks like the remaining problems, related mostly to prose and internal logic, will be relatively easy to fix. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

List of natural features on the Fraser River

I've puzzled over a parallel article to your one on rapids of the Columbia...List of rapids and canyons on the Fraser River was one idea/theme, but there's lots of non-rapids, non-canyons features - prominent side-canyons, coloured bluffs, named features; transformer stones, certain prominent mines (see here and pick a link; a friend of mine's work who's from Texas Creek, south of Lillooet on the West Side Road (from the Lytton Ferry, well worth the drive/adventure, very beautiful area, and on the shady side of the torrid desert heat that makes the east side...well, torrid and kinda unpleasantly so - the binary climate of the Fraser Canyon is really obvious from Hells Gate northwards, virtually all the way; each bank has its own climate, especially higher up of course), and there's rocks like Saddle Rock; and there's a need for a separate List of bars on the Fraser River (hundreds of names, in fact, though 40-50 easier to cite than others, maybe; List of gold-bearing bars on the Fraser River wouldn't include them all, some weren't, and wouldn't cover all gold-mining either, as you can see from the benchland sluicing on the gallery of pics in one of those links), and landmarks of one kind or another. Crossings already have their own list; in the Lower Mainland there's a need for List of sloughs of the Fraser River (I'd prefer "on the Fraser River", local idiom, but a wiki-standard will result in the other....) as there's dozens of named ones, many with certain stories attached to them, e.g. steamboat related etc....For now I'm gonna try and focus on Steamboats of Lake Okanagan and spinoffs, and Steamboats of the Thompson and Shuswap, or whatever title I'd toyed around with; I seem to recall "the Shuswap"...if I can find the necessary books, I'll get improving my home-turf Vessels of the Lakes Route ("vessels" because also barges, rafts, canoes etc and also non-steamer motor vessels - in a big way 1858-60, mildly thereafter though with commercial steamer service (once engines were carted in over the trail....piece by piece). Anyway your thoughts on the subject of the Fraser's canyon/rapids/rock features - including vanished ones; there was a Medicine Doctor Rock or some such opposite Yale or Hills Bar, blasted aside for the CNR's route across the mountainside; it's even in BCGNIS, do a radius search around Yale's BCGNIS...I'm trying to detach from a lot of the formal/structural wiki discussions, though of course can't let certain ones go until solved/resolved, and trying to get back at historical/geographical articles....and trying to at least outline/stub/start page/article topics/ideas long in need of doing....but there's only one of me, and I've got six lives (all at once, this being one of them). The number of named canyons on the Fraser is huge, most of them are on Basemap if you look close, others are mentioned in other sources; I have to laugh at Category:Canyons and gorges of British Columbia because there are very, very few streams in BC of any size which do not have a canyon of some kind; it's the nature of the landscape; and I'm only talking about the named ones, there are countless creek canyons and side-canyons in some areas (including right around here, though you wouldn't know it from the relatively gentle roll of the Okanagan Highland/Thompson Plateau Hills flanking the city and the lake; but drive 10 miles it's a different story - see Marron Valley as a curiosity by the way....anyway do you think "features on the Fraser River" is sufficient or is there maybe a better term for "rapids, canyons, rocks, etc".Skookum1 (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Natural features will do it, at least temporarily; it's more correct than landforms, which would included mountains flanking it, plateaux etc; so I've amended that section header accordingly. The photo/mapping of the placer diggins is helpful as many are named for lcations features; so we can include benchlands e.g. Canada Flat (adjacent to Canada Bar, and by the look of the place I think just south of Lillooet, or near it anyway; Horsebeef Bar is the big bar in the middle of the Fraser in the broad bend below Lillooet - and one of the richer bars over time, in fact. Only so many are in BCGNIS, we'll need ancillary sources; I'll write Mike and see what he has, or could name as cites anyway; I'm sure his paper has an extensive list, not just of mines but also features etc all the way down; from Big Bar to Lytton, long list; Lytton to Hope is another story, different set of archives/history but maybe I can find more detail than I have so far (in nosracines.ca and similar).Skookum1 (talk) 09:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That could be a fun list to work on (well, fun for geo-geeks like me). Offhand I can't think of a great name. "Features" is pretty general--could suggest including cities, bridges, docks, ...anything. Which might be fine if you'd want to include such things. If not, hmm, maybe "natural features", or "landforms"? List of landforms seems in the right direction. Hmm, then there's Category:Fluvial landforms. Landmarks doesn't seem right. Anyway, I'd help with it if you start a list page like that. Pfly (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Started it, as you can see by the bluelink; just added materials from memory at this point, lots more to come of course. Needs to be tableized of course, with coords and cites etc, maybe even a picture box like on List of heritage buildings in Vancouver.Skookum1 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Victory Gardens

Victory Gardens is one of my favorites also. I think it needs a slightly larger album cover image. I agree the one I used is slightly too red but after extensive searching, I was unable to find a better one. I compared it carefully with my actual album cover and I think the red one is closer than the pink one. In any case, I will attempt to create a new image by scanning my original when I get a chance. Thanks for the comments. It's too bad you aren't still in Buffalo - I hear J&M live at least once a month or so. GullyWalker (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Will you help us wrap things up at Talk:Okanagan (wine)?

We seem to be really close to a compromise solution, after many days of discussion, and would greatly appreciate if you would chime in with your thoughts on whether the wording that tries to incorporate both views about the Okanagan extension of the Sonoran is acceptable or not. See Talk:Okanagan_Valley_(wine_region)#Polling is evil but so is 90,000+ bytes dedicated to one issue. Thanks for your time! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Salmon

Yes, we had a bumper year for sockeye this year on the Adams River (British Columbia). No one is quite sure why so many came back, 10 years ago it was thought that the runs were slowly dying out. It is a shame that the Columbia river runs were so badly decimated - do you know if fish ladders were installed in the major Columbia dams? I'm doing some more research to expand the Adams River article for GAN, and found some frightening accounts of how a small "splash dam" (used by logging companies to keep the water level high to flush log booms down a river) on the Adams destroyed the much larger Upper Adams run in the 1900's. Poor planning and greed, unfortunately. There were definitely historical plans for Fraser River dams, luckily they were all scrapped (mostly due to easier rivers to dam being in abundance). I wonder if there is hope for restoring Washington/Oregon runs? There has been some limited success up here in rejuvenating streams that were lost for one reason or another. The Interior(Talk) 17:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

British Columbia maps

Hi. I noticed you've created maps for several British Columbia island pages. I was wondering if you would like to add some to some island articles I've recently created: Pooley Island, Roderick Island, Susan Island, Sarah Island (British Columbia), Dowager Island, and Yeo Island. OhSoHeartless (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A general map of the Gardner Canal area, or a subarea of it, would suffice, no reason to need separate maps for each.....I've added the relevant WikiProjects and also fixed the categories; the Central Coast begins south of Hartley Bay, which is quite a ways south of these. Also pls note with the stub template {{BritishColumbiaCoast-geo-stub}}; there's a corresponding {{BritishColumbiaInterior-geo-stub}} one, too; I refined the stub only on one of them, forgot to do the others....Skookum1 (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note I also changed the usage "off the coast of British Columbia" to "in the North Coast Region of British Columbia"....."off the coast" does not mean "off the mainland coast", but off the outer coast....Aristazabal and other islands quite a bit offshore would be "off the coast"; those on inland salt-waterways are definitely "in" the coast.Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I still have the files used to make those readily available. Depending on whether the larger base map I used extends to Gardner Canal with enough detail or not, it shouldn't be too hard. It may be I made a higher resolution base map for only a few selected area though, so maybe not. Looking back I see I did a map for Price Island, on which I can see most of the islands you mention, although Susan Island is pretty small. The underlying base map I used is probably more detailed, so, yes, I could probably make maps like these (or a single one for the area, as Skookum suggests, although I like the simplicity of the maps that focus on a single island, especially for small web maps, but either way, or both). I might be a little limited if the base map I made is lacking in detail. Making a new base map would be a lot of effort at this point (old GIS computer in pieces, etc). I'll check. Gotta boot up the *other* old computer first. Pfly (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

All these are neighbouring islands, so a "local region" map would probably best suffice; the northern Douglas Channel, with Kitimat-Kemano etc would be a different map; this is more of a southerly/side area of it...and the Kitimat-Kemano map ideally, if ever made, should include the Nechako Reservoir and location of the tunnel(s). Though, similarly, Terrace and Kitimat are neighbouring, more or less; but a map of the lower Skeena region would solve that...the mid-Skeena region around Hazelton, likewise, needs one, but so do a lot of local regions in BC.....local-region maps for teh whole coast are needed, whether Observatory Inlet-Portland Canal/Channel or around Bella Bella/Bella Coola etc...or Queen Charlotte Strait-Quatsino Sound etc...it's so vast, so complicated, so many placenames....more difficult than inland maps, I mean mapping's not so difficult, but the lack of maps makes mere textual description difficult....Skookum1 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I once tried to make a map for the Portland Canal area, one which would show Pearse Canal, Tongas Passage, and other key features along the border there. But the coastline GIS data in the Digital Chart of the World and other data based on it (which are mostly free and public domain) do not have the resolution required, especially near Tongas Passage. The lack of high resolution free and uncopyrighted GIS data for the BC coast makes it hard to make "zoomed in" maps. Alternate methods are way too much work for me. Pfly (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a Canadian federal government site with free GIS data, detailed.....I think I posted it on Karl Musser's page once upon a time....."geodata Canada" maybe will find it in google, I've fogotten....Skookum1 (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this, you did indeed, the link you want is http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/index.html Kmusser (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nares Strait

Appologies for the undo of your contribution on the Nares Strait page, that I undid when I saw the results. Your perspective is correct, but an ambiguity existed with regard to the Lincoln Sea page that I edited to conform with best knowledge of the science and the the Nares Strait article regarding flow of water and ice (generally from north to south). Muenchow (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Seigenthaler

You're welcome. Yeah ... it seems from your edit history like you wouldn't have been an active contributor at that time and thus it probably didn't make as much of an impression on you.

Williamsville, eh? I used to work here and my wife and I were married in the Episcopal Church. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar, test?

Moved, test?, from main page:

		The Original Barnstar
		testing again130.245.205.26 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you logging of and giving yourself barnstars? j/k Congrats.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Heeeeey, good idea! ;-) Pfly (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanish west Florida

Hello, how are you? I'm engagig about the extent of Spanish West Florida, beyond the parallel 31. I'm sure that the Natchez District, beside the Mississippi, was Spanish, but...

In 1792, the Natchez treaty established the northern limit at the mouth of the Yazoo,[3] around Vicksburg. I am not clear in my mind if this limit continued eastward along the parallel 32 towards an undetermined point. Or by contrast, such line went southward to reach the parallel 31 and thence to the east, and thus delimiting the Natchez district. The treaty text (art.2) appears in original form (translated) here, and also another with notes,[4] appearing the word south to define the line of territorial cession. begin in the west on the Mississippi River [and extend] to the mouth of the Yazú River and go up to the middle of this river until near the place called [the] Ball Field (juego de Pelota) where the English Nation, in agreement with the Chacta Nation, marked a dividing line that continued [south] until entering west Florida and following the same line from the mentioned Ball Field until encountering the ones that separate the rest of the dominios of His Catholic Majesty with Alibamone and Talapuche Nations.

On the other hand, I have only found the quoted the Treaty of Natchez to indicate had achieved simply a fortress in Nogales,[5][6][7] but I have not found anything about the spread of the border eastward. The key issue is that the British established the border in the parallel 32 on the mouth of the Yazoo River [8] but I am not sure if moreover the British settle in the border along the parallel 32 or merely around that zone (Yazoo). In 1786 it appears that a [9] the old line of demarcation heretofore established by and between the officers of his Brittanic majesty and the Choctaw nation which ran in a parallel direction with the Mississippi and eastward thereof. The Choctaws relinquished all right and title to the same from latitude 31 deg north to the Yazoo. This line is laid down upon the maps in our land offices as about twenty miles east of the Mississippi.

Well, could you shed some light to clarify the extent of Spanish Florida?. Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This topic is complicated. The region has a long and messy history of multiple powerful native tribes struggling for power, as well as three European powers, plus the United States after 1785. In many cases the tribes (many of which were large "confederacies of tribes") held de facto power over large areas into the 1820s and 1830s. Many treaties were made between the tribes and the imperial powers, and these were often contradictory or never well enforced. Also, there were factions within each tribe that supported alliances with opposing imperial powers, and these factions often made treaties as if they represented the whole tribe. Naturally, each imperial power cited those treaties favorable to themselves. The history is a real mess! I found this English source, with the text from some of the many treaties. It includes things like "Land Cession at Chickasaw Bluffs", June 20, 1795, in which the Chickasaw ceded to Spain the Chickasaw Bluffs (which today is Memphis, Tennessee, about 35° north), far north of the Yazoo River. I'm not sure if Spain ever took de facto control of the Chickasaw Bluffs.

The whole topic seems like a question between de facto and de jure sovereignty, no? Also the difference between treaties with Native Americans and European imperial powers. The Native American treaties are complicated, contradictory, and likely hard to draw solid conclusions from. The "imperial power" treaties seem more straightforward. It sounds like you already know about the northern boundary of West Florida having been set at 31° and expanded north by the British to 32° 22′. The pages West Florida Controversy and West Florida have more about it. The West Florida page says, In 1764, the British decided to move the northern boundary to a line extending from the mouth of the Yazoo River east to the Chattahoochee River (32° 22′ north latitude). That seems to be the usual answer: the line ran along 32° 22′ from the Mississippi to the Chattahoochee River. In the 1785 Treaty of Paris that ended the American Revolution Britain agreed to a US boundary at 31°, but also ceded West Florida to Spain without specifying its boundaries, resulting in the Spanish-US dispute over the region. Of course all of this is rather arbitrary and abstract--lines of imperial claims drawn in simple forms without much weigh put on de facto matters.

It surprises me that well after this Spain would accept land from the Chickasaw as far north as 35°, as late as 1795. It could be that given the dispute and uncertainty over the region's boundaries all powers did what they could to strengthen de facto control. Certainly Spain was interested in control of the Mississippi River itself, and the Chickasaw Bluffs were strategically important. The text of the Natchez treaty you quote, from 1792, is curious. I'm guessing its mention of a Choctaw agreement with the "English Nation" refers to something predating the 1785 Treaty of Paris. If that's the case the US would have rejected this 1792 treaty's legality. But I'm not sure. I'll look into it a bit more if I have the time. I'm not sure if I've answered your question. At the very least it seems safe to say Spanish "interests" extended north of 32° 22′, but the whole border region north of 31° was in dispute, at least after 1785. Pfly (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, "ball field" is right. It refers to the Native American game that later became Lacrosse. The region has many place names like "ball field", "ball play", etc. Pfly (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I just discovered there still is a "Ballground" on the Yazoo River about 10-20 km northeast of Vicksburg. There's a small town called Ballground and a Ballground Creek. Neither have Wikipedia pages, but here's their GNIS links: U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Ballground and U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Ballground Creek. Here's a link to the ACME Mapper topo map for the area. This is probably the ball field mentioned in the treaty you quoted.

Also, I think the Natchez District was fairly small during the French and Spanish eras—being the town of Natchez and its outlying fields. If I find a source for this I'll post again. Pfly (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oop, I found more for you and wrote up a long post. I'll post it on your talk page. Pfly (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the posts. I am dedicated to the issue and it is difficult to me to process all the fragmentary information.

The question is similar to the Patagonia, on the one hand is the pretension and other one the limit that the Indians imposed over the Spanish. In 1764, the board of trade extended the limits of West Florida towards the parallel 32º and a bit more. [10] This change appears to be arbitrary [11] and on the paper.[12] and even within the claims of Georgia [13]

As the colonial frontier was different from the demarcation of the Indians: [14] But colonial claims meant nothing while Native Americans still controlled their own land and their own affairs. In subsequent years treaties and agreements of the British were made with the Indian nations to establish the real demarcation.[15][16][17] The line in the parallel 32º appears as a territorial claim [18] In the treaty with Spain the boundary had not been specifically named, but since the British had so adamantly declared the mouth of the Yazoo (at 32º26' north) the boundary of West Florida in 1764, the Spanish felt justified in claiming that boundary.

The article 2 [19] of the treaty of Natchez refers to the dividing line marked by the British previously in 1777. In this year, Indians yielded a narrow strip attached to the Mississippi, which is nothing more and nothing less than Natchez district:

• [20] Natchez, where a body of loyalist had bought of the Choctaws, in 1777, a strecht along the river from 31º to the mouth of the Yazoo, a distance of something over one hundred miles.
• [21] the Natchez district is bounded to the westward by the river Mississippi, and extends from Loftus Cliff up the said river to the mouth of the Yazoo, the distance being 110 miles. The said District was purchased from the Choctaw nation by the British superintendent of Indian affairs at a treaty held at Mobile in May 1777, and the lines as above described were marked and surveyed by me in 1779. This description it must be observed contains no eastern boundary.
• [22] Se empezó la demarcación, y al llegar al paralelo 32° los indios no quisieron continuar, basándose en que iban a perder unas tierras que apreciaban mucho sobre el Yazú, llamadas el «Juego de Pelota».
• [23] a boundary was established between the Natchez District and the Choctaw Nation in 1777.
• [24] the tribe [Choctaw] had sold a part o its territory along the Mississippi to the English in 1777.

When the West Florida was conquered and transferred to Spain, Natchez district was held:

• [25] The Spanish Natchez District was similar in its geographic and administrative lines to the old British district. Its boundary was approximately the same.
• [26] The Natchez District extended upon the east side of the Mississippi River for about one hundred miles, and was bounded on the east by a line extending direct from the sources of the Tickfaw, in a direction west of north to the Yazoo River ten miles above its mouth No portion of this district extended more than twenty five miles direct from the river.
• [27] assembly in Natchez in May 1792 that produced a treaty document formally ratifying the work of the previous year. [28] and in 1791 the Spanish obtained from the Choctaws a tract of land near the mouth of the Yazoo River, at the side of a former English post.
• [29][30] The Natchez District extended upon the east side of the Mississippi River for about one hundred miles, and was bounded on the east by a line extending direct from the sources of the Tickfaw, in a direction west of north to the Yazoo River ten miles above its mouth. No portion of this district extended more than twenty five miles direct from the river.
• [31] In the 18th century, the district of Natchez occupied a very extensive area located in western Florida, between Pony coupée on the south and the Yazoo River on the north.
• [32] From 1781 until 1798, the land on the east bank of the Mississippi River, from the mouth of the Yazoo river southward to the 31st degree W latitude, was claimed and occupied by Spain. The area was called the Natchez district
• [33] El distrito de Natchez, que se extendía desde Punta Cortada (Ponte Coupée) en el Sur, hasta la desembocadura del río Yazoo, en el norte; desde el Mississsippi, en el Oeste; hasta una frontera indeterminada en el Este.
• [34] Natchez district formed a part of this province, extending from the Yazoo to Bayou Sara.

In Wikipedia in English, there is no trace of Spanish presence in the Natchez District, and to find specific maps, we must use the left hand: In 1801, the article 3 of the treaty of Fort Adams [35] also refers to the demarcation of the British. This area is marked by the number 43 in this map, which corresponds to the Natchez district.

In spite of being almost sure of the limits, nevertheless, I do not have certainty if there were other territorial strips above the parallel 31º, other than the isolated forts.

Again thank you very much for the posts. Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi, I replied on your talk page again, but will post it here too, for future clarity:

Reply to reply

Hello again. Sorry for writing in a long and fragmented way. I think I understand the issue better now and can write something more to the point, although not as tersely as I hoped.

Yes, the question is similar to the Patagonia case. Also to the lands south of the Adams-Onís Treaty line. Spain never controlled those lands, what is now the southwest US, except isolated presidios and a few small settled areas. Even the link between Mexico and New Mexico was fragile. In many ways Spanish New Mexico was "disconnected" from the rest of New Spain. So there is the issue of showing all the land south of the Adams-Onís treaty line as Spanish. In favor of that position is the strength, longevity, and international recognition of the treaty.

The case of Spanish Florida lacks a similar strong treaty line other than 31°. Spain had long claimed the whole of what is now the southeast US. A number of exploration expeditions had penetrated far inland. There were, over the centuries, a number of forts established in the interior, but none of them remained occupied very long. An argument can be made for Spanish rights by treaties, but none as strong and recognized as the Adams–Onís treaty. Neither England or France recognized the claims, or did not care about respecting them. Both England and France deliberately invaded and established forts and settlements within the region, knowing they were violating Spanish claims. So this case is quite different from the Adams–Onís case. The question, then, is what was Spanish Florida in terms of actual control and international recognition? The core of Spanish Florida was obviously the corridor between St. Augustine and Pensacola—a strip of land along the mission road that did not extend very far north or south. Also the mission region along the Sea Islands coast of what is now Georgia and southeast South Carolina was clearly Spanish before being conquered. Beyond this core region it is hard to say what does or doesn't count as "Spanish Florida".

Also, it is not clear to me where to draw a line between Spanish-controlled Florida, Texas, and Louisiana. "East Florida" had been controlled and colonized by Spain for centuries, but "West Florida" was largely French. Still, coastal West Florida has long been called "Florida" and had old links with Spanish Pensacola, so it seems reasonable to include West Florida in "Spanish Florida", at least after Spain gained control. New Orleans and the old French settlements along the lower Mississippi were clearly part of Louisiana, not Florida. These settlements were not restricted to the west side of the Mississippi River even though the definition of Louisiana came to mean only the region west of the river. The Natchez District under French and then Spanish control was, it seems to me, part of Louisiana. At least Natchez's connection with the outside world was via the river: downriver to New Orleans and upriver to St. Louis and Illinois. There was no real overland connection with Florida. The same can be said for the forts at what is now Vicksburg and Memphis. These posts were under Spanish authority for a while, but calling them part of Florida sounds very strange to me. It may be that Spain included Natchez in its own definition of Florida at the time, but such a thing would be more meaningful "on paper" than "in reality", if that makes sense.

Then we are left with a number of isolated forts, most of which did not last long. Fort Confederación (Tombécbe under France, Tombigbee or York under the Britain and the US) was long-lived, but was not under Spanish control for more than about a decade. And the fort was small and surrounded by unceded, native-controlled lands.

In short (I am trying to write tersely!), the clearest answer to the boundaries of Spanish Florida would have to be, I think, the northern border of today's state of Florida, plus the coast south of 31° to the Mississippi River (the so-called "Isle of Orleans"), plus the Sea Island coast of today's Georgia and southeast South Carolina. Beyond that things are less clear. One could also argue that Spanish Florida never included the southern half of the Florida peninsula. But the whole peninsula is typically included, even if Spain never had real power over the southern half.

This, at least, is the conclusion I've reached so far. I hope all this is useful and not too hard to translate. I always enjoy researching these things and conversing with you. Pfly (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much again. Certainly your comments are always useful. I do not have problem in reading in English, though to translate into English is very difficult for me. I will add some things:

Encyclopaedically we can read that the limit of Adams-Onís treaty is a international boundary, failing that, another possible limit would be here around same parallel, but I ignore the reason of such extension.

In case of Florida there is no international agreement until 1795, well not exactly, the Spanish considered the Indians as nations, and the agreements of delimitation with them would be international agreements: [36] the Spaniards took the position that the Indians were free citizens of sovereign nations, and that only after free agreements with the tribes had they come under Spanish protection. Eventually the Spaniards also conceded that the Indian nations were free to make treaties with any nation.

The claim of Georgia must have been quite strong. In this Spanish map of the epoch, the lands appear assigned to Georgia, even Natchez district, which had his own Spanish governor. Very strange. This map is very similar to this one, in which British West Florida spreads up to the parallel 31 only.

Natchez district belonged to West Florida during The British Period: [37] known as the Natchez District of the Province of West Florida. [38] The Gulf Coast area and the Natchez area then became part of British West Florida, with Pensacola as its capital. Also during the Spanish period [39] the western end of what the Spanish regarded as the northern boundary of the Natchez District within the province of West Florida.

But West Florida depended upon Louisiana [40] West Florida after Spanish conquest of 1779-1781 was attached for governmental purposes to Spanish Louisiana. A governor functioned at Pensacola, but he was subordinate to th governor of Louisiana. [41] West Florida came under the jurisdiction of Louisiana in the Spanish political structure. So, [42] the governor of the Natchez district was subordinate to the governor-general of Louisiana and West Florida.

No matter whether the forts belonged either to West Florida or Louisiana, because it depended on the governor general. [43]. Perhaps, it seems that some forts were included in West Florida [44] In Louisiana the treaty mandated the Spanish evacuation of northern West Florida, including Natchez, and Forts Nogales and Confederación. [45] In 1781 a lieutenant governor was designated for Pensacola, to which Mobile and later Fort St.Stephens became subordinate.

When Spanish Louisiana was relinquished to France, West Florida held his own governor [46] And the administration of East and West Florida was different though they had the same name of Florida.

It remains to reorganize the sources, and to do the changes in the map. Best regards. Trasamundo (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick reply. Those books you linked to look interesting, I skimmed through some. A random personal connection: I kept seeing mentions of Andrew Ellicott, who surveyed the 31st parallel to the Natchez District. I grew up on a street named for his brother, Joseph Ellicott, and very near Ellicott Creek, also named for him. Andrew is the more famous of the two, but Joseph was responsible for laying out the whole township grid of western New York, and is much remembered there. He also laid out and founded many towns, including the village of Williamsville, where I grew up. Hmm, there's another personal connection, unrelated to Ellicott--some of my long-ago ancestors and their kin lived on the Tennesse frontier, near the northern end of the Natchez Trace, from the late 1790s to the 1830s or so. One of the places they lived is now Fly, Tennessee. Just a random connection, but explains some of how I ended up interested in the history of the region and era. Good night. Pfly (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and curious--I just came across a map showing that surprisingly large Spanish claim after 1785--identical to another map of it I linked in some earlier post. [47]. Pfly (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already finished the update of the map. At last. Trasamundo (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the sentence in the Irrigation sentence

Hi Pfly, You've misunderstood the sentence. It doesn't mean that there were no Indian canals before the British, but that in the early years of Company rule in India, the British had only improved the preexisting Indian canals. The Ganges Canal was the first new British cut in India, i.e. that had no Indian antecedents. As you will see in the Company rule in India#Canals section, I spend quite a bit of time on the East and West Jamuna Canals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there

Please don't go. As I say on the Talk:Ganges page, you're the best thing that has happened to the page. Please don't let the drive-bys spoil it for the rest of us. Just ignore the nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies over here

Hi, please make an effort to understand why I said what I said, and accept my apologies.Thanks...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 11:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

thanks

		The Geography Barnstar
		for your fine work in the Ganges article and the extraordinary map you have created. sincere thanks. --CarTick (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I second this, I think that map looks great! Kmusser (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! And thanks, Karl, for your datasources page, without which I wouldn't have known about the Natural Earth dataset, which made this map so much easier to make than I was expecting. Pfly (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Topograhy and Image

Hi, hope this helps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Indo-Gangetic_Plain.jpg.असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 16:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn't catch the first ...

... typo! My post was supposed to be a joke, a take off on the first typo (Ebglish) in Thisthat's post! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Ack, I thought it might be a joke, but couldn't see it. Damn! Pfly (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he got it too! I would have sworn it was too subtle. Pfly (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Cider

Why do you put cider in a pot on the stove? It seems such a random thing to do. DuncanHill (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Virreinato de Nueva España

Hello. In response to this comment, I can say that I have completed the map and it is here.

Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

WP help

Hello I'm trying to make a task force about the Empire of Brazil but I'm having trouble making the assessment templates and task force banner. The people from WikiProject Dams said you helped them so I don't if you can help me. Spongie555 (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Mexico river list

Thought you'd like to know that I moved List of longest rivers of Mexico into article space just now. It's less complete than the U.S. main stem, Oregon stream, and Canada rivers lists, but it's got quite a bit of sortable data in one handy place. Please improve it if you're so inclined. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox waterfall

Hello. You have a new message at Template talk:Infobox waterfall#Average width?'s talk page. No reply necessary. –droll [chat] 19:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas

Just seen your comment on the talk page of MatthewVanitas. There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Washington

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Washington might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Pfly. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon

Since it looks like you never actually joined:

You are invited to join WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon . You received this invitation because of your history editing Oregon articles or discussion of Oregon topics. The Oregon WikiProject group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. New members may read about existing members and introduce themselves here.

--Jsayre64 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've also nominated you for a Triple Crown. See Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations#Pfly. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon! If you'd like, you can add the WP Oregon userbox to your user page using this code: {{User WikiProject Oregon}}. Check out the ongoing and archived discussions at WT:ORE and be sure to add the page to your Watchlist. If you are new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to browse through the core principles of Wikipedia as well. The project home page at WP:ORE has many useful links to get you started. The recent changes and recent discussions links will display recent edits on articles within the project's scope. Welcome!

Our annexation of Oregon's Canada begins! Bwahaha! Valfontis (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, might as well! WP:WPWA is barely paying attention. Good time to invade. Pfly (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Triple Crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Triple crown upon Pfly for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Thank you for all your contributions to the project! – SMasters (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This user has a Triple Crown.

Your Majesty, Pfly, I am pleased to award this special edition WikiProject Oregon triple crown for your contributions to Oregon-related FC, GA and DYK articles. Thank you for all your hard work. – SMasters (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "India". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 21, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning India, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Heh, what a surprise! I'm shocked, shocked! Pfly (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Malaspina Expedition

Hi Pfly, Thanks so much for reverting the changes I made to Malaspina Expedition page. I sincerely don't know how I could have deleted all that lower portion of the page. I was doing several edits at the same time and I only meant to fix a few grammar mistakes. Anyway, thanks again --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No prob, it was obviously a mistake. Pfly (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Weigh in?

Would you like to weigh in at the discussion in Talk:India on some 40 odd images? I know that's a lot, but a simple Yes/No would be adequate. Of course, if you choose to comment at more length, it would be even better. The India page is now the second most-viewed country page (after the US) and the 15th page overall, so having a set of high quality representative pictures becomes even more imperative. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

PS I've added four more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was afraid that people would say the my selection of the 12 images was geographically biased, which they did, even though my choices reflected the bias in Indian FPs. Fearing more such complaints, and the process dragging on, I've added 24 new images to the Demographics set, making a complete set of 36 representing every state and religion in India, with the exception of native Andaman Island(er)s and Indian Jews, both, sadly, dying communities. If you'd like to mozy on over to that page in your free time and offer comments, they will certainly be appreciated. The new images are not FPs, since the first set of 12 had exhausted all the India FPs; however, they are still good hi-res images. I had to go through some 10 thousand images to find them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to mozy over when my brain is less fuzzy than just now (tired!). Ten thousand images? Now that sounds exhausting. I read some of the complaints about geographic limitations and the impossibility of showing more than a few of the apparently enormous number of ethnicities in India. Makes me wonder what other FA pages on ethnically diverse countries are like in terms of showing photos of people. Though hmm, a quick look shows not a lot of FA pages on "diverse" countries. Perhaps Peru and Indonesia. Will take a look when brain clear more is. Pfly (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes Indonesia certainly is. Peru, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. But Papua and New Guinea is probably the most ethnically (linguistically) diverse country on earth (and the lead of that page mentions it too). You go over a hill there and you're in a new language zone! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, though the PNG page is a bit lacking into photos. Totally lacking... Of just FA pages, Peru seemed likely more diverse than Nauru or Japan anyway. Canada, another FA, I thought no, but then again, maybe Newfies and Albertans should be considered ethnicities. ;) Then again they do have the Quebecois, Metis, significant indigenous folk like the Cree, etc. Anyway, I'm going to see if I can fix some recent weird edits to Yamasee before putting brain to bed with either Futurama or Richard Strauss--can't decide which would knock me out faster... Pfly (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

India

I know you were only being helpful and want to thank you for that but I just didn't want to take any chances given that I am not allowed to discuss the matter. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. And my questions were definitely answered! Since I don't know very much about the whole thing, I'll just leave it. But if you ever want a, hmm, "mediator", if that is the right word, for whatever reason, and are allowed to ask, just ask. Hope you are well. Pfly (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Mary Creek

Mary Creek has been put up for deletion. Mary Creek is a river of British Columbia. Can you change this? Mary Creek should not be deleted.Msruzicka (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I just saw that. Looks like the reason, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Creek British COlumbia, is that capital O. But the page was renamed Mary Creek. Sheesh. Pfly (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Practical Astronomy with your Calculator

I created a page called Practical Astronomy with your Calculator. The page is up for deletion. Should the page be saved? Practical Astronomy with your Calculator is an influential book which has been around a long time, it deserves mention. Can you save the page?Msruzicka (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know. I hadn't heard of the book. Do you know of any other books that describe this book as important, influential, notable, etc? That would be a start at least. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's approach to pages about books, but would bet there has been debate over it between "deletionists" and "inclusionists". A quick look turns up many pages about books I would think are less notable than Practical Astronomy with your Calculator. For example, Assassination Vacation (a book I liked, but still), A Laboratory Manual for Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy, It's Bigger Than Hip Hop, and, well, most of the category Category:American non-fiction books. And oop, I see at WP:BOOK there's a link to Wikipedia:Notability (books), which may be useful reading on the topic. If I find the time I'll take a look. Pfly (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk page stalking

I very much welcome your stalking, and would be disappointed if you took my talkpage off your watchlist. That last item on my page reminded me of what a loss Skookum1's departure was. I think those of us still around need to interact and share the work as much as possible to avoid the burnout that he had. Plus, your answers are usually better than mine! Re: watchlists: have you tried using the "view and edit watchlist" link at the very top of your watchlist page? It makes watchlist whittling a bit easier. But keep me on there please! Best regards, The Interior (Talk) 21:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Great! I kinda figured it was fine, but though to mention it anyway. I keep in contact with Skookum, mostly via Facebook, and I think he's probably better off, personally, not being here. He must check in, or hear about something here on occasion, because sometimes he asks me to look into some page or another. I'm mostly able to, but can never hope to cover all the ground he did, of course. Oh, and yea, I know about "view and edit watchlist". Also, it only takes a couple of clicks to just go to a page and unwatch it. Still, I wish one could unwatch from one's watchlist with a single click. No biggie though. Thanks for the reply! Pfly (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

India Page Final Dem Img Rotation Vote

There is currently a vote going on to decide the final images to be selected in the Demographics Image Rotation. Some new images were added to the pool. Please carefully see the new proposals and vote for your favorite images that best represent the people of India.

Please vote here.

Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

India Image Vote Results Disagreement

Hi,

Thank you for voting in the India Demographics Image Vote. I have counted the results of the vote and displayed them here. The top 8 images with the most votes were displayed.

Unfortunately, User:Fowler&fowler believes that he should be the one that gets to pick the final images, despite the fact that all of us have voted. He has called me disruptive, and when I tried to explain myself, he has reverted my explanation on the talk page twice!!! How can a user just delete someone else's comments on the Talk page?

Wikipedia consensus says that the images that most people have agreed upon should be the ones in the rotation. One user can't just pick his own images when all of us have voted.

Please post your opinion here. Thanks. Nikkul (talk)

Disingenuous?

Disingenuous how, any diffs? Zuggernaut (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I said "perhaps"--responding to other editors' "bad faith" opinion of you. I was trying to say I don't know whether you "continue to edit in somewhat disingenuous ways"--I don't follow the pages you do, for the most part, and just don't know--but even if it was true that you were "disingenuous" I wanted to point out positive things. Sorry if that post of mine came off unflatteringly, it wasn't my intent. Pfly (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand whom you were responding to since this was an original post, not a reply. I would like to let you know that it is not true that I ever edited or "continue to edit in somewhat disingenuous ways". I know that you are always trying to help out constructively and your post did not come off as unflattering. I simply spotted a discrepancy (a gross one) and thought it should be corrected. If you choose to strike out the erroneous comment, I will not complain. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the word aptly describes some complaints, but not feeling like finding some exact diff for you, have struck it and replaced instead with disruptive. Next time I feel the urge to defend you I'll try to keep my mouth shut. Pfly (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)