User talk:Apcbg

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Imacdo 22:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating new articles, but it would be very helpful if you would edit them into Wikipedia article form; see the links above for guidance. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that many of your articles are geographical in nature and seem to be related. Could you combine these articles into one, rather than having several articles that are not tied together in any way? Thanks! --Bugturd 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, perhaps you could make one large article with all of these places inside them, rather than dozens of articles. Rory096 03:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy directly from copyrighted sources, like http://apc.mfa.government.bg/peaks/elena.htm , these contributions will have to be deleted. Kappa 00:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- Yes I can confirm the permission to freely use this material published by the website of the Antarctic Place-names Commission of Bulgaria, http://apc.mfa.government.bg/ and also in the SCAR Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica website http://www.pnra.it/SCAR_GAZE.

Dr. Lyubomir Ivanov Chairman Antarctic Place-names Commission of Bulgaria apcbg@yahoo.com

Wonderful. It would be helpful if you can confirm this, either by putting a message on the website somewhere or by sending an email to permissions (at) wikimedia.org. Thanks, AJR | Talk 02:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message to permissions (at) wikimedia.org sent. Apcbg.

Hi there! It's great to see that Wikipedia has permission to include this content into the encyclopedia. However, they are currently not very formatted - for example, see Wikipedia:Guide to layout. If you don't want to do the formatting just yet, or you would like someone to help you with it, please add the {{wikify}} tag to the end of the page, to mark it down as needing formatting. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Apcbg.

Something helpful would be to write an introductory sentence saying Nesebar Gap is a such-and-such geographical feature found in such-and-such a place. As the article stands, I'm not quite sure what it is... NickelShoe 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right I guess. The present first sentence reading "The 1.3 km wide gap in eastern Livingston Island bounded to the W by Pliska Ridge and to the E by the northern slope of Mount Friesland, Tangra Mountains" is communicating precisely what you ask for: the feature is a gap (i.e. "depression in a range of mountains or hills"), and is situated on Livingston Island. Its clumsy phrasing however could be streamlined; judging from the first articles in this series formatted by Kcordina I expect that in this case he/she may improve the text by probably splitting the sentence in two, adding 'Antarctica' after 'Livingston Island' etc.

Here we are, all offering you helpful suggestions. Mine is: it does not need much extra keying to turn a naked lat and long into a link to Egil's map sources page - see Razlog Cove. Not only do you get map links straight away but within a few days, the articles will be indexed by Pintomap. -- RHaworth 12:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Apcbg. I see that you are making a lot of contributions regarding some geological peaks, which is very interesting, and apparently missing here at wikipedia. But, I just wanted to leave you a suggestion that will make you stay here at wikipedia much more enjoyable. Copying information from other sites verbatim tips off the myriad of editors and admins here that a copyright violation has occurred. So, despite the fact that you have mentioned that you are permitted to copy it - it will probably keep getting tagged until you do one of (and preferably a combination) of the following things: (1) make some kind of notation of this in the talk pages of the various new pages you're creating (along with proof that this is true). You can put the same thing on every talk page - that's fine. Also (2) Reword the information. Wikipedia favors prose over lists and bullets, and so it is important that you turn these into readable articles. Not only would this eliminate the copyright issue, but would avoid the articles getting tagged for other reasons (like needing cleanup or needing to be wikified). Perhaps you can illicit a buddy to help you with the project, as there may be someone here at wikipedia who shares your interest. I would recommend visiting articles on related topics and seeing who else is working on similar articles. Regardless, I hope these suggestions will minimize your copyright issues and leave you more time to do what you want to do, which is spread knowledge about these beautiful peaks.--Esprit15d 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting a note on every talk page is a bit long winded - better to have a template common to each article - template:Bulgarian-named Antarctic place is a bit long-winded but quite specific. This would provide a link to the article that lists all these places (you do have a list don't you?). An HTML comment or <noinclude> note in the template can give the copyright release details. -- RHaworth 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we're pleased to have new articles, you are refusing (depite numerous requests and helpful advice) to dio anything in the way of formatting them correctly. This causes other editors a great deal of work. Please learn how to present a Wikipedia article and edit accordingly. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, some of the relevant articles are yet to be un-tagged to become editable. Apcbg 08:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Moreover I was referring to the string of new articles that you created, all unformmatted just like the previous ones. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikification is something new to me; maybe I'll try first an approximation like e.g. the current version of Academia Peak then possibly improve it towards the standards here and take into account some useful suggestions made above.Apcbg 10:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Firstly, well done on an impressive set of contributions - loads of good information there. I'm happy to work through them and copyedit them into the wikipedia 'style' and tidy up, and have started doing so on Arda Peak (+ Asparuh Peak and Asen Peak), . I'm not an expert on the subject though, so please check them to make sure I don't introduce any errors. I'm a firm believer that people should contribute what they know best - you clearly know your geography, so if you get the information on here, I'll format it! Kcordina 14:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kcordina, great thanks for the kind offer! Your intervention is most welcome and appreciated indeed. The edited articles are okay. Perhaps the directions would be better spelled with lower case initials and fewer hyphens (south, southeast, east-southeast etc.). The phrase about the mapping that you seem to have removed is actually about the first mapping of the feature -- an information that might or might not be worth keeping in the text. Apcbg 19:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad they're OK! I'll retain the note about the first mapping. I couldn't decide whether North/South etc had capitals or not, I'll leave them out from now. When having a conversation via talk pages it's easier if you leave a message on the other persons talk page, then they get a note letting them know that someone has said something to them - it's a bit odd as it means the two halves of a conversation are in different places, but seems to work best that way. Kcordina 09:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the pictures & pointers will be good additions to the articles. Check out the procedure for uploading them and sorting the copyright, rightly that is something that wikipedia insists is done correctly. Kcordina 11:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Kresna Gully, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! SoothingR 18:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, although for future reference I would like to ask you not to post any new messages on my userpage. Please use my talkpage. Anyway, yes, I recognized that Kresna Gully was indeed a valid article. Hence is why I removed the {{copyvio}}-tag only 15 minutes after I initially put it up there. So, there's no need to worry :) your article stays. I apoligize for the confusion which I have brought up.SoothingR 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've created a Category:Geography of Livingston Island, which is more suitable than the present one for the Bulgaria-related Antarctic articles you've contributed. Please add them to it, as I've added some, but they're so many I simply can't cope. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Здравей! Разбирам какво имаш предвид. За момента е създадена само категория "Geography of Livingston Island", но разбира се не е проблем и ще направим и такива за Alexander Island и Greenwich Island.

Наистина е вярно, че статиите съчетават не само география, но и история, култура и топонимия, но така е също с голяма част от статиите за географски обекти като цяло, а тъкмо това разглеждат те. Просто такъв е принципът тук. Също трябва да отбележа, че липсата (засега) на статия или категория за историята на остров Ливингстън не е проблем (като асиметрия, например), защото в Уикипедия практиката е да се създават категории за всички по-тесни теми, където се насъбира голям брой статии, а в момента статиите за географията на Южните Шетландски острови са наистина доста като число, което налага да бъдат категоризирани по-точно, въпреки че историята не е застъпена отделно като категория. С Kcordina вече работим заедно по категоризацията, а на беседата ти исках да те уведомя за намеренията ни.

Бих искал също да те поздравя за наистина чудесния принос — невероятно количество от статии, много от тях доста детайлни и с наистина прекрасни снимки, и то по тема, която все още е зле застъпена в Уикипедия, да не говорим за родолюбската гордост, че именно на българските обекти в Антарктика е обърнато такова голямо внимание. Щастлив съм, че ще продължаваш да допълваш с информация настоящи и бъдещи статии.

Поздрави, → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 19:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record. A random check in few of the articles I have recently contributed would suggest that subsequent editing along with the overall improvement and wikification has on some occasions introduced factual inaccuracies or editorial styles disregarding established English spelling or punctuation practices (s.a. the replacement of decimal points by decimal commas). I am opening no discussion as apparently anyone is free to edit at will here; nor am I going to allocate precious time to proofreading modified texts that have been carefully verified more than once before. In other words: While I am obviously responsible for my original texts, I am not responsible for searching or correcting subsequent questionable amendments, however obvious these might be to me.

A useful approach would be to politely point out the mistakes made by editors so they don't make them again. Kcordina 17:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kcordina, like I wrote the above was but a disclaimer. Otherwise, you are welcome to contact me at apcbg@yahoo.com for further clarification. Apcbg 06:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vazov Point has been proposed for deletion. An editor thinks this geographical feature may not be notable enough for an article. Please see Wikipedia:Notability for the relevant concerns. NickelShoe 17:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vazov Rock too.

Dear NickelShoe, please see the talk pages to Vazov Point and Vazov Rock. Naturally, geographical features in Antarctica would have a relatively greater 'notability' than comparable features elsewhere because they account for nearly 100 per cent of all notable features on a given territory there. (As you can imagine this percentage would be pretty low e.g. in a city or a densely populated area where the man-made features dominate both in quantity and significance.) The 'notability' of an Antarctic geographical feature may be further enhanced by its relevance as a landmark in the course of field work or navigation, or if ice free. All this is taken into account when the relevant place-naming authorities decide whether some feature merits a name or not. Apcbg 08:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who thought they should be deleted; I'm the one who bothered to let you know about it. That's great that you explained it on the talk page, but you didn't need to leave a note in the article itself, so I took it out. You can put a message like "oppose deletion see talk" in your edit summary. NickelShoe 11:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the recent edit on Antarctica (about Solveig). However, would you happen to have a source or reference for it? While I don't doubt its accuracy, a reliable reference will reinforce that and is required for a featured article, such as Antarctica. Thanks! Gflores ^Talk 14:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick fix. :) Gflores ^Talk 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion on the Population section of Antarctica on the talk page. Gflores ^Talk 19:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for your references on the Solveig article. Little did I know what I was creating! ;). -Fsotrain09 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now tweaked all of the articles into some form of standard appearence, which hopefully leaves them standing as a good set of articles which can now be improved on further. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Kcordina 17:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is inappopriate. When someone enters St. Kliment Ohridski in the search engine, they would expect to find the article on Clement of Ohrid. The base is named after him and this, that means, should be clarified explicitly in the name of the article on the base. The name itself is OK, St. Kliment Ohridski Base, but the redirect itself is bad choice. If you find it necessary, I'll make changes to the article affected by the bad use of the name that are about 10, but undoing the change is inappropriate, unnecessary and, I believe, simply wrong. As for the other sites affected (Wikipedia mirrors?), they copy the Wikipedia database every once in a while, so you shouldn't bother about them too much. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 14:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't actually see the why the negative effect to other sites of a necessary change in Wikipedia can be of any relevance to undo it. These sites should've not been pointing to a badly-chosen redirect page, for a starter, and it's actually a problem of theirs to solve, not ours. I only care about issues concerning Wikipedia when making changes here, and I believe this is the correct approach. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 14:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name was unoccupied, but it should have been a redirect to Clement of Ohrid and now is. Those external sites should have linked to St. Kliment Ohridski Base, this is the valid article, not the redirect. If you have entered that badly-chosen address in those sites and now regret it, I have nothing to do with this. And actually, there might not have been a practical problem, but there was a logical one — the title St. Kliment Ohridski should not have ever redirected to the Antarctic base. As for the users and their access to the Bulgarian Antarctic base article, I already said the real damage is done by the individual who entered the address of an inappropriate redirect page in those sites. If this is you, then you should have given the matter somewhat more thought before acting. It is OK that you don't find any further discussion necessary, just don't blame me when I haven't done anything wrong, on the contrary. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tarnovo-Livingston.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both pictures image:Tarnovo-Livingston.jpg and image:kuzman.jpg are sourced

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Lyubomir Ivanov. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2006013010000528. This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

but the latter should not appear also as a thumbnail at the location of the former. Apcbg 10:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS note is nice, but we still need you to add the usual GFDL tag. Also, I'm highly skeptical that Lyubomir Ivanov is the copyright holder for Image:28-02-06-Souvenir-Sheet.jpg - stamps are invariably copyright the national government or its postal service, and if this is really GFDL, it would be the first postal object in history to be so licensed. Stan 04:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I gained interest in the matter of churches in Antarctica after an article about the Russian Trinity Church on King George Island reached the Did You Know square at the Main Page. It used to claim it is the southernmost church in Antarctica, which is false because, as far as I know, our chapel at St. Kliment Ohridski Base is located even more to the south (based on how I see the two islands on that map and the coordinates given), which even means the Russian one isn't even the southernmost Eastern Orthodox church in the world. I also did some research and found that site that also mentions some kind of 'universal' (i.e. Anglican, Catholic, Evangelist and so on, all-in-one) church at McMurdo Station, which I also believe is even more to the south. Could you please confirm that, if possible, or correct me if I'm wrong? Thanks in advance! → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 18:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that out and don't worry about the late response! The Russian church looks indeed very beautiful. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image was missing, appearing only as a red link. Though, I now notice some server problems going on with Commons, so the image might be still be there. Please add the image back if that's the case. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you've been editing in the Catalan Wikipedia recently, and wrote (or should I said used an automatic translation of) an article on the History of South Gerogia. (And after having reviewed your involvement in several wikipedias in different languages, it seems that Antartica is your topic of interest). As part of the Catalan team, I must say that we appreciate your contributions. Nonetheless, it takes a while for our editors to change the hundreds of grammar and spelling errors of automatically translated articles (no automatic translator is perfect, not even among languages of the same family, Portuguese and Catalan, which you presumably used; try it from Dutch to English and you'll see the results!). I believe the best thing for you to do, since you do not speak Catalan, would be to communicate with English-speaking Catalan users (like me, or any other user) so that we can coordinate tasks for translation of new articles and/or edit those that you want to submit from automatic translation sites; otherwise, your contributions will be unintelligible for Catalan speakers. --J.Alonso 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alonso:

Many thanks for your kind message, and for correcting (some of) the orthographic errors in my South Georgia article, which I both wrote and used automatic translation indeed. I highly appreciate your positive and constructive suggestion and will be happy to coordinate with you the translation into Catalan or editing of possible new contributions to the Catalan Wiki. Apcbg 07:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the translations you did on [1]. Are you using an automatic translator? Do you have the original document with you? There are just a couple of grammar mistakes, but there's also some stuff that doesn't make sense, and I can't figure out what the translator did. --Alonso 22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's what I thought, that you were probably drawn in by the previous change. I didn't revert that one, since it wasn't a comment, but merely the user changing (=prettyfying) their own sig. Hey, I love the photo on your userpage! Bishonen | talk 09:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Apcbg,

Many thanks for your contribution to this article, but why did you remove the smaller entities? It was more informative to have them, more so that theirs are precisely the articles that have little or no other templates, while some of higher level entries may be even 'over-templated'.

I'm still working on this template, so stand by; I'll try to re-incorporate them in the structure. Thanks for your prompt feedback!  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original template was based on a rather clear criterion for inclusion: Include those territories that are politically associated with Europe (European sovereignty) yet distant from Europe, typically situated closer to other continents than to any European country. Now with the recent changes, I am not so certain what the current principle might be, apparently not the original one as e.g. Ceuta and Melilla have disappeared with Svalbard and the Faroes added etc. I am afraid that the very idea of the template -- to present in a coherent way all the territories which are the global political extension of Europe beyond its narrow geographical limits -- may somehow get lost in the process. Apcbg 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; I'll restore the original content of the template and add this criterion as a comment, in case anyone else decides to edit it. Hope you otherwise approve of the layout...?  Yours, David (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks, and yes an explanation of the principle and the template would be most welcome and useful indeed. My original idea was to stress commonality rather than division among respective nations (some of them have separate templates for their overseas territories), use local instead of English names though, and also use a neutral (e.g. alphabetical) ordering; this keeps the template more compact too. Best, Apcbg 17:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have finished editing the template; see edit summaries for some comments re rationale. Re commonality, the template itself serves to group together all those European countries with outlying territories; or is there another commonality you have in mind (and I've missed!)...?  I guess the template's size could be reduced somewhat by reducing the row width and removing the divider lines (then reformatting the columns) but I understand if you (or anyone else) reckon it'd still be too large. Thanks for your thanks!  Regards, David (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems rather complete now. I have made some minor edits on a draft given below; you may delete it when not needed. Just a couple of points (and I would be happy to answer any further questions you might have). South Georgia is in the Southern Ocean no less than Bouvet or Kerguelen are. The heading background colour -- there are so many grey templates, why another? My proposal for pink is purely for aesthetic reasons :-) Regarding the Italian islands, sure they are close to Europe but still closer to Africa. If we have fixed a principle then we better follow it, otherwise the door would be open for any additions or removals. (Pantelleria is 70 km from Tunisia and 100 km from Sicily; for Lampedusa the distances are 145 km and 215 respectively.) As for the size, it is large indeed but now it has the 'hide' option. With the present structure, it's better to keep the divider lines too. Nevertheless, if you could reduce the enpty rows width to half-row, the overal picture would look finer I guess. Best, Apcbg 13:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table updated taking into account changes made in the meantime by other participants; in particular, seems like greater details are not favoured, e.g. the subdivisions of the Azores (which by the way were originally introduced by some Portuguese-speaking user) are removed. Best, Apcbg 18:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outlying territories of European countries

Territories under European sovereignty but closer to continents other than Europe
Denmark	Arctic	Grønland (Kalaallit Nunaat)
France	Atlantic and Caribbean	Guadeloupe (Guadeloupe, Saint-Barthélemy et Saint-Martin) • Martinique • Saint-Pierre et Miquelon
	Indian Ocean	Mayotte • Réunion • Îles Éparses (Bassas da India, Île Europa, Île Juan da Nova, Îles Glorieuses, Île Tromelin)
	Pacific	Île de Clipperton • Nouvelle-Calédonie (Kanaky) • Polynésie française (Îles Marquises, l'Archipel des Tuamotu, l'Archipel de la Société) • Wallis et Futuna
	South America	Guyane française
	Southern Ocean	Terres australes et antarctiques françaises (Îles Amsterdam et Saint-Paul, l'Archipel Crozet, Îles Kerguelen)
Italy	Mediterranean	Pantelleria • Isole Pelagie (Lampedusa, Linosa, Lampione)
Netherlands	Caribbean	Aruba • Nederlandse Antillen (Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten)
Norway	Southern Ocean	Bouvetøya
Portugal	Atlantic	Arquipélago dos Açores • Arquipélago da Madeira
Spain	North Africa	Ceuta • Melilla • Plazas de soberanía menores (Chafarinas, Vélez de la Gomera, Alhusemas)
	Atlantic	Islas Canarias
United Kingdom	Atlantic and Caribbean	Anguilla • Bermuda • British Virgin Islands • Cayman Islands • Falkland Islands • Montserrat • Saint Helena (Ascension, Saint Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Gough) • Turks and Caicos Islands
	Indian Ocean	British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)
	Pacific	Pitcairn Islands (Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie, Oeno)
	Southern Ocean	South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Thanks, Apcbg; I think the table looks great and I agree with all your amendments and corrections. I only wonder what I'm missing re trying to reduce the row widths – not that this is a "must-do". Also given its size, I don't know how to ensure the template's default state is hidden; this, however, is how it current seems to appear in the articles I've revisited. Thanks for creating an interesting template!  Yours, David (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Have just updated {{Outlying territories of European countries}} per the above. David (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David, you have done a great job indeed; the template is now ready for its destruction by enthusiasts :-) Seriously, as people are likely to wonder why this or that particular territory is included, and yet another one is not, do you think that it would help users if they have a more formal algorithm so that they could easily check by themselves the correct application of the general principle? The relevant text may be put not on the template itself, but only on the template page above the table. Then it would not appear in articles featuring the template, but would be seen when someone goes to the template page. Possible wording:

In order to avoid possible confusion and misunderstanding, the eligibility for inclusion in this template is defined technically as follows. An European outlying territory is a territory which: (1) has any political status other than independent country; (2) has a common sovereignty with some member state of the Council of Europe; and (3) either (a) the nearest independent country is not a member of the Council of Europe, or (b) the distance to the nearest European territory is more than 400 nautical miles. (The distance in (a) is measured to the nearest other territory; the distance in (b) is twice the EEZ limit under the Law of the Sea Convention, ensuring that the respective jurisdictional waters are not contiguous.)

Best, Apcbg 07:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; "Territories under European sovereignty but closer to continents other than Europe" is a rule of thumb, but I agree your paragraph is something better to which to point folk toward in future. I've added it to the template's <noinclude> section and a "(see inclusion criteria for further information)" link to the template. Yours, David (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks! Best, Apcbg 08:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flags[edit]

Re [2], are you particularly fond of these flags...?  I realise it's only one opinion, but to me they look like "blots on the template's landscape"...  Regards, David (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was just a try; maybe you're right, so I removed them. While on this topic, is it possible to reduce only the height of the empty rows and the rows with horizontal dividing lines? And another question, why some articles open with this template hidden and others don't? Also, sometimes the opening of the template moves other templates around (South Georgia & SSI; History of SGSSI) or overlaps with them (Greenland)? And one last question, do you think that the Bulgarian and Portuguese versions of the template would be better too without flags? I'd appreciate having your advice. Best, Apcbg 14:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...is it possible to reduce only the height of the empty rows and the rows with horizontal dividing lines?

Should be; I have an idea how, but unfortunately I'm not a CSS/HTML whizz...

...why some articles open with this template hidden and others don't?

Good question!  Maybe there's a straightforward way to find out who designed the "Nav*" classes used to enable this feature and ask him/her/them whether a default may be set...?

Also, sometimes the opening of the template moves other templates around...

Ditto;

...do you think that the Bulgarian and Portuguese versions of the template would be better too without flags?

Do you mean one or more templates on the Bulgaria and Portugal pages, or on the Bulgarian/Portugese Wikipedias/e...?

Regards, David (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the Portuguese and the Bulgarian versions of this particular template. Best, Apcbg 15:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...As in those links at the bottom of the template's code – sorry!  Personally, I'd prefer them without, per the above, but maybe that's something the users of the Portugese and Bulgarian Wikipedias/e should decide...  Yours, David (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Peri-Antarctic countries and overseas territories}}[edit]

Guess what... David (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David:

Many thanks for all your answers and advice. I shall follow your better judgement, and correspondingly remove the flags in several related templates in few Wikipedias. Some wasted time and effort on my part, but that's the price for a lesson too ... Best, Apcbg 17:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's only one opinion; other folk may take an interest someday and add them again... I'm not against flags per se, but as their shape is angular I guess I prefer them aligned. So, if you'd prefer to keep the flags and can cook up some way to align them... maybe, though, the result might still look too complex... Meanwhile, if I had a dollar/euro/etc for every time some work has been reverted (often by myself!)... Yours, David (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably something like Modèle:Pays d'Europe, but you are right also that it would be too complex if the structure showing the relevant world regions and European countries is preserved; besides, the flags of the UK overseas territories are too similar at this scale. Anyway, I removed them all (at least that was easier than inserting them in the first place). Thanks again. Best, Apcbg 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compact version[edit]

Perhaps somewhat déjà vu, but this now carries a compact version of the template in case the tide of opinion favo/urs it. David (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to reduce line height[edit]

In the quest to find out how to alter the line/row heights in templates etc, I suddenly remembered an experienced template-maker, AzaToth. Here's my request for advice and his reply; unfortunately it doesn't look as straightforward as I'd hoped... Yours, David (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Apcbg,

...please restore the original list of countries and territories. The template is about countries and overseqas territories that are per-Antarctic themselves...

Having removed Argentine Antarctica, I then forget what "peri-Antarctic" means...!  Time for a break, I think, once I've corrected the template... Thanks for spotting my error so promptly. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Best, Apcbg 10:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! That was an easily discernible edit, I just added a map. Anyway, thanks for reminding me about edit summaries; sometimes one is in a hurry, and edit summaries cannot be appended later I guess. Best, Apcbg 08:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give some good reasons fopr your attacks on me on the Falkland Island talk page, and explaion why you object to this edit so strongly. I remind you there is no policy to say an editor can demand that no other editors edit the opening of any unprotected article, SqueakBox 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in ad hominem arguments, so I never discussed (let alone attacked) you but particular topics. As already explained, the idea that the islands "have been the subject of a claim to sovereignty by Argentina since the early years of Argentina's independence from Spain in 1810" is factually untrue; neither did Argentina claim independence in 1810 nor did it claim the islands in 1810. Apcbg 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I got the bit about independence from the Argentine page, where the first date under independence on the info box is 1810, I said absolutelty nothing other than that was the date of independence, I certainly made no other claim, SqueakBox 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your text "since the early years of Argentina's independence from Spain in 1810" the independence appears as an accomplished fact in 1810, which is untrue. You have taken '1810' out of its context; in that infobox '1810' is the date of an event (the May Revolution) that preceded even the declaration of independence (1816 as given in the infobox) let alone the recognition of that independence (wrongly given in the infobox as 1821; the treaty between Spain and Argentina recognizing Argentina's independence was only concluded in the 1860s). The year '1810' was not "the date of independence". Apcbg 22:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but we are hardly debating that edit that hasnt stood in the last few days anywway and certainly isnt an issue right now. What of that edit do you currently object to with such vehemence? SqueakBox 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed that and you ended up stating that “claim implies dispute and there is no evidence of a disputed claim to sovereingty before 1833”. Well this statement of yours is untrue, for there were conflicting claims before 1833. First, Spain specifically reiterated its claim in 1811, and did not resign its sovereignty and claims in the region until 1860s; second, Britain protested against Argentina’s activities in 1829 and reiterated its own sovereignty claim which, Britain reminded, had never been given up; and thirdly, the US Government explicitly rejected the Argentine claim and the Argentine attempt to establish effective control by force in 1831, and responded by force in December 1831 - January 1832. Apcbg 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, source and add. I'm really not trying to stir controversy, my edits were in good faith. I am a Brit who lives in a Hispanc culture, and who believes that both the invasion and the war were wrong but that the first led inexorably to the second. What Galtiri was doing metiendose con Thatcher God alone knows but once she discovered that the reoccupation was politically feasible there was no stopping her, y ademas she was clearly overall a hugely positive influence on the UK. I dont feel my edits were in contrary to what you are trying to say but do think that facts are better than generalisations, I only reverted what someone else had already reverted, add it well sourced and vamos a cambiar el opening and make it better, SqueakBox 02:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... source and add ... vamos a cambiar el opening and make it better"?

I would rather not, for "Better is the Enemy of Good Enough" in this case I'm afraid. If I do it, I would be changing unilaterally the wording that was agreed as a compromise between a number of participants having different (all of them sourced) views as to what should be in the preamble.

The wording "... have been the subject of a claim to sovereignty by Argentina since the early years of Argentina's independence from Spain" is good enough for a preamble, all the (important) details about 1811, 1816, 1820, 1831, 1833, plaques, formal protests, arrests, use of force etc. have their proper place in the main text that follows the preamble.

"... but do think that facts are better than generalisations" — not in the opening of an article, which is precisely the place for generalizations rather than detailed facts.

In any case, I wouldn't support any change in the consensus text of the preamble without a new debate with more participants from among the regular contributors to this article. Apcbg

Thanks for your edits. I thought at first they answered a couple open spots in the article. But now I have a couple questions. Did anybody other than Davis land on Antarctica before Cooper? (although the reference I used does refer to Great Antactica). The wiki article notes the 1821 landing is in dispute. I absolutely cannot find any links to reference to St. Peter in the Bonin Islands. Other accounts of the landing refer to "northern Japanese islands." There of course is some logic if there was an American whalebase in the Bonins. Thanks. Americasroof 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can recall no records for other landings on the mainland between those of Davis and Cooper, by the way the landing of Davis is documented and I see no reasons to question it; the wiki article cites no sources of possible doubts (so that remark should actually be withdrawn); I would be interested to see such sources if any. There is a web reference to 'S. Peter's rock' in Bonin Islands, mentioned in connection with another wreckage. The islands were used by the Americans and the British as a whaling base in the early 19th century; as they were later annexed by Japan, the early European names for the individual islands became possibly superceded by Japanese names. Pribilof Islands are highly improbable; I don't think they were even visited by Japanese at that time, and indeed they were Russian islands and by no means "northern Japanese islands". Apcbg 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going the extra mile! It's a big help! 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Apcbg, you did a small change on Bulgarian lev where you changed a sentence of "the exchange rate Euro to German mark is" to "the exchange rate Euro to German mark was". I reverted your change, because the mark was replaced by the euro, but the exchange rate itself still exists (and is used by the Bundesbank if you want to exchange some old marks into euro anytime in the future). The past tense is simply not correct then. Cheers, MikeZ 09:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not revert it, although your logic seems questionable to me. That that exchange rate still exists — which means that the Bundesbank is in a position to change it by the way — is a subsequent development quite irrelevant to the Bulgarian Lev. The past time is quite correct because the sentence narrates a past event. Best, Apcbg 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your point that it's quite irrelevant to the Bulgarian Lev. I just wanted to point out that this same exchange rate is still existing - and, you're right, is fixed. I just feared that the past tense could be read as was at this time and would therefore indicating a rate either non-fixed or non-existent. Cheers, MikeZ 08:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've just nominated your map Image:Livingston-Greenwich-map.jpg for featured picture status. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Map of Livingston Island and Greenwich Island. Hope the nomination is successful, it deserves it. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Apcbg, on the first place it is inappropriate to erase sourced information even if there are newer points of view on the same matter. Second, if you want to create something really relevant, you have to offer scientific publication, written by some specialist in History, but not a jubilee speech of the head of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences simply because Academician Ivan Yuhnovski has built his career in the sphere of physical chemistry as far as I know! I don't think that his too indefinite words in this speech could resolve the problem. And finally, at least - as responsible editors - we must quote both theses. Best wishes, Jackanapes 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete statements only because you don't like its contents. Here you deleted a fact, claiming it was unsourced; however it had its link to the source. If there is a conflict between your interests and the informaiton in Wikipedia (A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. WP:COI ) send in a request for comment. --Argentini an 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cant find a webpage to quote, however the book La Infanteria de Marina en el conflicto del Atlantico Sur; (Jorge Alberto Erecaborde) says "La Compañia Argentina de Pesca SA al amparo de las leyes argentinas y bajo su bandera se instala en Grytviken - San Pedro - Georgias del Sur"

I'm afraid nobody will be able to check it, but I belive it is a reliable source. Do you agree?

I'm Sorry, I forgot the commas. in the Spanish Language the structures that add information to the statement (place, cause, method, etc) can be sometimes put before the verb. The quotation and it's translation in English :

"La Compañia Argentina de Pesca SA, al amparo de las leyes argentinas y bajo su bandera, se instala en Grytviken - San Pedro - Georgias del Sur"
Litteral:
"The Argenitne Fishing Comany [SA = Inc.??] settles in Grytviked - Georgia Island - South Georgia Islands protected by the Argentine laws and under its flag"
Meaning:
"The Argentine Fishing Comany [SA = Inc.??] setled in Grytviken protected by the Argentine laws and under its flag"
I dont know if it is better to put "the Argentine" rather than "its" before flag. The point is, it does say the argentine flag flied over the islands. If you like you can ask other users' interpretation, but I am certain they wont provide a much different translation for you.

Google's translation is " La Compañia Argentina de Pesca SA, under protection of the Argentine laws and low its flag, settles in Grytviken "--Argentini an 20:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: San Pedro is the name given to South Georgia by the León in 1756. --Argentini an 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that you are reporting correctly that text from the book La Infantería de Marina de la Armada Argentina en el Conflicto del Atlántico Sur 1982 - Cronología by Jorge A. Errecaborde, but it contains no concrete facts of an event with the Argentine flag being raised on South Georgia, the Argentine anthem sung, and Argentine possession proclaimed. That a company registered in Argentina is "al amparo de las leyes argentinas y bajo su bandera" does not imply that people working for the company bring the Argentine law and flag to new lands. The text does not say any such thing. I don't think that your search for a source supporting your claim that Larsen and his team raised the Argentine flag, sang the Argentine anthem, and proclaimed Argentine possession. If that was the case, there would have been first-hand records in the diaries of participants and other publications. That not being the case, the authoritative Argentine source, Historia de las Relaciones Exteriores Argentinas etc. states clearly that no Argentine flag was raised by the company on the island. Why on earth would they do it? Those were not Argentine officials — unlike Captain James Cook who was a British official instructed by the Admiralty to take possession of South Georgia for Britain, which he did in 1775 in a ceremony on the coast recorded in the diaries and published in the books written by three participants in that event — moreover, there was not a single Argentine among Larsen's team that built Grytviken. All 60 of them were Norwegians, professional whalers from Norway (no Argentine scrap merchants indeed :-).

To repeat: You are claiming a conrete act, raising a flag in a particular place. No such concrete event is reported, and I object to your attempt to attribute nonexistent concreteness to the above general statement that could be made for any company registered in Argentina.

By the way, I know what "San Pedro" is; should you care to read the article you are trying to edit (and of which I am the original author) you might find the explanation of that name too. Apcbg 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to thank you for the work you've put in on the expulsion question as well as other things. Really not something I expected to get so involved in, I was just perusing the history out of blind curiosity, spotted an inconsistancy and tried to fix it. It seems some subjects are covered in mouse traps. Though, it has got me into the general Falkland info. As you seem fluent (to some degree) in spanish, I was wondering if you could translate the name of the ref used by Argentini an in the south georgia article, I'm having trouble locating the book through any method. Narson 00:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first book at hand I consulted, Thracians by Alexander Fol and Valeria Fol, ISBN: 978-9549717181 has fifty-odd persons mentioned, not just kings and other nobles but also priests, poets, singers, artists etc. that could possibly need such a bio stub. In any case, if this template were deleted I trust there would be no objection to inserting in the relevant present articles a footnote to the same effect with no template used? I have no problems with having the template renamed 'Ancient-Thrace-stub'. Apcbg 08:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there were fifty currently existing stubs, the stub type would not reach the threshold for a separate stub category. Possible, currently non-existent, stubs are not taken into consideration. The reason for this should be clear - it's possible to find 60 things to write about on just about any subject, but since the primary aim of having separate stub types is to make it easier for editors to find particular stubs by categorising them in reasonable numbers (not so many as to be daunting, not too few to require searching through many categories), there's no point in pointing them towards stubs that don't currently exist. A plain Ancient-Thrace-stub would be a possibility, though I've a feeling it has been suggested and rejected in the past due to the small number of articles. As to inserting a footnote, there'd be no problem from the stub-sorters, but it wouldn't really serve any purpose. As I said, the main purpose of stub templates is to categorise articles for editors. A footnote wouldn't do that - all a footnote could say is that an article is a stub, which should be pretty obvious to anyone seeing it. And other editors to the articles might not like the idea and remove any such note.

If you're keen, a better idea might be to find other editors working on Ancient Thrace (via the histories of articles on that subject), and start a small WikiProject on the subject (Wikipedia:WikiProjects gives some pointers on how to do this). That way you could list and assess all articles relating to the subject on a WikiProject subpage, and also list articles which need to be made. If it's successful, then you might soon get to the point where having a stub types does make sense due to the number of new articles created. Grutness...wha? 09:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - you wrote: I see your points. Apparently there is a rule on stubs requiring 60 stubs, there are possibly less than that Thrace-related stubs at present, hence no Thrace-stub template. My topics of contribution to Wikipedia are not so much in the stub field, or Thracian history for that matter. I just saw several articles on ancient Thracian persons (the latter having Antarctic geographical features named for them, which had been my original starting point) using the 'Ancient-Greece-bio-stub' template which did not seem correct as those people definitely were not Greeks, ancient Thrace being a distinct civilization even if neighbouring. (It's like an Irish biographical article using the 'England-bio-stub' template on account of having an insufficient number of Irish stubs ...) So how would you suggest to avoid such misleading labelling, just revert them or what?

A good question. I might have a possible compromise answer - I'm going to propose an Ancient-Euro-bio-stub for biographies or similar of ancient European people in general, specifically for all those not covered by the two legit stubs for Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks. That would almost certainly reach 60 stubs, and given that many editors with knowledge of one aspect of ancient Europe would also have some knowledgeof other aspects, it might be a reasonable category to hve. BTW, the reason for the 60 threshold is twofold - it splits the stubs into reasonably "bite-sizes" for editors looking for stubs to expand (not so many as to be too daunting or vague and not so precise that an editor might need to look through a dozen categories to find articles to expand), and it also reduces the necessary maintenance work for stubsorters. Grutness...wha? 01:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zlatna maska teres-2.jpgThat would be a satisfactory solution I believe. Just one suggestion: Could we please illustrate the new Ancient-Euro-bio-stub with the picture used in Ancient-Thrace-bio-stub? It's the golden mask of a Thracian king, and arguably the Thracians upheld the reputedly earliest cultural tradition in Europe; as you possibly know the world's oldest gold (dated 46th century BC) was found near Varna. Apcbg 11:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2007/June. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you could use an edit summary more often. Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oleg, thanks for your suggestion; yes I know it helps but time is so precious ... I'll be trying. Apcbg

It seems the 1833 'expulsion' issue is going to rear its head again on the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands page again. If it becomes an issue again I would appreciate the help, as you did such great research into it previously (And debunked the idea far more than I thought would be possible). Narson 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the compromise idea. As you pointed out, says more than I wanted it to. I really hate the whole damn sentence, honestly. I have no idea why its pegged onto a sentence about falkland islanders citizenship and isn't down in Argentinian claims. I just have no desire for the fight with the Argentinian and Irish editors it would take. Narson 13:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

верно ли е че има българи на антарктика :D искам и аз да дойда... :) аз съм от македония и мисля че е много добре че нашия западен съсед има хора на антарктика... слабо говоря български, ма мисля че разбра кво искам да ти каза :)

поздрав

Guitardemon666 14:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if with your knowledge of the History of the Falklands Islands you could provide a date for the Spanish departure in 1811. We have a nominal date of January 8th 1811 from one source but its unclear whether this is the actual date of departure or that of the order. Justin A Kuntz 08:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently February 13th; see my sourced response on the article's talk page. Apcbg 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I could do with picking your brains again. I've an edit proposed in Talk:History_of_the_Falkland_Islands that includes a contribution suggested by a comment you made. I'm having a problem finding a citation and may go with an alternate text instead. Any chance you might remember the source? Justin A Kuntz 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Admiral Laurio Destéfani, “Attempts have been made to create a legend of courageous gauchos who attacked and defeated the British, but this is just imagination”, with the true story of what happened being “stated in 42 documents published by the National Academy of History”. As for the subsequent developments, Destéfani maintains that “Rivero and three other men were sent to England, but there the court ruled they could not be tried because the Malvinas had not been incorporated yet to the British Empire”. That incorporation happened in 1841 with the appointment of the first Lieutenant Governor, Richard Moody who was instructed by Lord John Russell: “... immediately after your arrival you have to find the means to administer law and justice within the colony. In a proclamation you’ll notify the inhabitants of the Falklands that the law of England is in effect in the islands; you’ll make sure this is complied with in any part of the islands where it is possible to find competent people to perform the offices of judges or magistrates”.^[1] Hope this helps.

^ Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982

Apcbg 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers I can work with that. Justin A Kuntz 08:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was working from text on one of the Falklands history sites, if I've got it wrong feel free to change it. I was working on obtaining several reference works but the library hasn't got them yet. I did think it kinda weird if he was sent to the islands, that he first went on an 8 months voyage, then waited for a month before raising the flag. Justin talk 20:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that source, definitely POV but does include some interesting information. I've been looking to establish whether Whittington and Vernet ever met and that site confirms that Vernet sold Whittington his Falklands concessions. Justin talk 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS working on a translation of the Jewett declaration, its hard work translating Spanish of that era. I've asked for some help from the wiki translation group. Have a peak at Talk:Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands for my attempt but I'm not sure I've got it right. Justin talk 20:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Apcbg/Origins of Falkland Islanders to User:Apcbg/Origins of Falkland Islanders. -- RHaworth 08:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I told Justin when he pointed me to that origins article, it looks really good and is suprisingly informative (Considering its something I wouldn't have normally been interested in, certainly not have created such a thorough article on). Hopefully it will put an end to the 1833 expulsion myth. Still. Very good article. Kudos. If I could work out how, you'd definatly get a barnstar for that one. Narson 08:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second that, its an excellent well written article.

As an aside, has Argentina ever ratified the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf? I believe I read somewhere that it never has. Justin talk 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narson, Justin, thank you so much for your kind words, and let me stress that we've developed that article jointly with JacobNapoleon whose contribution is by no means lesser than mine.

That 1958 Convention has been superceded by the 1982 Law of Sea Convention to which Argentina acceded in 1995, however none of these provides any basis whatsoever for claming islands — ang the burden of proof (providing relevant source) is up to those claiming otherwise. Apcbg 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, should've known you'd be 10 steps ahead of me :) When I read it, I thought it was ironic that they used it in their claim but had never actually ratified it. Justin talk 22:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3] As I thought Argentina signed but did not ratify the convention. Justin talk 20:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Origins of Falkland Islanders, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The DYK Medal
		Awarded by this editor for a Did You Know contribution that appeared on the main page, a hook that was well written, referenced, and displayed irony, a fact related to a distinguishing characteristic of the subject of the article, or other notable property. AwardBot 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your great work on the Origins of Falkland Islanders article, and for dealing so quickly with the concerns about it cutting off midway through the nineteenth century. The additional material is exactly what was needed; it still looks a little unbalanced, but that may just be because there's more to say or more sources available about the earlier period.

I do wonder whether there's some reorganisation needed now. Someone (not me) has slapped a merge template on Origins of Falkland Islanders, suggesting a merge with Falkland Islanders. To me that makes some sense - I might argue additionally that the whole lot be moved to Demographics of the Falkland Islands, which at present is a redirect to Falkland Islands.

I'm no expert on any of this, just an interested reader - hence, I'm just throwing these suggestions out for you to do with as you like. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed response. I'm very happy to accept your conclusions about the best structure for this set of articles - it's obvious that a lot of thought has gone into this. I agree that the lack of any consistent approach to demography/demographics articles is at present a failing in Wikipedia. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the new pictures onto the Goose Green and San Carlos articles. I see that you've got some stuff on flickr under a different name, but you might want to watch as it has a different licensing on it, which may cause confusion. Anyway, I have been asking around for pictures of various parts of the Camp, for a while Saunders Island is the only place where I've been able to find decent free-use images. --MacRusgail 16:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your input, the information put into the Heroina article by a previous editor indicated that Jewett left Heroina in Gibraltar prior to its capture for piracy against Portugese ships. Weddell also seems to think Jewett ended his career in Brazilian service. However, your information has the appropriate citation whereas the previous edition doesn't I'll amend it accordingly. Justin talk —Preceding comment was added at 16:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued to do a bit of research, I've found a source (admittedly a blog) [4] which confirms Jewett left the Heroína to be replaced by Mason. It was Mason who was captured by the Portuguese. Also includes an interesting snippet that Jewett took an American ship causing a diplomatic incident. Justin talk 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found another reference confirming this information[5]. Interestingly later in his career Jewett appears to have fought against Argentina, whilst in the service of Brazil. Justin talk 20:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement on piracy was from the original article, I need to do some more work on that. Justin talk 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assumed that Jewett had made some sort of declaration when he raised the flag but there is no written record of what he said. But you're right we should only report what the written records says. I've made the appropriate changes. Justin talk 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see arguments both for separate articles and combining it into one. The Port Louis article covers the same time period so on the one hand it would make sense to combine them. On the other hand your comparison with Istanbul/Constantinople is compelling but would a redirect not be sufficient? Justin talk 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally called Port St Louis by the French, renamed Puerto Soledad by the Spanish, renamed Puerto Luis by Vernet (though I think that may have been more for vanity than sentiment), the British renamed it Anspns Harbour for a while before it reverted to Port Louis. The Port Louis article covers all these periods. I don't have a terribly strong opinion in favour of combining them, as I said I could see both sides of the argument and I could easily be convinced either way. However, I would suggest the correct place for this discussion is on the article talk page not our respective talk pages. Justin talk 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree with you on some of the recent additions to the origins article, the same editor added a lot of irrelevant material to the history article. I have an email address set up for wikipedia use, feel free to use it if you wish to chat off-wiki. Justin talk 22:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new maps (with the sea in blue) look much better than the original ones. I appreciate the work you put in, but they were difficult to make out. --MacRusgail 18:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, if the 1842 settlers have descendants over 8 generations, would any of the 1833 residents make it nine? Justin talk 11:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated stone run, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created.2Fexpanded on November 21, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Komusou ^talk @ 17:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if ‘Darwin’, ‘Falkland Islands’ and ‘Bulgaria’ could all appear in that one sentence? Apcbg (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're free to try and add such sentence as an alternate hook under the current ones ;-) But the hook is limited to 200 chars max, and they prefer shorter hooks anyway, and single-fact, focused hooks are prefered too. That's because DYK hooks are just transient sentences displayed on the main page, once, to draw readers/editors to recent articles, where they get the full story. I mean, it's not a dictionary definition set in stone that'll represent your article forever, it's a one-day, transient hook. — Komusou ^talk @ 17:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I leave it to you; apparently you know better and would make a better job at it. Apcbg (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article stone run, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Balloonman (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Apcbg, it would be extremely diffuclt for me to translate the article properly given my lack of time and expertise but at the very least I will start it and create a stub as soon as I can. Thanks.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eupator, many thanks for your prompt and positive response. A stub for starters would be most appreciated, indeed. Best, Apcbg (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could drop me an email, address is in my profile. I'd like to discuss something off-wiki. Justin talk 08:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I just couldn't find your address? Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm watching your english editations on czech wiki. For example this one when you added a map. But this map is quite poor and missing some better description. What are the pink line, green line, yellow arrow and yellow cross? Please answer into my czech discussion. --EnJx (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Apcbg (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Bulgaria. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Apcbg/BG-MK-Policies and comment on the issue. Please look into Wikipedia:NOT#WEBSPACE, on the last paragraph there are pointers to finding other wikies where the content of that page will be welcome. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the debate as keep. Regards, Cenarium ^Talk 01:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd like to ask you directly in what relation you stand personally to the Manfred Wörner Foundation and to Mr Lyubomir Ivanov, about whose activities you seem to have created a "walled garden" of articles. Please be aware of our rules on avoiding "conflict of interest" in editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, figured it out. Now at WP:COI/N#User:Apcbg and Manfred Wörner Foundation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[6] Justin talk 21:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the other pic I found (linked in the discussion at the bottom) would make a suitable replacement to illustrate the jolly roger point? (It has a close up of the conning tower and flag, addressing their complaint that the Jolly Roger is not clear). It is nice to see you around on the wiki again. Who knew we had a notable editor among the Falkland editors! Narson (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it wouldn't bring accusations that we are evil communists out to destroy copyright, I'd suggest it would be good if Justin could merge the two pics. Have the wider image up top and then the zoomed in one beneath to show detail. I do think FutPer is taking a far too strict interpretation of policy, certainly his statement that we want 'less pictures' seems like he is on somewhat of a crusade.

As for the 'other article', FutPer's comment above made me curious and then I couldn't help but fiddle. I might have a poke around on it tommorow as it seems interesting enough and notable enough that I'm sure we can get it past a stub. I can get the CoI fears but gutting an article really isn't the best solution when discussion can do. I mean, it isn't like you are going to sue them for stuff you wrote. Narson (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if IMDB can be used as asource, but is this you or annother Lyubomir? EDIT: OK, my ignorance of eastern european names is showing. Seems to be a fairly common name (judging by there also being a Deputy Foreign Minister with the name?). Narson (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think me and Justin are going to try and get it back up to scratch. I'll go through the old version and salvage things from that and trawl the net. Though I am somewhat limited to English sources (Well, and French) as my Bulgarian is a little rusty and incredibly non-existant. Thanks for the help. Narson (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. I've added in a bit from a biography I got from the UN. It mentions you being an MP and Green Party chair and a parliamentary secretary. Though I just remembered you said you weren't the political one? Has the UN got this one wrong? Narson (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you made some changes to the article on Antarctica, particularly in the section Countries interested in participating in a future territorial division of Antarctica, where you have removed three countries (Spain, Peru and South Africa) stating that the references have been placed are poor, because I know you want to do that are not any source, the first institution belongs to the INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE OF CHILE, and the second of the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador, they express a great interest in these four countries in the sharing of the territorial antarctica, maybe you do not know this as it was in Spanish, also if you read the article by the Spanish in antarctica record the same section, as it is mentioned as a serious reference, also advise you to read the article in Spanish on the basis of Machu Picchu in Peru, where he also expresses the interest of this country in the territorial distribution of the antarctica, greetings --Edubucher (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the quoted two sources is not their Spanish language at all but their wide discrepancy both among themselves and with the suggested group of countries with possible territorial interest in Antarctica. Namely, it is suggested that

Brasil

España

Perú

Sudáfrica

are taken from the two quoted publications. However, the first one defines a group of countries that "tienen pretensiones territoriales, pero que por disposiciones del propio Tratado Antártico no pueden formularlas" comprising

Brasil

Estados Unidos

Perú

China

España

India

Rusia

Sudáfrica

while the second source considers

Brasil

Uruguay

Perú

Ecuador

It’s a serious thing for a country to have declared territorial interests in Antarctica, even potential or conditional ones, and one would have expected to see more definite sources, including sources in English too; as for Spanish language, one certainly would have expected to see for instance some official Spanish source in Spanish language confirming the alleged territorial interest of Spain. I am not saying that such territorial interests or intended interests do not exist, just that we would need better agreement between the article text and quoted sources. Apcbg (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		You are hereby awarded the Original Barnstar for your outstanding contributions to the encyclopedia in general, particularly with regard to the topics of Bulgaria, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Keep up the good work both online and offline! :) Todor→Bozhinov 19:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Todor, sincere thanks for your so kind opinion of my work; I am greatly honoured indeed. Best, Apcbg (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having responded, I say that is right in saying that the two references cited various countries interested in a future territorial sharing in Antarctica, but as you have observed in both referred to peru, as one of the countries with greatest interest in the antarctica next to brazil, I will expose it to peru now, that by acceding to the Antarctic Treaty, made a reservation of its rights to territory in Antarctica, something you can check the article in the base of Machu Picchu from wikipedia in Spanish (1), in that same article mentions the text of the Constitution of Peru where the rights are manifested in lebanon on antarctica. also was the secretary general of the UN, then Javier Perez de Cuellar, who also is Peruvian, who supported the territorial interests of lebanon on Antarctica in 1984. That is why I add to the article in the antarctica to peru, noting that the peru to accede to the Treaty made a reservation of its rights to territory, as stated in the Wikipedia article in Spanish that you can read and vera that is not what put an untruth.

(1) : http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Machu_Picchu#Tratado_Ant.C3.A1rtico

greetings, --Edubucher (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would appear from the quoted Chilean source that besides Brazil, three other Latin American countries have reserved their right to make claims: Peru, Ecuador, and Uruguay. I have added that to the article, still feeling however that more sources would be appropriate. Best, Apcbg (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confudido friend, I think you have some points, I totally agree with you for having placed peru, but not to Uruguay and Ecuador, for which only the peru has reserved its rights to territory in antarctica when it acceded to the Antarctic Treaty and that it is the source of the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry, now you explain that Peru should only be on that list:

1) Of the three countries mentioned above has been the only one who has reserved its rights to territory in antarctica when it acceded to the treaty and that is why to Ecuador and Uruguay were not taken into account in Wikipedia article in Spanish .

2) the source of the Inter-American Defense Institute of chile, referred to Brazil, the United States and Peru in the section Countries interested in participating in a future territorial division of Antarctica, as these three countries are considered a higher grade in its territorial pretenciones in Antarctica.

3) It is the only country in peru the already mentioned (Peru, Ecuador and Uruguay) which in its constitution make mention of the rights Peruvians in Antarctica.

4) It is the only country peru as you mention it in their territorial interest was supported by the then secretary general of the united nations the Peruvian Javier Perez de Cuellar in 1984.

5) It is the only country where the peru has written several books on the ties between that country and the Antarctic.

That is why we will do changes in the section of the article of Antarctica, placing only peru as this in the Wikipedia article in Spanish, adding that besides what is mentioned in the Peruvian Constitution, I hope it is your approval, greetings and thanks for your time to dedicate to the article by antarctica. --Edubucher (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Edubucher, I disagree with your approach, and would suggest that you bring Ecuador and Uruguay back. Wikipedia is not the place to compare the strength of various countries' territorial interests in Antarctica (that's 'Original Research'); it suffices to know from the quoted sources that all these countries (their governments or parliaments) have formally reserved the right to make sovereignty claims. Apcbg (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Logo-IMI.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  Asenine  18:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have added the 'Non-free logo' tag, and trust that the accompanying fair use rationale is adequate for the use of that logo in the article on the relevant institution. Apcbg (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All looks in order.  Asenine  21:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Apcbg (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating Duff Point! Happy editing, Kingturtle (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, wish you the same. Best, Apcbg (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up my opinion at the deletion discussion. Apologies for not having seen it, I am not an avid AfD watcher (and I have been swamped with university now. Cheerfully we get a class trip in january, to Auschwitz. Not at all depressing). Just a note for the future, so you don't run afoul of things, it is best when suggesting AfDs people will be interested in that you avoid mentioning the conclusion you reached. People get very sensitive and start screaming CANVASS! like deranged parrots. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for the avice too! Apcbg (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add pretty much the same as Narson. Apologies for missing the AFD nomination. You and I both know each other, so you know I would always make up my own mind and not be swayed by your opinion but others could miscontrue your actions. Anyway I rather agree that its a strong keep anyway, arguments to the contrary seem a bit contrived and specious to me. Justin talk 11:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Someone bought Justin a thesaurus ;) I knew educating those scots would cause problems. Anyway, happy to look over those things. Really, I would support a merge if the info wouldn't look shoehorned, it just seems like a bit too much info to merge comfortably, to me. Unless you did a 'list of people born on blah' which would be weird. If you end up at the Uni of Northampton, I'll be more than happy to buy you a coffee ;) --Narson ~ Talk • 11:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies folks, it never occurred to me that speaking one's mind would be misconstrued under the circumstances; I've always presumed that everybody here would take one or another (or none at all) view based on one's own judgement, including one's judgement whether to take into account or disregard someone else's opinion. So I promiss to duly respect possible deletionist sensitivities in the future. As for the merger of articles, I am most sceptical in principle, and would need to see a clear and convincing rational purpose of improving the particular article or Wikipedia in general in order to support such a proposal. Anyway, if anyone of you (and Pfainuk too) happens to visit Sofia, I'd be happy to buy you a coffee or whatever you drink. Best, Apcbg (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered whether you would consent to giving an interview to our sister publication, Wikinews? Considering some of the stuff of yours I've read, it would be interesting to get your opinion on recent events and, of course, your antarctic work. (I'll admit, I just recently started editing there and am quite enjoying it). --Narson ~ Talk • 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted 'Former Monarchies' cat a couple of days ago because 'Former monarchies' already exists hence me switching them on article, Tom B (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; and Merry Christmas and Happy New year! Apcbg (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This photo http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Christchurch-Cathedral.jpg is awesome. Is it for real? It looks like painted. --Sky Diva (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Michael Holman (linguist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That speedy deletion tag has been removed by DGG as indeed Holman's published work “is at least a minimal claim to notability.” Apcbg (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wilderness-Fund-Logo.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free logo template added. Apcbg (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for correcting the image I have uploaded. I asked my brother and he said the base showed in the picture is Brown, so I have reuploaded it and place the speedy deletion template in the new one.

Best Regards bcartolo (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bcartolo, happy to be of use. Best, Apcbg (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]