User talk:DLinth

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)

Source please

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)

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)

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)

Durand Line

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)

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)

Thank you

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

Shatt al Arab/Arvandrud move

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)

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)

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)

User:Tajik at ArbCom

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)

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

Quatern Island

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 :) )

sebatik; territorial dispute change, also new disputes not entered yet, views please.

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)

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)

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)

Curious

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Panama

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)

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.

6 MORE ADDITIONS

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)

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)

Longest rivers in states

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)

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)

Re:Shebaa farms

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)

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)

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)

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Sheba Farms 1966map.jpg

Image Copyright problem

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)

RE: Image, et al

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)

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)

Southern Ocean

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)

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)

Flanagan Island

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)

Djibouti/ Eritrea

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)

Just some ideas I have....

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)

Problems with a map, eyeball needed again

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)

Extreme points of Earth

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wingina

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)

list of territorial disputes

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)

Bure, Africa

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)

Migingo Island

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)

Spratly Islands

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)

Durand line

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)

Maryland Route 4

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)

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)

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)

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)

Radcliffe Award

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)

Edit summary

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)

Re from Rennell435

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)

December 2010

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)

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)

WikiProject Orienteering

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)

Armenia Map

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

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)

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

Thanks

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)

Georgia map

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification

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)

Disambiguation link notification

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)

Territorial disputes

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)