Hello DLinth! I am excited to see that you are a professional geographer, and I hope you will continue to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Our interests seem to overlap somewhat (see my contributions page if you like). Your contribution of precise figures for glacier lengths is particularly nice. That kind of contribution will be much more revert-proof if you provide an explicit published reference, by the way. Thanks again -- Spireguy 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits to Siachen Glacier state that the glacier is only 70 km and not 80 km. In the interest of maintaining WP:CITE official policies here, you should cite ur sources.

I did. Dlinth

Again if you want to reintroduce those edits you need to source it from a reliable publication, either online or offline. Thanks. Idleguy 05:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand that you are doing your best to portray the truth, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy that states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". You are pointing to measurements etc. that you've done (or others have) and are using it as a source which is nothing but original research which is also not accepted in Wikipedia.

Wrong. Explain to me why the three sources that I provide in the reference (you did see that, yes?) are not good enough for you: the detailed Swiss topographical map, the detailed Russian topographical map, and Google Earth imagery. When these sources are combined by a geographer with even limited expertise, virtually all doubt is removed regarding locations, the length of in this case a glacier, etc.DLinth 16:20, 07 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sources you're citing like Bharat Rakshak and Rediff while good enough for me, might not be good enough for a pakistani reader or a third party editor who might suspect a biased source being used to push this fact. If you can cite a more credible source than these, then I'm sure no one would have a problem in accepting the facts. Idleguy 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you might remember me from such article talk page discussions as Durand Line. Long story short, someone has made some major modifications to this article to the point where i'm not even sure if it's factually correct. Can you please take a moment to review the changes and do whatever you think may be necessary to bring the article back to reasonable quality (and hopefully minus the issues which came up before). Thanks. thewinchester 08:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, like to take another look at this article? Someone from an anon IP address seems to have put some serious work into it and it would be good to get another opinion on it. thewinchester 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your improvements to the Iran-Iraq boundary article that I started. Danny 09:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm a WP newbian, and I'm at a loss. I started the poll on this a week or so ago, and I agree with your conclusion that the consensus and most relevant evidence pointed to a clear move. Yet the same individual who has been fighting his "Arvandrud should be the primary name fight" for years there simply reverted your move. Can anything be done? Thanks. DLinth 18:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can tell, Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) did not participate in the move request on the talk page (except when closing it) and has not been very involved in the article. I think you may have him confused with another editor. -- tariqabjotu 22:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No confusion about Khoikhoi (talk · contribs). In fact, as experienced an editor as Khoikhoi is, he seems overly eager to relegate the consensus name for this article despite its worldwide usage. For ex., before the poll on this topic he had reverted or otherwise switched "Shatt al Arab" to "Arvandrud" or "Arvandrud/Shatt al Arab" on 1 April and 30, 28, 26 March, plus three times on 25 March. He suggested a poll, then when the evidence presented didn't "go his way", he simply reverted your move. Any suggestions for "awakening" Khoikhoi to the evidence, and for getting this article's nomenclature fixed so it no longer conflicts as it does now with most sources and reference material around the world? I "don't have a dog in this fight" other than, with my job as a geographer, it pains me to see WP articles out of step with accepted worldwide geographic nomeclature. (Keep getting logged out on my Mac here....I tried the "enable cookies" suggestion already....) DLinth 03:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, just thought i'd drop you a line. I was reading signpost this evening, and it seems that our favourite (sic) friend from the Durand Line article has ended up at ArbCom. Can I be the first person to say that i'm not suprised by this at all -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll be pleased to know - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/E104421-Tajik#Tajik_banned Thewinchester ^(talk) 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on spotting my fake article! However, the reasons you cited in the AFD discussion are incorrect. I was actually a History student, and it was an attempt to show how rapidly 'facts' and alternative histories can be created and propagated via Wikipedia. Puerile maybe, but it worked as a proof for 3 years! ----82.26.182.37 20:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (won't use my username as I am otherwise reputable with a huge number of good edits :) )Reply[reply]

Noted the change to list of territorial disputes. I was under the impression that sebatik (jointly administered) was inclusive of the Sabah dispute. The Malaysian part is administered as part of Sabah. I have also discovered three other disputes:- one is that there are a couple of islands under Tanzanian control in Lake Malawi/Nyasa. As you may know, Malawi claims all of the Lake (ref CIA World Factbook) as theirs up to the Tanzanian wet/dry line; therefore, this would include the islands. One is called Mbamba Bay Island. Check Google Earth. Not added to Wiki yet. Secondly; Wadi Haifa area on the Egypt/Sudan border is apparantly in dispute. Not included in the 'Triangle' admin line dispute. Thirdly; there is an unnamed (Canadian administered) island on Google Earth (need to zoom in) south of Cape Muzon on the Alaska/British Colombia border. The 'A-B line' runs from the wet/dry Cape Muzon boundary. This border is disputed, and the Canadian island being due south of Cape Muzon would therefore be in dispute, even if this is dormant/uncontested. I'd like your views on all the above. Second opinions help. Raymi.

Hi. Not certain but unlikely that Sebatik (about as far away from the Philippines as you can get in Sabah) is included in the Phil claim.....the WP "Sabah Dispute" article says only the eastern part of Sabah (nearest Phil) is covered by the dispute. Regardless, it is simply part of the Sabah dispute and not a separate one and thus would not be listed separately (or we'd have to start listing every island name on the Egypt-Sudan Red Sea coast Halaib triangle area, every island in the Spratlys separately, etc.)

The addition of those Lake Malawi island(s) would make sense.

Wadi Haifa is a current dispute, but probably should just be added by name as part of the Halaib Triangle.....same dispute, same treaties: The treaty or political boundary, as defined by the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of 1899, commences at the tripoint with Libya at the 25°W meridian of longitude and travels east as demarcated along the 22°N parallel of latitude until reaching the Nile River valley, where it forms a sixty-kilometer-long diversion called the Wadi Halfa or Arqin salient just north of the Sudanese town of Wadi Halfa. The salient follows down the Nile valley in a gentle northeast curve for twenty-seven kilometers, then, at approximately 22°12’12”N, cuts across the wide stream valley, then returns along the right bank until rejoining the 22°N parallel. At present, the waters of Lake Nassar (Egypt)/Lake Nubia (Sudan) branch out into the formerly dry ravines beyond the salient, depending upon the reservoir’s water levels. The gap at the base of the salient along the 22°N parallel is almost thirteen kilometers wide.

Despite the 1903 agreement language stating merely "Cape Muzon", there is some precedent for a "cape" or "point" being defined as the most protruding point on any island close to the mainland. That was the case with Cape Muzon, as I'm looking at (not available online) a detailed 1914 "Canada-Alaska Boundary Survey" surveyor's map/chart by the Canadian Dept. of the Interior which clearly locates point "A" (the western terminus of the Canadian claimed Dixon Channel international boundary) not on the mainland (actually the big Dall Island, Alaska's southermost big island) but on the southern tip of the tiny island to which I believe you refer (on Google Earth centered at 54-39-46N 132-41-04W.) So that island would not be in dispute, leaving this simply as a maritime dispute, not a land dispute. The surveyor's chart points out that the shorelines used are at low water; at high water, that tiny island is actually divided into three. There are no other points above even low water south of Point A. The surveyor placed a reference monument 162.5 ft. NW of Point A. (Probably not unlike the case of the 48 state's westernmost point, where there is a little island linked by a sand bar at low and mid tide to Cape Alava (Olympic Nat'l Park) and where the bronze survey marker is not right down in the rocky tidal zone but up on higher ground a bit.)

Keep up the thorough research!DLinth 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raymi again here; will be adding the Mbamba Bay Islands in due course. I think Sebatik should be added, still, as it involves a third party. Happy with the Cape Muzon explanation, also Green Island. Wadi Haifa; part of the same dispute, I grant you, but not contiginous with the Hlaib Triangle; I think it should be listed separately, myself, but I won't be adding something until I am 99% sure. Thank you once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.39.212 (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good. Even if "part of the same dispute", if non-contiguous, I certainly can see where one may want to add it separately (Wadi Haifa.) But Sebatik (and lots of other islands) are contiguous (separated by only very narrow water bodies) from Sabah, so I would think that only "Sabah" should stay in as a separate entry. All the other islands along the Sabah coast (not just Sebatik) could (but would not have to) be listed under the text for the Sabah dispute. Glad you noticed my Green Island work! DLinth 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These seems to be quite a mish mash of the variation of the interpretations of the extent of the Indian and Southern oceans - and none of the articles seem to adequately or sufficiently explain the overall issues - I do think it needs more discussion - at the australia, antartica, indian ocean and southern ocean talk pages - i wonder whatever happened to the ocean project - as this same issue occurs on internal waters inside indonesia - (almost like Timor being in the pacific ocean etc - not literally but it gets that far) SatuSuro 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a large amount of discussion and explanation of this on the Southern Ocean page.

You've got the right adjective for many geographic facets of WP entries....a mish mash. Fortunately (though I'm not quite sure why, as hydrography is but one part of defining oceans and other water bodies) this IHO organization seems to have nearly universal regard as to this authority (oceans, other international tidal water bodies, their names, and, much less so, their extent. So the water from the Australian coast south to the 60 degrees south line is called, with authority, the Indian Ocean. I noticed that appears even on the Tasmania WP map, the most extreme corner of the Indian Ocean. But because so many Australian maps and sources have their own habit of calling it the Southern Ocean, that term keeps creeping in to WP (and should be removed.) Good question about the ocean project.DLinth 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I beg to differ - OK so the crunch is you may well be adept at finding dubious secondary sources that put the indian ocean across the bass straight (or others vice versa) - and claiming the other is wrong. I think the whole thing needs the oversight of a third party in a place where the issue can be clearly outlined and explained somewhere in wikipedia - rather than removed. cheers SatuSuro 23:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nat'l Geo, Times Atlas (UK-world's #1 atlas), Websters Geog Dictionary, CIA World Factbook - does not necessarily mean sources that are necessarily correct btw - there is always the possibility that a range of errors - in law and convention may well be perpetrated - numerous facts in the CIA factbook have been identified as patent nonsense SatuSuro 23:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's see....you characterize the world's most respected atlas, the U.S. most respected geographic authority, Websters, and the CIA FactBook as "dubious sources." While ignoring the fact that the world community (and WP community) recognizes the IHO as the authority over ocean body names/extents (extent as in their decision that the S. Ocean is from 60 S to Antarctica, not 35S (Australia's S. shores.) I've not seen you produce any contradictory sources or recognized authorities which, until you or other do so, makes any "third party oversight" pointless, yes?DLinth 17:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a new article that all of this conversation points to - probably best to continue further conversation at its talk page - thanks for your responses so far - I have no faith in the CIA factbook as a genuine or reliable source - and I personally consider atlases in the end as secondary sources - however we are best served by the Australia and the Southern ocean article talk page - probably best there. Cheers SatuSuro 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed your changes for Panama in the transcontinental country article. There is no clear consensus on the boundary dividing the mainlands of North America and South America. If most Panamanians consider their whole country to be in North America, despite 45% living east of the Panama Canal, that is largely due to a desire to keep themselves from being associated with Colombia, the nation from which they gained independence. In terms of flora and fauna, Panama east of the Canal, being mostly dense tropical rainforest, is more like NW Colombia than Costa Rica and Panama west of the Canal. Meanwhile, I added superscript twos to the charts to state the condition under which the Panama numbers are approximately correct. Heff01 23:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, but there is clear consensus and has been for a long, long time. Nat'l Geo, Times Atlas (UK-world's #1 atlas), Websters Geog Dictionary, CIA World Factbook, and virtually all respected geographic sources say Panama is wholly in N. Amer. It's not a matter of flora/fauna (then the Sinai is in Africa; Caucasus Mtns., etc.), it's not a matter of geology. Continents are defined primarily by geographers. Those analyzing the vegetation, history, Panamanian opinion polls, politics, demographics, etc. can develop their own categorizations of their own regions, but "continents" are primarily physical geography (not geoology)constructs and lie in the purview of those authorities I listed above. To not include Panama wholly within N. America puts WP wholly out of step with most authorities.

Hi. I have 6 more additions to list of territorial disputes:- Eastern Anatolia:- this is apparantly a claim included in the Armenian constitution. I found list on the net, ref included. Kulsuzov Island:- Taiwan disputes this with Russia. It was a Chinese island awarded to Russia after the boundary agreement between the PRC and Russia. The ROC does not recognize the PRC, so they dispute this. Wiki ref. Khuriya Muriya:- this was added to on disputed islands on Wiki, and I have added this as a matter of course. Lake Constance. A well-known dispute. References all over the internet. Mbanza Bay:- as previously discussed with you. Syria/Lebanon disputes: sourced off the internet, these are apparantly not Shebaa Farms-related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.39.212 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. My colleague next door says that

1) Lake Constance was settled quite some time ago, and there is a definite, agreed boundary in the lake. Many of the internet references are either dated, or they refer to disputes over tonnes of fish, gallons of water, etc.....not over sovereignty or territory....can't start listing those types of disputes or we'd have nearly every bdy.!

2) The Armenian constitution claim is a pervasive internet rumor. There is a "world constituions" internet site where one can read it; it says something about Greater Armenia in history but makes no specific claims now and in fact the Armenian govt. reaffirmed that as they were moving toward independence c. 1991.

As for Khuriya Muriya (more hits on Kuria Muria), we can't seem to find any evidence that it is disputed (by Yemen? who?)....Yemen and Oman settled all their territory squabbles in 1997 with a treaty. If you've uncovered anything on that, definitely write back here (or include a "throw-away" old email address here and I'll email directly, get an email address you'd prefer, and we can correspond that way if you like.)

I got zero hits on that Kulsuzov Island and have nothing on it here.....spelling? Arguably, now (2004) that China and Russia have settled all of their boundary disputes, including islands, any Taiwanese claim would in many ways be moot.

I was surprised that Lebanon-Syria was not in there already (the parts other than Shaba'a Farms) as that is one of the world's least well defined boundaries (no treaty) and modern Syrian tourist ministry and other official maps clearly show divergences from how most other maps show it.....though never by more than 3 km except by 8 km in one place near "Deir al Ashayr" (several spellings.) The French mapping of the 1930's and 1940's is the only authoritative source. I would definitely add that as well as the Malawi claimed islets along the Tanzania coast. Keep up the research!DLinth 15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya DLinth -- yea I've come across a great many questionable claims of geographic superlatives (longest X in Y, 3rd deepest N in M of type P, Q, and R, etc). I often correct them or change to something like "one of the longest..." instead of "4th longest..." or whatever, jokingly saying "superlatives are the 3rd leading cause of misinformation on wikipedia!" I've slacked off a bit, but the Altamaha River page is on my watchlist, so I saw the edit. By chance I've also seen and tried to fix claims of how many rivers pass through the Cascades. The Columbia River page long said it was the only one. The Klamath and Pit river pages said there were 2 or 3, or even 4 counting the Fraser. Anyway, since I'd lately been looking into the Pit-Sacramento, it occurred to me as a possible contender in the "longest river completely within a state" competition. But I don't recall ever seeing an actual, reliable list of such rivers, so I asked about the source. It's not a big deal though, just curiosity.

And by the way, I have also seen the James River of Virginia cited as the longest completely within a state -- in quite a few places! At some point the wikipedia page on the river dropped the claim, but had a bullet point under "Trivia" that read: The James River is one of the longest waterways that is wholly contained in one state (Virginia) in the United States. The Trinity and Neches Rivers in Texas and the Innoko in Alaska are longer. Since this was misleading at best, I deleted it. My half-serious theory is that most of these kind of claims originate in Chambers of Commerce and other boosterism organizations. It seems that every town, city, county, etc, says they have the biggest something of some kind. My favorite very-wrong claim was on the Lake Winnipesaukee page, which was said to be the "largest lake completely contained within a state". After shown false it became "largest lake completely contained within a state in New England". But that failed too. The sources for the claims were, if I remember right, local Winnipesaukee Chambers of Commerce and the like.

Another minor campaign of mine is on river pages that say things like "this river is one of the very few north-flowing rivers in the world". The only time a page I created got deleted was when, in frustration, I made a page listing as many "north-flowing" rivers I could find, to link to when a page made a claim like that. It was a stupid idea on my part and deserved to be deleted. But in any case, it's a decent example of how ranking natural geographic features by length, size, etc, can be done badly, with questionable methods, then stated as fact. Not to mention issues of scale changing the measurements and so on. But sorry to babble on -- just background on my Campaign to Reduce Superlative Misinformation on Wikipedia! (and why good sources of such info are of interest) Always nice to chat with a fellow geographer here, cheers! Pfly 07:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pfly, not only do I agree on all counts, but when I get time too, I have spent more effort than anywhere else on checking and correcting geographic superlative claims which, as you say, are so often way off base. The classic "north-flowing river" claim pops up everywhere and is not only completely fictitious (many of the world's longest rivers in addition to the Nile are north flowing such as the Lena, Ob, Irtysh, McKenzie, Yenisei, etc.) but defies common sense. Keep up the good work.DLinth (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your edits on Shebaa. I have since made some additional ones to better state the facts that I had included and you had changed/removed. Please look at my recent edits and let me know. I tried to access your UN refs, but couldnt, kept getting an error message; i changed the things they recc'd w/o success. Looks like my connection is too slow or a security problem from my location. I dunno.

I spent several hours on Google Earth (GE) prior to making my previous re-write of the lede section. I also used this [1] as a source for the armistice and road mentions (note disclaimer on boundaries at bottom left(?)), as well as those included in the Shebaa article and other maps available within Wiki. I could generally map/GE-identify all UN-ref'd points, 'just over a kilometer northwest of Banias', being Wadi al Asal or the switch-back coming out of the wadi. The HarDov ref (circular link that I removed) was more difficult, I assume it is the military post at about el 1485(if I remember the el right). The one I am still having trouble with is the 'traditional Lebanon-Syrian border 3.4 km east of Al Ghajar'. I could not locate anything that was map/GE identifiable and at 'the foot of the hills'. Can you check that one?

As one prof Geo-whatever to another, I appreciate your involvement and particularly like your reply-post of 07Dec06, above. Have you had any other problems along those lines which are accompanied by 'and therefore constitutes WP:OR? I can see that as a potential problem with people who read words and skip the maps. Also, how familiar are you with riparian/water rights relative to border issues? thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

D, Thanks so much, tho I am still looking at it. As, I suspected, the area (Leb vs Syr) was a water issue issue and thalweg is the word that says it, pretty much tho not absolutely. The next issue, usage, where it falls vs where it flows, is one that the locals must decide. Lack of settlement means it is used downstream as it has since. Development in the area added to troubles RE '67 war. With the topo as it is 'farms' always seemed unusual. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

D, concerning St. Lucia, I had to get lucky once, it was Jan-May and the HQ people were jealous; to even things out, I spent the next two winters in Alaska. My thermal coefficient seemed to average out over several years.

Thanks for your information, its a big help, and made more minor edits; take a look. First, I believe we have the same location for the Har Dov facility and everything is pretty close to being correct as far as the information we have is concerned. The turning point south of El Majidiye is easily recognizable on the maps, but less clear on Google earth, because it contains several turns. My big question remains on the southwestern border, at the foot of the mountains and basically the elevation which the border generally follows. That comes down to a question of where ‘the 1946 Moughr Shab’a-Shab’a boundary’ is ‘until reaching the thalweg of the Wadi al-Aasal’, and I know some map somewhere has that. It is not a biggie.

Using my resources development background, it looks like the French actually had a plan. Splitting the border where they did allowed Syria to keep the land for an easy overland route south of the mountains. The armistice line indicates to me that they fought over it, and the water. My question on the southwestern limits of the Shebaa Farms has to do with how much thinking they did concerning future water resource development plans. Since water is scarce, these plans go back a considerable amount of time, based on what I know. From an engineering standpoint, the lower the elevation the cheaper the project would be, but then there’s also the elevation of the land you have to deliver it to. I did notice a couple things, the first is the occurrence of the fault, which is quite apparent. Faults tend to complicate water flow especially since there are springs nearby at Banays, the next valley to the east, and at Tel Dan located in the flats, and just north of the armistice line, on GE with lots of pictures taken. I was surprised by the lack of development on Wadi al-Aasal, based on the size of the valley; I will bet that it has high flow surface drainage only. The 1966 map was a big help to identify some of the remnants I had seen on GE, especially the pipeline route, which you can follow easily; also the old trench lines(?) on both sides of the border between Ghagar and the mentioned TP to the east. The TP near the switchback (on GE) also has border-like(?) ‘remnant’ going up the slope to the ridge line.

Taking a look on GE also brought up one question. If you take a look at the map locations of villages, almost none exist as they did in 1966, Moughr Shab’a is a prime example. My question; if you take a look at old village locations, is the use of the word ‘unpopulated‘ correct or is there some indication in your eyes that the word ‘depopulated’ might be better. I don’t really want to get into that but I would appreciate if you could take a look and give me your SWAG.

I would also like to move the link coordinates of the area to an less precise, even-minute location, 33°17’N, 35°42’E, at about the middle of the area. The current one is too exact, too far NE and out of the area. I could not figure out how. One last Shebaa thought, is there any way you can crop your map, add ‘indicated boundaries are approx’ and replace the current Shebaafarms.png. That is too much hightech wiz-bang for me‎.

I also added paras 16 and 71 to Ghajar, since I was in the neighborhood. I am not ready/willing to add any other of the doozies in the report, just yet. I like articles like Shebaa to cool down. I might just pass it on to the 2006 Lebanon war talk page. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good edits to both Shebaa and Ghagar, while you were in the neighborhood. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DLinth!
We thank you for uploading Image:Sheba Farms 1966map.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a quick look at the credits for the prev image in the article. On the surface, and I dont know too much in that area, it looks like both maps come from the same Leb army map series (1966). It seems that what is OK for one should be as good for the other that you worked on. I didn't see that you had commented back.

I saw this, added my professional two cents. Got any loose change? Also, I did a major rewrite here[2], that has stood up quite well[3]. Would appreciate your professional eyeball. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. same Leb army map series (1966). Nice, accurate work on Golan Hts...., and most importantly, on the no original research page, thanks for contributing common sense and clarity of thought...well done on that old bugaboo!DLinth (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for explaining the discrepcancy in the naming of the ocean of Western Australia's southern border, but I feel the point was beyond the scope of the article. The explanation would be an improvement to the articles you linked, perhaps changing the leading text in the state's article if it is potentially confusing. Cheers, cygnis insignis 17:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply. A rephrasing of the intro may be useful, but the annotation is distracting from this key part of the article. I also think that Australia and the Southern Ocean should be merged to other articles, then deleted. Why have you not removed the reference to the ocean altogether? cygnis insignis 18:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for resolving the long standing issue on Flanagan Island. Funnily enough, I had just made a trip down to the Land Registry in the British Virgin Islands and come to the same view (they had no registered titles for the island), but it is pretty difficult to cite "my visit to the Land Registry in the BVI" as a source). Anyhow, many thanks for clearing that up. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm hardly on wikipedia any more, but a quick message to ask about the above dispute. I don't think ANYONE has put any entries for this in, and I'm wondering if you can? Regards, Ray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.39.212 (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you know I spend a lot of time trying to hunt down border/territorial disputes.... I'm not much on Wikipedia these days, but I have a few ideas, I would like your views on....some of these are pervasive internet rumours....:-

Sudan/Eritrea borders: (undemarcated) Hong Kong SAR/PRC: apparantly some areas in dispute? Sikkimese former enclaves in Tibet: (Bhutan, it is acknowledged, had some enclaves that were 'annexed' by the PRC, I have heard that Sikkim did too.)

Mount Everest: apparantly the demarcation is in dispute....a bit like situations regarding Mont Blanc and Baitou Mountain? Helen Island/Reef: I have some maps at home printed by the same country that show this island within Palau and Indonesia! Iraq/Saudi Arabia border: (undemarcated) Serbia/Montenegro border: this needs investigation, apparantly some in dispute. Russian military installations in Crimea: again more investigation needed, apparantly disputes here in addition to Sarych. Certain Burmese islands: I was doing some investigation into a couple of Burmese islands recently that were 'in dispute' (I had limited access via some JSTOR documents); my computer then abruptly stopped working.

I'm wondering if you can provide me with any insight or information regarding ANY of these areas.

Thanks, Ray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.39.212 (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have found what I consider an inaccurate map[4]. It is currently used on several pages. The red line greatly understates the eastern and northern extent of the proposed Zionist borders described in the statement[5] and shown on a map presented to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The map, however, is not available at that same site, but one is available here[6]. Another with current borders is here[7].

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the stippled pattern on the first map relative to the description in the statement, or the red line on the map from WRMEA. I note, however, that the proportions of both these others, relative to the located cities and the eastern and northern limits are comparable with other maps at hand, specifically ‘Holy Land’ from the Dec. 1989 issue of National Geographic, which also shows the Hejaz Railway.

I note that Sidon is considerably farther north than (not) indicated on the questionable map, and about the same lat. as Damascus. Sidon is about 37km north of the small tit jutting into the Med at Tyre. El Quneitra, currently at the edge of the UN buffer zone on the Golan Hgts, is well within the stippled area shown on the two other maps. At N lat 32°, just south of TelAviv and north of Amman, the railway scales about 40 km east of the Jordan River; on the questionable map, the red line scales only about 20km. I have yet to locate any of the other noted locations (except Al-Bireh, Lebanon, which has some other similar name usages (Wadi el-Taym)). I have found the referenced ‘Beit Jenn’, in Syria indicated as ‘Bayt Jinn’ on the NatGeo map, and east of the current buffer zone.

Could you please use your professional eyeball and comment on my observation concerning the accuracy of this map. Secondly, in your estimation, which of the maps more closely represents the intended boundaries, as described by words in the statement. Thirdly, if I am correct, how do I go about correcting this wiki-map; any ideas.

If you read the statement and its natural resources references, it is apparent we could add some more lines to our previous article collaborations. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really want to warn you but the edit you made seemed to be original research but there is no source backing up such claim. Please add a verifiable and reliable source. Bidgee (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comment that one of my edits "seemed to be" original research. I've found that if a distance measurement is of the type that could be verified by any user or any editor with any atlas or many mapping sites on line, then a large majority of editors, administators, etc. do not classify that in any way as original research (and don't require listing any source such as "Times Atlas" and Times gazetteer.) If they were, then 4/5 of WP geography ("10 miles east of.....border Pacific Ocean for 100 miles.....4 miles off the Northern Territories coast"......etc., etc. would have to be deleted,yes?

As far as the extreme points article, I was surprised a couple (?) years ago when I saw "most remote city" added by someone. ("Perth"....I wasn't sure the category fit in the article at all.) I then added Honolulu. I think you would agree that if Auckland at 1 million pop. had a 900,000 pop. city nearby, then it wouldn't be listed as "remote", right?

So where is the "cut-off?" Common sense (and a dictionary definition of "remote") would dictate that it would be lower than an allowance for "big" cities like Wellington and Christchurch (I got to *travel to there and Tasmania...outstanding!) For a long time until a few weeks ago, most readers/potential editors of this remote points article apparently seemed to feel that the proximity of a couple cities nearing half a million to Auckland disqualify Auckland from "remote" status, when Perth and Honolulu have no cities over 50,0000 (!) or so pop. anywhere near them. I think most do. I sure do....makes sense, yes?

Comes down to a definition of "remote", I suppose..... But by any definition, "remote" certainly does not mean nearby(by Perth-Honolulu standards!) 400,000 pop. cities, so I reverted back to the way it has been for the past year or two. Hope you agree, as I've seen how much good work you've done, esp. with maps (I like your NSW & N. Terr. maps!).....There are so few of us professional cartographers around (I'm have only done a couple for WP but have been a prof cartographer in the US for 30 years) that we need to work together! (Fewer cartographers yet in the "not religious, no smoking, recycling category.....loved your descriptions!)DLinth (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry but verifiable and reliable sources are needed as it's still original research. When you say any "that could be verified by any user or any editor with any atlas or many mapping sites on line" well not all atlas and mapping software (Online, Nav or on a computer) are the same and distances can be incorrect. Another thing to take in account it populations (Say in Australia the most remote cities Perth has 1,500,000, Darwin has 120,000 and both are Capital cities of their state/territory) which everyone would disagree with which is why a site, report, book or document (which doesn't have to be online) needs to be cited. I do agree with your thoughts on remoteness but I'm keeping a negative view (IE: Not having a POV) on this however I've had people disagree on this and having it sourced with a verifiable and reliable source would fix this issue once and hopefully for all. Bidgee (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, most editors and users are aware or should be that measurements from professional GIS and mapping systems or large scale atlas pages/maps are both verifiable and are from reliable sources. They all use data provided by professional cartographic data publishers or national mapping agencies (that's most of the map data you see on line) and are as verifiable and accurate to the nearest km at large scale (close enough for an encylopedia including WP)and more reliable than many cited books or sites (and then some!) Such measurements are most certainly not original research, are found unsourced everywhere on WP (i.e., "Bass Strait is X miles across at its narrowest"), and are verifiable and repeatable (by anyone).

Yes, it would be helpful to find a sensible and precise definition of "remote" or "remote city" but I'm guessing that's not likely. Kransky's definition below apparently allows for a 999,999 pop. city to be 50 km away from a 1 million pop. city with the latter called "remote" which is obviously not correct; he insists that two nearby 400,000 pop cities don't disqualify Auckland as being "remote" with which I disagree. Kransky is right on target and quite below with his comment regarding MapInfo and ESRI applications and projections. I love his "sandgroper" term....I'm not sure here in Maryland we have any good term, other than the ignominy of being so close to Wash., DC (especially over the past 8 years!)DLinth (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day Bidgee and Dlinth, firstly let me reveal my interests and just say I am a sandgroper, but I am also a Wikipedian with a commitment to order and integrity.

I had earlier thought that Perth was the most isolated city in the world with a population over a million (with the closest city of comparable size being Surabaya or Jakarta). In fact neither fact was true, which I confirmed by using the online GIS application Mapcrow. I believe that using the *same* GIS application should confirm distances and any comparisions between different pairs of cities. And anyway, from my own experience of using MapInfo and ESRI I do not expect there to be a significant difference in measuring distances using different applications (unless somebody has been careless in selecting the wrong projection, something I would not expect if you are going to the trouble of producing an online application).

Nevertheless Bidgee, you may well be a professional cartographer who could trump my five years experience and DLith's 30, and may well have some considered views on cyclic projection and error propagation. Kransky (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't think the Virginia article should include the note about Wingina in introduction. There is no good evidence to back this up, and its primarily a connection made by later historians. The connection with Elizabeth isn't great either, but most can agree on her involvement, and that's the official line anyways. I put up my thoughts on the talk page.--Patrick «» 03:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I noticed through 80.68.39.212's talk page that you are also involved in this article and I have a question. In the article, bold text means one claimant's full control. But, when all the countries are in bold text, what does that mean? I have asked 3 other people. One didn't know, and the other 2 have not responded. Please answer this question. Thanks Griffinofwales (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the bottom of this article, it says This Eritrea location article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. But in the article it says that the border commission decided that it was in Ethiopia. Please explain. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. As you may have noticed, I've reverted the edits by Ugandanpatriot several times, but as soon as I do it, he/she reverts them back. Personally I'm not very interested in being involved with the article, not least because as a Kenyan I'm possibly not the best person to deal with the issue. Anyway, I could notice admins and ask them to solve this one. Julius Sahara (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your positive contribution to this article. Its nice to see people who are fact checking instead of staking a claim via Wikipedia. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way you write stuff in the article is very pro-Pakistani. The intro does not need to start as "the poorly marked border" and details about surveys were done in 1894-5 should be explained in the history section. "The treaty was a single-page agreement signed on November 12, 1893" is only talking about the 1893 Durand Line Treaty which is mentioned before hand. Stick to the main points, which are: Afghanistan does not recognize the border. The people of Afghanistan and the Pashtuns of Pakistan were not involved in the creation of the Durand Line. If you keep that in mind then the article will apear with a neutral tone. You should realize this is a disputed border but your edits are trying to say there is nothing to dispute. Also, don't remove my faitful edits. If you need sources tag the article with "citation needed".--119.73.1.212 (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instead of having an edit war, lets work out our differences here on what should be put in the Maryland Route 4 article. I will go over the edits I made to your revisions from earlier today (1-3). Then I will go over your more recent edits (4-5).

1. The interchange with Plummer Lane is a right-in/right-out interchange, not an intersection. Also, the term "limited-access freeway" is redundant; "freeway" is sufficient.
2. I unlinked Pennsylvania Avenue because that road is already linked in the Lead.
3. The Anne Arundel County Highway Location Reference (HLR) (#3 in the reference list) states the road name as Mt. Zion Road. Google Maps states the road name as Mt. Zion-Marlboro Road. The HLR is a more reputable source than Google Maps, so the name of the road is listed by what the HLR calls it. If you have a source for this road's name that is equal to or more reputable than an SHA document, please use it in the article.
4. I am not sure what your source is, but the MD 4 divided highway was first extended east from DC to Meadows, not to Mellwood two miles to the east. The extension to Mellwood occurred later. If you can prove otherwise, lets see it.
5. I am going to argue against your inclusion of watershed information on three counts. First, information about the watershed is trivial because this article is about a highway, not a river. Beyond the two crossings of the river, MD 4 does not follow the river at all and being in the Patuxent watershed has nothing to do with the design or history of the road. Second, the information about the watershed is placed in the Notes column of the Junction list. The Notes column of the Junction list is for expressing information that cannot be explained or clarified in the other columns. The Patuxent watershed has nothing to do with these intersections. Third, you are not providing sources for this information. You mentioned in your edit note that watershed information is widely available from federal and state websites and maps. If it is so easy, then why did you not reference this information? In Wikipedia, you need to reference any information that may be questioned.

I am going to give you 24 hours from this timestamp to put forth your arguments on these changes. If I do not hear from you, I am going to revert the changes in #4 and #5. Viridiscalculus (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow....One thing for sure...you care much more than I do about this. A bit of advice, if I may, since you're a new editor.....Two things above will tend to turn other editors against you, even as good as your research and work appears to be: Language/deadlines such as "I am going to give you 24 hours..." and "Lets (SIC) see it...." You seem to do very detailed research, so why risk "ruffling feathers" in your first message to a fellow editor (me) above who merely suggested a few additions and corrections?

Secondly, you won't get cooperation from fellow editors like me with presumptions that your one database list source above (for a road name, Mt. Zion-Marlboro Rd.) is somehow "more reputable" than other sources such as, in this case, every road sign on the road, the county property maps, every road atlas I've seen (ADC, etc.), Google Maps, etc.....Sorry, but this is one of those numerous errors of long-standing on the state road map (and in your data base.) It's fine if you don't want to check additional sources when a conflict is pointed out to you (as I did), but simply reverting it on a false presumption is not what you really wanted to do, is it?

And finally, no, sources are not necessary and not used in WP or in tradtional encyclopedia for facts that are derived from simply looking at, or even just measuring off of public domain maps such as from US federal and state maps, images, and atlases.....That is, "London is in southeast England" or "London is 20 miles from the mouth of the Thames" are public domain facts verifiable by anyone looking at a map or Google Earth imagery or any number of other sources.....no sources given in WP, as with some other geographic "widely-accepted, easily verifiable by all" geographic facts (road signs would fall under this too, I'd say, but feel free to add that as a source if you'd like.

BTW, not that I really care, but why your urge to delete a couple paragraphs on watersheds in an article on a MD state road, when the MD SHA (and counties too) have been falling all over themselves lately erecting "such and such watershed" signs all along their highways?DLinth (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that my tone was confrontational and overbearing. I let my frustration with the changes you made get the best of me. For that, I apologize, and I will try to be more cordial in my tone.

I looked deeper into the issue of the name of MD 408, and I am willing to reconsider my stance. I take Google Maps data with a grain of salt because often the data will be wrong or there will be conflicts. There are many instances where a route number is shown on a route that has not been numbered in decades or no route number is shown on a route that has been numbered a long time. Sometimes a road name is completely wrong or there are multiple road names for the same stretch of highway. However, other sources, such as the HLR, are not perfect. I went so far as to look at intersections of MD 408 in Google Streetview; I found some street signs do say Mt. Zion-Marlboro Road, as you assert. I have not seen the county property maps or a recent ADC atlas, so I am unfamiliar with what street name those maps show, but I can check the latter the next time I am in a bookstore that sells them.

However, while I make the presumption that my source is the most reputable source, you seem to be confused on what constitutes a proper source for a Wikipedia article. You mention "every road sign on the road" as a source; you cannot cite the road signs as a source because that is original research. Your observations are not verifiable from someone who does not live in the area, whereas someone in another state can look at an atlas, Google Maps, property maps, etc. because those documents can be copied and redistributed.

You also make the assertion that certain facts are self-evident and do not need sources. However, you need to recognize that there is a continuum of self-evidence, and the standard, fluid as it is, is that information that is likely to be questioned should be sourced. I will provide some examples of this concept. The statements "London is in southeast England" or "London is 20 miles from the mouth of the Thames" are unlikely to be questioned. The only issue I see is someone might question the mileage in the second statement. Compare the statements "MD 4 runs from Leonardtown to California within St. Mary's County" and "MD 4 is a two-lane, 45 mph road from Leonardtown to California within St. Mary's County." The information in the first statement is unlikely to be questioned. The information in the second statement contains specifics that beg the question "How do you know that?" To claim the speed limit and lane status as fact without sources, including "the road signs say so," is original research, so I strive to back up these facts with a source.

Now, lets look at your statements concerning the Patuxent River. The statement "MD 4 crosses the Patuxent River twice" is unlikely to be questioned. The statement "MD 4 spends about 60 miles in the Patuxent River watershed" is more likely to be questioned, as it has been. Note that I do not disagree with your statement, as I am familiar with the area and understand the watersheds. However, someone who is not familiar with the area will question the veracity of your statement unless you back it up with a source. I ask for sources for your statement because I recognize most other people do not have the knowledge I have related to that statement, so it needs to be better supported. For instance, how do you verify with a good degree of certainty that MD 4 enters or leaves the Patuxent watershed in a particular spot? Normal atlases do not show watershed boundaries; you would need a specialized atlas, one that is not easily available to anyone who may want to check your assertion. Unless a person unfamiliar with the watersheds is directed toward that information or is assured that source exists by the source being presented, they may think you are making the fact up.

For more information on when you should cite your sources, I suggest looking through Wikipedia:Citing sources. Looking back, 24 hours was not a reasonable timeframe to expect a response to my initial message, so I will allow a week for your response before I remove the unsourced statements that I questioned in the MD 4 article. There are other issues with your statements, but I can address them later if necessary. Finally, when you respond, please do not do so on my user page. Viridiscalculus (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with most of the above....keep up the good work. One exception: Reading road signs (a SHA or A.A. County "publication" is not "original research" any more than reading an SHA data base or reading a map, and I know a great number of WP editors who agree and edit accordingly. See below.

As for the increasing interest by Md and some other states in placing "Now entering such and such watershed" signs on their highways, including Calvert Co. (Parkers Creek watershed sign for one on Rt. 4), the sources for watershed boundaries are the USGS quads which do show anything and everything necessary for watersheds; of the many thousands of those produced, I believe 100% are posted on various sites and a kml is even available to display them over Google Earth imagery. Other sources (State watershed maps) available too.....Again, there are certain types of information (geographic information often) which governments, universities, etc. simply do not present in written form, but do so in graphic form (maps, etc.) posted on line or published.......To suggest that an entire class of information like that, one always found in traditional encyclopedias, is somehow original research and not verifiable is simply not in line with WP policies and most editors...and I don't think you really mean to suggest that.

In other words, whether it's in widely available written OR GRAPHIC (maps, imagery) sources, published by established entities such as govt. agencies or atlas-map producers, then it's not only not "original research" to place measurements or clearly visible info from said sources into WP, but it's the right thing to do, rather than to withhold that "solid" info because it's in graphic form in a source, not in words......

All encyclopedic info is not found in words alone, and info can be derived from graphics and images without having that graphic-image uploaded to the article. The "Churchill was seated between Stalin and Roosevelt in their photo from Yalta" line is not "original research" any more than "the center Frederick is x road miles from the center of Baltimore" even though there may be no source that actually says either in writing.

Interesting that you found some signs readable on StreetView....I hadn't thought of that...good idea!DLinth (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, At at the Radcliffe Award article you deleted a section about a disputed island which arose and subsequently sunk below water. I am not sure if deleting it is the right thing to do from a historical point of view. In initiated a discussion on the talk page there. Please come let me know your reasoning or any relevant precedents or guidelines. Thanks. Ajobin (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aye, noticed changes in e.g. Karakoram Pass, Nathu La etc. Please kindly provide edit summaries as per WP:FIES, thanks. --Rayshade (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou for your kind words!

There is not any primary source information on the Jamaican claim. If I remember correctly, I think I was only able to cite the Jamaican claim back to this one website from a university, which said "...and Bajo Nuevo, at least, is claimed by Jamaica." I don't think I was able to confirm its claim to Serranilla, although not for lack of trying.

With regards to Honduras, it is true that the maritime boundary leaves Serranilla to Colombia, but the bank is still mentioned by name in the Constitution as part of Honduras. With the Constitution being the highest legal authority in any state, the claim is technically still in place until it is changed. It might be worth explaining the descrepancy with the maritime boundary in the notes section though. Best regards, Rennell435 (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Patuxent River. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Specifically, why did you revert here? Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article has had bridges grouped by counties for some time....don't know why, I'm not partial to that....But last edit by anon. editor dropped out title for one set of counties, leaving in the other two....inconsistent. BTW, dozens and dozens more bridges connecting the upriver counties, so inappropriate to add just one as the anon. editor did....he should either add them all, or change title to "here's one of many bridges between the upstream counties...I just felt like adding this one!"DLinth (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia articles related to orienteering. If you are interested in orienteering, you might want do discover WikiProject Orienteering, a collaboration area and open group of editors. --Kslotte (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the Armenia discussion for my reply. MosMusy (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DLinth. Regarding "views held by some", such as the "view held by Wikipedia user MosMusy", but also the "Meso-Caucasus" thing, I can understand that you are reluctant to dive into the ugliness that are wiki-disputes. Needless to say, people like User:MosMusy are part of the problem, not the solution. The solution in this case is policy-enforcing admins, but this is ugly business, as the ilk of MosMusy will not just politely stay away once they have been shown the door.

But as a reader with expert knowledge, it would already be of invaluable help if you just slapped a ((cn)) template next to such claims, so the attention of other editors will be drawn to it. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good advice which I will endeavor to follow.DLinth (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure where I every made such a good impression on you, or how I did, but thank you very much for saying what you did. It's very encouraging to hear! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd appreciate if you'd note a preference for the map on Georgia (country). The current one is fine positionwise, but perhaps not as appealing as it could be. I posted two other options in the talk page, if you could say whether you prefer one of those options or the current one, that would be great. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The map that was there wasn't appearing right, so I've switched to the global map for now. Do you know what happened to the other map? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of political and geographic borders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reunion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Elk River (Maryland) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Eastern Shore and Watershed

List of political and geographic borders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dependencies and Seas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear DLinth:

Thank you for your note. In answer to your request, I feel obliged to inform you that I do not concur with your point of view. Territorial disputes, in my opinion, include sea, land and, also, air spaces (see Freedoms of the air). Many bilateral and multilateral conventions deal with matters as the use of radio and television channels, for example, agreements concerning frequency modulation broadcasting (see Border blaster) that cross over into foreign territory. Such disputes, since are generally solved via an agreement, almost never become permanent or lasting contentious matters between states. As for the EEZ and the continental shelf, they also involve territories and, therefore, sovereign rights which could be part of a dispute. That does not mean that I do not understand your concern about the possible extension and growth of the page on the list of territorial disputes. In any case, I consider that neither settled (historical) disputes nor disputes between a state and its sub national entities, or between sub national entities should be in the same list, and that each one of them deserve a page of their own. Sincerely, --Estaurofila (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of islands by name (C) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dependency

List of islands by name (N) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dependency

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes there are a few minor treaties signed with polities not listed that by their criteria would equate to diplomatic recognition, i'll have to go through my sources and find copies of the treaties before i send them an email, but i know of a few off the top of my head that they dont have.XavierGreen (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know this isn't the place to discuss these, but I wish to say a quick "hello". I see that you make repetitious edits to "Oceania topic" and "associated state" where you push the point the CI and Niue are not independent states. This contradicts what the sources show, but what I find really strange in your edits are some claims such as "190 of the 193 UN members don't recognize them as independent" - where does this come from? The sources that I have seen doesn't show such thing, on the contrary - I can't name any state that doesn't recognize them.

You see, in cases like Israel, Armenia, North Korea, etc. we have sources of various states saying "We don't recognize those" (because of various disputes or other issues). For Cook Islands and Niue there isn't anything like that: there are no disputes, no international problems, no secessions, no conflicts, no statements about lack of recognition. On the contrary, we have statements and treaties by the former owner (NZ) and by the UN confirming their independence and sovereignty. Also, we have statements from many individual states (much more than the 193-190 you allude to) about the same. Of course we don't have statements from all 193 UN members about that - this is normal, we don't have 193 statements for many other states too (even for bigger states) - this is common practice especially for similar small states like Nauru, Tuvalu, etc.

Please keep in mind that the Cook Islands and Niue are not in a situation like Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestine or the 7 other states with limited recognition - there is no "recognition problem". In recognition aspect CI and Niue are much more like Nauru, Montenegro, South Sudan. None of these has explicit statements about recognition from everybody else, but this doesn't mean that somebody objects their independence, sovereignty, statehood or legitimacy.

Maybe the reason for this confusion is that CI and Niue have chosen not to apply for UN membership yet. Incorrectly linking UN membership to independence is quite common misconception - the fact that currently almost all states are UN members doesn't help and it's quite easy for journalists and other people to get confused - it's easier to check the list of UN members (since it's an easily accessible on official website) than to look deeper in the issue and find or compile a real list of states that includes also the non-members of the UN. Please keep in mind that UN membership is not a requirement for independence or sovereignty. (see also Vienna formula) The most well known example of non-member of the UN is Switzerland (up to 2002). The Vatican City is also not a member, but its situation is more complex because of the relationship with the Holy See. Cook Islands and Niue are another examples of independent sovereign states that aren't members of the UN. You can check the various UN specialized agencies, the UN treaty database, etc. and you we'll see that the Cook Islands participates more than Liechtenstein for example. CI and Niue have joined many international organizations and treaties with the same or bigger number of members than the UN. If there was some recognition problem we would have sources about the controversy when joining - such as when Palestine joined UNESCO. Japinderum (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The clear consensus is that these two, while sovereign and self-governing in so many elements, are not recognized as fully independent states (see archived talk at List of sovereign states, see Niue, see Cook Islands, see most any atlas or ref. book such as World Factbook, see the US State Dept. list of States and list of dependencies), etc. So any change declaring them as such (a couple of your sentences in your above proposal) conflicts with dozens and dozens of other WP articles and is not correct. In the past both have had independence as an option and voted it down; neither has declared independence.

Yes, NZ and some NZ courts have called them fully independent at times. Look back to the '80's when S. Africa did the same, declaring fully independent states within S. Africa...National Geographic even began showing them as such, but 99.9 % of authorities did not. For a "fully independent" status, or "fully sovereign" if you prefer, what one country, yes, even the "mother" country, declares, does not "cut it" as long as the rest of the world disagrees, as is the case here. Yes, the UN says that they have treaty-making rights and puts them in a special color on some of their maps....neither does that make them fully independent and in the list along with Afgh., Albania, Algeria,....etc.....And WP editors from List of Sovereign States to Niue to dozens of other WP articles agree.....a special status, yes; worthy of listing in special addendums to list of fully independent states, yes. Fully independent, not yet. Perhaps they will soon vote for independence and celebrate an independence day, yes?!DLinth (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, since you don't mention it, I assume you agree that there is no "190 of 193".

What do you mean by "both had independence option and voted it down"? On the contrary - they voted for it. Tokelau voted it down at it's still a NZ dependency. About mass market atlases/lists and similar sources you point to - as I said above most of those take the easy route of UN members and don't go too deep in the details of diplomatic relations and laws of obscure small states.

According to the UN those two are not less independent than Switzerland, Vatican City, Liechtenstein, Nauru, Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands - those examples aren't random and there are others like those. They aren't colored with "special color for non-independent special addendum entities" - they are colored with the regular color for states that aren't members of the UN organization. You know, there are very few (if any) organizations/treaties that include all states. The UN is not an exception. Do you have any source where the UN treats (or declares) those as NZ dependencies?

We have plenty of official government or intergovernmental organization website sources showing that CI and Niue are sovereign and independent states - just like the states-examples I listed above. They conduct official diplomatic relations with as much other countries as similar remote small states like Nauru, Tuvalu, etc.

And the result of Wikipedia editors work (I assume that includes investing more effort than mass market atlas editors) is the List of Sovereign States you point to. I checked with User:Chipmunkdavis and he confirms that both CI and Niue are INCLUDED there, so I don't see why do you try to refer to that article, when you advocate to EXCLUDE those.

If you look at the topic navigation templates for different continents (like the Oceania we argue about) you will see that those are generally divided in the two groups: states, dependencies (all of the templates have those). In addition we have "other entities" for the two special cases in Europe (supranational union - EU and sovereign non-state entity - SMOM) and "states with limited recognition" (for the continents where there are such - Europe, Asia, Africa). The principle of editing those templates is to comply with the Wikipedia list articles. In our case here - if something is listed at List of Sovereign States it goes either in "states" or "states with limited recognition" group. CI and Niue don't have a recognition/sovereignty dispute (see List of states with limited recognition for those), so their place is where Spesh531 put them. If you don't mind I will contact him and Chipmunkdavis to join our discussion here. Japinderum (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your and Spesh's edits keep getting reversed because the convention followed nearly universally by geographic authorities and followed universally in WP articles (at least in about 30 I've checked) is to NOT list Niue & Cook Islands without differentiation in lists of fully independent states. They are always listed with "others"...Perhaps we want to change "dependencies" to "others" as the title in the templates....

BTW, no, they did in fact vote against independence. And, no, consensus from that long discussion under List of sovereign states (now archived) was to list them NOT in the top part as fully independent, but in an "other" category at the bottom.

And, no, I don't agree; only a handful of states (thus the 190 out of 193 approximation) have full embassy-level recognition with these two states; every other state on the "fully independent" list enjoys full recogntion from 100+. Kosovo (80+ states recognize them) and all those with single digits (Abhazia, etc.) are not on the fully independent list; neither should these two with just two or three states giving them full diplomatic recognition (which is different than engaging in a treaty directly with them, as the US has, for ex.)DLinth (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the meaning you put behind your "others"? The only "other-ness" in CI and Niue case is that they aren't UN members just like Vatican City, Switzerland (up to 2002) and many others before that. The UN is just an international organization, an important one, of course, but nothing more than that. If they had already decided to join the UN, then the ignorant journalists and writers would have listed them in whatever unofficial non-diplomatic sources you can come at and we wouldn't have this discussion. The only reason for the common misconception about some CI and Niue "other-ness" is that the easiest (but wrong) way to "check which are the states in the world" is to look at the UN members list.

The templates are just fine - as I explained above they are divided into "states" and "dependencies" with the addition of "states with limited recognition" for continents with such. Consistency requires that all who are on the List of sovereign states go either in "states" or "states with limited recognition". I don't see any need to divide the states in additional third unspecified category.

Please provide links for "voted against independence" - they voted for and already got their independence. Not with a big flashy announcement on a memorable "independence day" (like the common case), but by gradually acquiring powers in different policy fields - in the same way that Australia, Canada and NZ gained independence from the UK. Yes, the UK queen is still head of state of both CI and Niue, but the same is true for a dozen other states around the world, including Canada.

Is the wiki list of sovereign states divided into "fully independent" and "not fully independent"? If it is, then this is a grave mistake. Not fully independent entities do not belong in such list at all. I assume the list is divided according to the presence or lack of "sovereignty dispute" (e.g. whether the state is "widely recognized as regular member of the international community" - related to the List of states with limited recognition - those are again "fully independent", but they have problems with some of their neighboors/former rulers, who don't agree with and object their independence) and if the blinded "UN is the beginning and the end of all" crowd overpowered the other editors - maybe UN membership is also mentioned somehow. But including "not fully independent" - certainly not. The criteria for being included in the list is to be fully independent. Whether it's included on top or on the bottom - this is according to secondary criteria about "how to divide the fully independent sovereign states".

Again this 190 of 193? Where does it come from? What's the 193? I assume the UN members. I explained above - this figure is irrelevant here. Why don't you count the non-members of the UN there (regardless how few they are)? And the 190? Who are those "special 3"? Even Niue has diplomatic relations with more than 3. Cook Islands with many more than 3. And there is no such thing as "embassy-level" recognition. If you refer to "how much embassies a state has around the world" or "how much embassies a state hosts in its capital" then many many states will fall in the same category as CI and Niue per your definition. There are diplomatic recognition and diplomatic relations. When two states establish diplomatic relations with each other (if they are interested in developing ties), then one of them can decide to accredit an ambassador to the other (if it's interested enough in it) and if it has sufficient resources it can even send him there, as "remote representative" in an office called "embassy". The lack of embassy or accredited ambassador doesn't mean that the states don't recognize each other as such. Even the lack of established diplomatic relations/recognition doesn't. Such lack only means that there is no "interest" of ties between the two - most probably because of small size and remoteness. You don't expect San Marino or Saint Lucia to commit the resources necessarily to bilaterally interact with each and every small island state such as Tuvalu or Nauru, right? That's why there are wider forums - focused on specific topics of mutual worldwide interest - international organizations - and it's much more efficient for such small states to first join relevant organizations, and to develop bilateral relations with other states later. And here they also start with their neighboors or biggest trade partners, not with all states around the world. So, don't expect any state to has 193 embassies (do you know any example of hosting/sending 193 embassies?)

What's this "100+ recognition" number? Where does it come from? A 100 is no magical mark or recognition boundary.

Kosovo and Abkhazia examples are irrelevant, because those two are states with sovereignty dispute and limited recognition. CI and Niue aren't. You can find a zillion references for states that don't recognize Kosovo. Can you find such for CI, Niue, Nauru, Tuvalu or some other small state that hasn't established diplomatic relations with everybody else?

Again this "just two or three states giving them full diplomatic recognition" - quite the contrary - many more than 3 have established diplomatic relations with them (that means also diplomatic recognition). If you tell me how are those 3 I will give you examples for some of the rest. And I repeat - very few (if any) states have 193 recognitions or relations. Some similar to CI and Niue have much less. And this is understandable.

It seems you somehow assume that Cook Islands is like Kosovo or Palestine "striving to get diplomatic relations/recognitions" and to "get its independence fully recognized" or something like that. That is not the case. Cook Islands is a regular member of the international community and this is established by its membership in numerous international organizations and treaties, by the multiple diplomatic relations it has already established and by the lack of any state who doesn't recognize it. Unlike Kosovo or Palestine on all these points. Kosovo (~90) and Palestine (~130) have many more statements about diplomatic recognition/relations than Cook Islands, Niue, Bhutan, Tuvalu or Nauru. But Kosovo and Palestine get into international organizations and treaties rarely and very difficulty, with big bangs and fanfare, flashy actions and overpowering diplomatic games by their supporters and opponents. And what's more important for Wikipedia articles - there are plenty of sources about official diplomatic statements explicitly declaring that "State X doesn't recognize Kosovo or Palestine" (not by lack of presence in a list drafted by unknown criteria and quality). There is no such thing for Cook Islands, Niue, Bhutan, Nauru, Tuvalu, Vatican City, Switzerland (up to 2002) and the rest of the "regular states". Japinderum (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a quick note - see my reply here.

And to clarify the major disagreement point that we have - it seems you think that the List of sovereign states includes some "not fully independent" entities in some "special" category. This is not correct. While there may be different criteria for sorting the list of sovereign states into different categories, the criteria for inclusion is pretty simple and only fully independent states are included. In all categories. If a state listed there is not fully independent, then this is an error and that state should be removed (not moved between the different categories of fully independent states). But this should be discussed there. The other articles in Wikipedia should be consistent with that list. Japinderum (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to 2012 Siachen Glacier avalanche, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SMS ^Talk 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smsarmad, you don't actually believe that it's WP:OR to add "40 km north of Paris" or "not in the Amazon basin" or "west of the Coast Range" or any other data easily confirmed by any virtual globe (Google Earth, Bing) or map or atlas. If so, that puts you in a small minority of editors. BTW, you apparently missed that I added as a source the most detailed (Swiss) map for that immediate area....or are published maps by internationally-respected organizations also WP:OR in your view?DLinth (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saying some place is X kilometers away from place Y is fine but based on that drawing conclusions is not what we can do here at Wikipedia. Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. Btw I have started discussion on the talk page of the article. --SMS ^Talk 21:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, DLinth, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for improving and expanding the geography-related content in the encyclopedia, and for all your contributions. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DLinth! Thanks for the copy editing. Please also help me in expanding it and addressing any concerns of neutrality. --SMS ^Talk 17:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DLinth, please stop being disruptive at Template:Oceania topic. Cook Islands and Niue are currently included in the List of sovereign states. CMD confirmed that at his talk page, 15:17, 5 March 2012. That's why they should be in the "Sovereign states" group of the template.

If you don't agree that Cook Islands and Niue are fully independent sovereign states - then you should suggest at Talk:List of sovereign states those two to be removed from the List of sovereign states. Until that happens they should be in the "Sovereign states" group of the template. Japinderum (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to clutter your talk page - please answer here. Japinderum (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither of you is more or less disruptive than the other. Technically DLinth is maintaining the status quo, so it's Japinderum's burden to argue for the change, but either way, this is unproductive. Did any of your varied discussions reach any conclusions? CMD (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'm trying a "States with Limited Recognition" compromise that more closely matches the categories used for the Asia, Europe, Africa, Americas template. CMD, Japinderum, you've heard everything below before: As much as CI and Niue (like Taiwan) are a bad fit for the ever-present "other" de facto list (Abhazia, Azawad, Somaliland, etc.,) nobody but nobody among WP:V sources such as World Factbook or US Dept. of State list of independent states or the UN, etc. list these two in the list of ~195 fully independent states.

The long debate on the talk page for List of Sovereign States put them in this "other" list category where they remain on 50+ WP pages, often in italics (indicating non-full independence.) They are not with the ~195 in the "top" lists. BTW, as you know, neither CI or Niue has declared independence (one voted against it years ago), and of the ~195 on the fully independent WP, UN, etc. lists, every single one is recognized by at least 100 other states. CI and Niue are recognized by one or two or three other states. So being in the "top" fully independent list is a non-starter until they declare independence, no longer hold New Zealand citizenships, get full UN membership, get recognized by dozens and dozens of other states, or something actually changes other than WP editors' opinions. So this "States with Limited Recognition" is a sensible compromise for this template.DLinth (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted that back to the simple two list division. I appreciate the attempt at compromise, but the CI/Niue don't have limited recognition. No countries go "The Cook Islands are not sovereign", so their recognition is not limited in that sense. Instead they're quite happy to just leave a nice grey area, rather like the CI/Niue have. You are right however that they are rarely included in the full list of states. They are actually included like this in some instances, but it's clearly uncommon and we search for specific examples of this, while the disclusion is generally simply evident. If you would acknowledge that they are sometimes included together in such lists, that would be a step forward. It's not black and white, so don't argue in black and white. (This goes for Japinderum too, don't think I'm singling you out.) Regards, CMD (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No countries go "St. Helena is not sovereign" or "Virgin Islands are not sovereign", etc. either (in official documentation), as you know. As you know, it's a subtractive process: Every other state on the main (top) part of List of Sovereign States (and the top part of EVERY regional template (Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.)) is "recognized by" (meaning some sort of official diplomatic relations) by 150 to 190+ other states.) Niue and Cook Is. are recognized by only a handful. For that and other reasons (citizenship, have not declarded independence), they don't belong in the "top" lists.

Yet they have sovereignty in so many areas, they don't belong in a list titled "dependencies.." either, a contention of Japinderum's with which I agree. So I thought the compromise was viable. Could "other states" or "other states with a large degree of sovereignty" be used to title that second category? (Since CI and Niue are so unique?)DLinth (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither St Helena or the Virgin Islands are states with limited recognition, so I don't understand how that point applies. What do you mean by recognition? Users here have managed to eek out a small few minor diplomatic notes online where a few countries call the Cook Islands a sovereign state. I haven't found these very strong, and in any case, we simply don't know the position of other states. Not every state has expressed recognition of South Sudan either, but it doesn't have limited recognition. There's a reason that when I organised all these templates I made sure the separation title was "Dependencies and other territories". I hoped it would be able to encapsulate the many grey areas (which are not limited to the CI/Niue). A foolish hope perhaps. I'd like to see some sort of definition for "non-sovereign state" before we start using similar terms, although I'm not opposed to some sort of special compromise, as as you say they are extremely unique. "Politically independent entites"? CMD (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didn't know you organized the templates....they are consistent...well done. I was trying to make a (futile) attempt to keep that consistency here. I definitely commiserate with the noble attempt to placate "everyone" with the "and other territories" language. I think your last sentence is the best solution I've seen; justification: these two really are unique (even their own international maritime boundary treaties!)DLinth (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved this discussion to here DLinth (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see the RFC related to a Template talk:Oceania topic discussion or associated edits you participated in. Japinderum (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DLinth, you said at one time something along the lines that my arguments are not convincing since you don't see sources showing CI/Niue "... in undifferentiated fashion (no italics, no asterisks, no "(NZ)") ..." - Please take a look at that UN map showing CI/Niue as regular undifferentiated non-members of the UN. Please, contrast that with Tokelau that's shown with "(N.Z.)". Japinderum (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Maryland Route 4 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Upper Marlboro

Pennsylvania Avenue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Upper Marlboro

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bristol, Maryland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Archaic Period and Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cadillac Mountain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cape Breton, Nova Scotia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Broad Creek (Susquehanna River), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archaic Period (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DLinth, really, I disagree with your massive deletion of the geology section of this article. Fundamentally "soapstone" is inaccurate - that's not just a matter of opinion, so I suggest retaining the clarification. Also the title of the article, while it may refer to the designated area as the historical landmark, also does in fact refer to the historical quarries, when taken literally. However, I see your point that the historical quarries may be in a different location than the archaeological site. If you have a reference that clarifies this, please provide. I'm happy to work with you on this if possible to create a new article. Jstuby (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this edit you stated the French S&A Territories aren't integral parts of France. However, they are mentioned in France's constitution (Article 72-3 [Statute of Oversea Territories]). That implies, at least to me, that they're as integral as the other territories. Thoughts? CMD (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CMD. Was worried we'd lost your valuable work for the past month+ until last week...Welcome back.

I didn't research it at first any further than the World FactBook and the US State Department's list of Dependencies at http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/10543.htm Both place Metropolitan France and the five overseas departments (below) as wholly part of France, and everything else as dependencies. I'm embarrassed to say that I assumed that to be correct and did not check any French sites! The US State Dept. source says: Note 5: French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Reunion are departments (first-order administrative units) of France, and are therefore not dependencies.... DLinth (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just looked at it a bit more after seeing that the French Constitution lists a whole bunch of territories/dependencies. Overseas_departments_and_territories_of_France and every other source I've seen seems to put the "dividing line" between Metropolitan France/Corsica and the five "departments" ** that are an integral part of France (the "big five" roughly on equal footing with Alaska or Hawaii: Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Réunion (all since 1946), and Mayotte (since 2011.)) Everything else is not an integral part of France (dependencies, the territory of Fr. S. & Ant. Lands.)

The editor that made the change there makes his case differently: that the Fr. S. Ant. Lands are "administered from Reunion" so they're part of Reunion and thus an integral part of France. That's certainly not the case, as "administered from" does not equal "part of", no more than dozens of other discrete territories are "part of" the place from which they're administered. Palmyra I. was not part of Hawaii, Clipperton Is. not part of French Polynesia, etc.....though they are administered from there, they are still distinct, discrete territories/dependencies. Bouvet, Jan Mayen (Norway), Coral Sea, Ashmore-Cartier, and I think some other Australian ones are "administered from Canberra" but are still always listed as separate territories. What's your thoughts? (other than, if that other editor really wants to challenge the French territory's status, that chat should go to the Overseas_departments_and_territories_of_France article, I should think.)

**for which, it says there, From a legal and administrative standpoint, departments are very different from territories. The French constitution provides that, in general, French laws and regulations ....apply to French departments the same as in mainland France.... In French territories, the reverse is true. DLinth (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I used to think there was the simple divide, such as the one provided by the US department, but further research has led me to believe that the overseas territories are just autonomous territories within France, rather than dependent territories. I did a lot of research (and I apologise in advance that I'm not going to trawl for sources now) when involved in discussions about the adoption of a new flag for New Caledonia, and when Mayotte went from an overseas territory to an overseas department (although as far as I'm aware, in a geopolitical oddity, it remains outside of the EU for the present, despite being a department of France, until some assessment in 2014).

The departments are very different than the territories. In the departments, all laws that apply to the Metropole (l'Hexagone+Corsica) apply (bar some quite necessary exceptions, such as in visa law), while the territories are free to make their own rules. An example is that during the debate in Mayotte, some objected to becoming a department as it would mean the abolition of polygamy, which at that time was legal, due to the need to adopt French laws.

New Caledonia obtained its new flag, legally equal to the national one, after a peace process following an independence insurgency. I remember reading that some French minister, likely the foreign one, said at the ceremony something along the lines of France being historically a unitary state, however the Nouméa Accord introduced a unique element of federalism, not before seen.

It's those sorts of statements and discussions, along with the explicit inclusion of every French territory in its constitution, that lead me to believe that as far as France is concerned, they're all fully parts of France, albeit autonomous bits (in a strange contradiction to France's supposed unitary setup). This is unsurprising, as France was never one to willingly give up its empire. While Britain, Australia, and New Zealand were encouraging talks of independence in their Pacific territories, France was actively quashing it. No doubt the CIA/State Department are simply being sensible with their lists, rather than legally correct, which is why similar situations such as Greenland and Aruba are also included.

As for my "valuable work", thanks for that, although I note Wikipedia didn't fall apart in my absence! Unfortunately, real life necessities take precedence over hobbies such as editing. C'est la vie. CMD (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not surprisingly, you have done much more research on this topic and I fully concede that you're most likely correct legally here.......Good points on the Commonwealth countries' approach vs. France (and Portugal?) above, and a great Mayotte polygamy tidbit (of the type that makes WP editing fun!!) I'll refrain from making any more France territory-department edits. BTW, I thought Cyprus or List of sovereign states or some others might just "fall apart" in your absence, so I meant what I said....Keep life in balance, of course, but we do appreciate the value of this particular "hobby" of yours! DLinth (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be interested in a legal ruling on the matter, although I suspect the ruling would be in French if it exists. All I have is my interpretation of the constitution (although I hold it's the obvious one), and the statements of politicians, who aren't always entirely right. Portugal was indeed similar to France, but it had far fewer colonies at that point. Wikipedia's articles on the battle over Portuguese India are quite interesting actually. I've cut back on Cyprus actually, it's a minefield from all sides. An article that does tend to fall apart is Legal drinking age, for the reasons one would suspect. It's easy to fix though, thankfully (and don't ask why it's on my watchlist, because I honestly have no idea). CMD (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 North India floods, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Watershed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2010 Haiti earthquake may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ACallToAction_Haiti6Months.aspx "A Call to Action: Haiti at 6 months"], World Vision Australia (12 July 2010Retrieved 13 January 2011</ref> to 316,000 that have been widely characterized as
• Solace Amid the Ruins], ''The New York Times'', 17 January 2010; Retrieved 17 January 2010</ref>-->

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cartographic aggression, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Demqog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saw your many contributions on the Talk page and the change on the main page - thanks! One note I have is that although you've change the earthquakes to the "Top 50", there are actually 52 on the list. This was my quandry - how do you choose to delete events that have the same official death tolls? Thus my decision to cap at 55. Obviously just arbitrary, but I didn't have anyone working with me and didn't have a better option. Maybe you have one? Thanks again for the input. This is obviously not "my" page, but I felt like I was one of the few keeping the wolves at bay... Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)CkruschkeReply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Tropical cyclone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Typhoon Haiyan

Typhoon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Typhoon Haiyan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tuzla Spit may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• re-connected to each other by the 2003 construction by [[Russia]] of the 4.1 km long [[Tuzla dam]](((coord|45|14|39|N|36|35|31|E|scale:50000)).
• * [http://tamagne.ru/gallery/tuzla.htm «Коса Тузла»] — Тамань. Ру > Фотогалерея > Коса Тузла

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siachen Glacier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of the oldest buildings in the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | Oldest building in Jamestown (though only the church tower and foundations remain from the original building.<ref>"Historic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello DLinth, Thank you for your recent edits regarding Jabal Bil Aysh in its own article and the 'List of countries by highest point' article as well. I invite you to discuss about the topic on the talk page of the 'List of countries by highest point' article. There was already a section about the UAE's highest point there, please read that section (and the links provided) and share your opinion! Thank you!
Kószab (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "West Philippine Sea" is a synonym for the South China Sea, which lies to the west of the Philippines, and West Philippine Sea redirects to that article. The Philippine Sea is a different sea, lying to the east of the Philippines. It is possible that someone who is interested in the western part of this eastern sea may search for "West Philippine Sea" and end up on the article for the wrong, western sea. The purpose of the hatnote is to highlight that this error may have been made .
"The part of the Pacific Ocean east of the Phillipines [sic]" is a description that relates to the whole Philippine Sea.
"The western part of the Philippine Sea" is a better description as it only refers to the part of it that could mistakenly be called "West Philippine Sea".
Perhaps as a compromise we could have "The western part of the Philippine Sea, which lies to the east of the Philippines", although I feel that that is a bit long. Bazonka (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm fully aware of every fact in your first two sentences above. It's the layman, those not familiar with these names, that need to have a distinction drawn (which was not present) between West Philippine Sea and western part of the Philipine Sea. Your suggestion in the last line is fine....and necessary.DLinth (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Azerbaijan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Durand Line, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Amccann421 (talk)

Amccann421, I see you've been using the automated Stiki for just one day; It should not have been used to delete my edit returning the lede line back to what it has been for years in this article with no explanation (other than the above gibberish.) I corrected the typo to which the above refers, but note that by using Stiki you removed a significant and substantive edit at the same time that you fixed the typo.DLinth (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maryland Route 4, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Upper Marlboro. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DLinth!

First, thanks for uploading this great map about the Nepali-Chinese border:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CH-NP_79-80_Bdy_Map50.jpg

I have a friend who travels the world looking for maps about South Asia, particularly Nepal. He saw the map you uploaded to wikipedia on the Mount Everest page and would like to know where he could get a copy of the entire collection of all 57 of the 1979-1980 Nepali-Chinese border maps that are located at the United Nations. My friend has the 1960-61 set of Nepali-Chinese border maps, but he is looking for later editions, and he's especially interested in the 1979-1980 collection.

Thanks,

David Straub (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of lakes of the United States

added a link pointing to Upper Marlboro

Maryland

added a link pointing to Upper Marlboro

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be aware of WP:EW and the WP:3RR rule. In any case, and to avoid edit-warring, I have opened a discussion at the article talkpage where you are invited to make your points. Best. Dr. K. 17:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lake Maracaibo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dr. K. 17:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://thediplomat.com/2017/07/the-political-geography-of-the-india-china-crisis-at-doklam/. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your reference to India & Bhutan maps are not visibly clear about the subject area. can you adjust them? Zip yz (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, DLinth. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, DLinth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, DLinth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Robert Michael Pyle

added links pointing to Chinook, Mariposa, Cascadia and Grays River

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]