User talk:Bazonka/Archive 3

Cal Islet

Hi, I created a page for Cal Islet, where 33rd parallel north crosses. It does not cross Porto Santo Island. Keep up the good work Zdtrlik (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

This is certainly good news! Thanks, Dan! Now you know how I felt when I broke Liechtenstein last March :-) Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Any more news on Solomon Islands mate? Ijanderson (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Chances are they will probably recognise in the near future, they haven't got nothing to loose by doing so. US/ UK diplomats will have most likely asked them to do so, its just that thing happen kinda' slow in the Pacific haha Ijanderson (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Disruptive" behaviour

Bazonka, it's your right to place it, so please do excercise it, I have no hard feelings about it. I consider that it would be nice that someone else reads about my POV. As for disruptive behaviour, I might consider that it is you who is behaving disruptively by using irony as (I might consider) you had . Yes, I've been trying to act in good faith, whereas you stated that you knew that I had been acting. :-) If you state that my recent actions have led you to what you state you did, why couldn't you be led to a point where you could act in somehow more constructive manner. Perhaps by discussing the issue on talk page, or some other way. You could choose. All the best, Biblbroks's talk 13:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I consider the term "behaviour" too authoritative to be used in this case, I could be wrong on that. For that I apologize, it wasn't intentional. But let me point me to my POV with this question of mine: "Couldn't you think that I might consider the use of passive voice in the words "..., but your recent actions have led me to this." somewhat sarcastic (if not ironic)?" Sorry, no harm meant.

All the best, Biblbroks's talk 08:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii and Puerto Rico + Solomon Islands

Bazonka, I'm not having any trouble locating PR and SI on that map, but for some reason I can't find Hawaii - the biggest of the three. I'm dumbfounded. I've colored SI and PR but I'm unable to color Hawaii 'cause I can't find it! Dang. --alchaemia (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

nvm, found it. --alchaemia (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bazonka, do you have any idea how to get rid of this "Image copyright problem with File:Kosovopassportrecognition.svg" warning? It's wrong as I merely used a Wiki-map to create this map. The image has no copyright problems and the license has been specified as GNU 2.0 --alchaemia (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I plan on doing. Thanks anyway! --alchaemia (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: County Councils

Hi - the county councils of Cornwall, Durham, Shropshire, Wiltshire and Northumberland are the continuing authorities in the unitary re-structuring taking place in those counties. However, the resulting merged authorities (essentially in these counties the district and county councils are merging) are very much unitary authorities and not county councils. They will all call themselves "X Council" (e.g. Shropshire Council). In Bedfordshire and Cheshire the county councils are being abolished outright. Hope this helps. David (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There's going to have to be a lot of updating across Wikipedia with these changes! One article for instance is: Non-metropolitan district. I'm currently going through all the regions of England articles, changing their diagrams of local authorities. David (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oreet mate

NKR, Kosovo Times and Balkan Insight are all saying that the OIC passed the resolution in favour of Kosovo pushing for the Islamic countries to recognise Kosovo. Think we have enough confirmation to update the article yet? Regards Ijanderson (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's worse

Me or max?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He's at least editing in good faith - you're simply trying to taunt him at every turn for no purpose that I can find other than your own enjoyment. It doesn't matter, at the end of the day - keep pissing around and you won't be allowed to piss about any longer. Ironholds (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Im no stranger to blocks, i;'ve had permanet blocks ... what twice now?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet you didn't take the hint? You've had more last chances than any other user I can think of. Your interest in pissing off Max seems to spring from some nationalist crap-throwing argument over the international recognition of Kosovo, and I don't like disputes moving to other pages. Other users don't like disputes moving to other pages. Calm the hell down, stop stalking his edits in an attempt to piss him off to the point where he gets thrown off the project, leaving one less editor with his POV, or I'll push for a community ban. Ironholds (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that nobody can read my fucking user page.... FOR CHRISTS SAKE... ON MY USER PAGE I SAY I SUPPORT KOSOVO! What ?I have against max steems back from him being annoying... And ot bazonka as a editor of the Reaction page.... do you think we cna find somebody ot tell max to stop with the spam.--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall christ being interested in Kosovo actually, the middle east was more his thing. Stop stalking him and following up on his unrelated comments or I will send this all off to ANI. Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did i stalk him?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Following him to unrelated pages? You weren't at all involved in work related to the British peerage, but you followed him over in an attempt to annoy him for your own amusement. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

NO i noticed those on a list... was checking out his userpage and saw that big ass list of hiss. I don't see the need for most of those articles.. .because most are STUBS. I didnt do it to annoy him... perhaps you shoudl LEARN first then accuse--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And stubs are somehow less important now? See this, particularly comments like "you want ot know my problem with you? I won't be telling you then" and "I find it funner to not have a solution. Gives me somebody to ignore". Edits like that indicate you are following him for no other reason than to get a rise out of him. If he annoys you, stay the hell away from him. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He edits the same talk page as me... how can i NOT follow him?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, easily? It's called wikihounding, and you're not meant to do it. Following users to unrelated articles and unrelated talkpages and contributing to discussions just to piss them off and for your own amusement will result in a block. Ironholds (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days, and I come back to find all this on my talk page. To answer your question Jakezing, you're both as bad as one another - Max is annoying but well-meaning; and you fan the flames with unhelpful responses - suggestion: just ignore him in future. Bazonka (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Environment Agency

Do you have more information on the EA directorates? What is the Evidence Directorate? It affects the article significantly = Thanks Motmit (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I have restructured the article accordingly Motmit (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Debate on the Talk page of the article

Hello, Bazonka. You have new messages at Biblbroks's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

InsideNorthside - A North Minneapolis Encyclopedia

Hi, I noticed you've edited some articles related to North Minneapolis and I wanted to tell you about a project I'm involved in called InsideNorthside. It's basically a wikipedia for North Minneapolis, built on wikispaces (which is a bit more user-friendly then mediawiki, though not nearly as robust). Anyways, wanted you to know. I'm trying to find some wiki experts to help build an initial user base for the site. Check it out and let me know what you think. http://insidenorthside.org --Ariahfine (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bazonka. You have new messages at Template talk:Longlat.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  182° 42' 15" NET   12:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Bazonka. You have new messages at Template talk:Longlat#Choice of map.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  188° 8' 0" NET   12:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting text

It is the quote of the text of the declaration. You actually made me research whether " symbol can be used to quote text or only speech in English but I didn't have to look further than 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article where parts of the declaration as well as some other documents are posted between exactly the same symbols. So nhf, I accept that you probably thought yourself that the quotation mark can be used only for oral statements, but no it is used when we quote written documents as well.--Avala (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Avala, of course you can quote written text - that's not the issue here. My problem is that what you quoted was not the text of the declaration, but a (poor) Google translation of it.

If article A contains an English translation of foreign-language text B, then you can quote it - but in that case you're quoting A, not B. But where text B has only been published in its original form (or translated into another foreign language), then you should only paraphrase it or get it translated properly. Google translations are brilliant for giving you the gist of what's going on, but because they're automated they're prone to error and so can't be properly relied upon. You cannot directly quote a Google translation. (If there are other examples of this in this article, then they should be amended.)

I don't know why you have a problem with my amended version of your text. I fixed spellings and grammar. I removed (what I felt was) unnecessary wording that did not add anything. I didn't change the meaning in any way.

However, I have a problem with your version (even your newer version with the quotes removed). This is for the following reasons:

• The title of the declaration, whether in quotes or italics, is an automated translation. I don't know whether it's the proper title or not, therefore my edit described, rather than named it: "a joint declaration on the establishment of strategic partnerships". Perhaps your translation was absolutely correct, but there is certainly no harm in my edit.
• that in the point VI says - this is a grammatical error, and in any case it is superfluous to explain which part of the declaration we're referring to.
• says that Chinese side confirms - another grammatical error.
• in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, in accordance with international law - nothing grammatically wrong, but very wordy, and better shortened to just: in accordance with international law (the UN Charter and UNSC resolutions are international law of sorts).
• favorable - this article uses British English, hence favourable.
• In your latest edit, you've completely omitted the citation. Not deliberate I'm sure, but it does need sorting out.

So I've fixed these problems. I can't understand why you'd disagree with any of these amendments (except perhaps the shortening of the sentence about the UN). But if you do, please discuss here before reverting. If necessary we can take it to the main talk page and get a consensus view. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are all valid points but I'd prefer if you would implement them, rather than paraphrase as you did. I am not saying that your paraphrasing is necessarily bad but it is summarization which itself can be a violation of the OR policy and if we establish it as normal to paraphrase it could cause troubles in the future. Translation of official texts which use quite technical language is by far a smaller issue on the OR scale than paraphrasing or translating idioms and poetic language. I would love to supply official translation but there simply isn't one, the document was signed in Chinese and Serbian only. There is also no media translation I can find, however that is not quite what we need as it's just another third party translation. However many articles on WP have translations under direct quotation marks Constitution_of_Russia#Declaration_of_adoption, Constitution_of_Mexico#Article_11 etc. so it doesn't seem to me to be such a large scale problem.--Avala (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Avala, I don't really understand what you mean when you say "I'd prefer if you would implement them, rather than paraphrase". I did implement them... by paraphrasing. And I fail to see how paraphrasing is in any way OR, as long as you don't introduce anything new or change the meaning, and I don't think I did either of those (though I agree I watered-down the bit about the UN, but the meaning remains unaltered). It is unneccessary to quote if you can adequately explain the content of the original text. And I've never said that you can't quote a translation; what you shouldn't do (unless totally unavoidable) is quote a bad or unreliable translation - and this includes automated Googleness. The constitution examples you gave are taken from existing (and presumably reliable) translations. Bazonka (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant that you should implement small corrections in spelling and grammar rather than change the text by paraphrasing. Like I said there is no translation official or otherwise which is unfortunate but nothing we can do about it. I'd be satisfied if you would make an edit that would still keep the name of the agreement as well as the point addressing the issue in order to distinguish this contract from whatever statement. Btw in another point Serbia is now bound not to recognise Taiwan, and as that part is even strongly worded Serbia vows not to make any contact with Taipei authorities whatsoever. Also if you could unwater the statement by readding what the text actually says on international law. If you can do this I think we can have some kind of compromise. As I said our life would have been much easier on this if we had a translation but the problem is that this was signed by President and his website is complete crap - in Serbian they repost media news and in English they rarely post anything ever, just a random speech here and there. If it was signed by the Govt we would have had the translation in English and Italian the same day. Oh well.--Avala (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the information about the UN. But what is the title of the declaration??? I don't know! All I know is that a Google Translation of the Serbian article refers to it as "JOINT STATEMENT OF SERBIAN AND PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP". And is that actually the title of the statement? The text immediately below it in the article surely isn't part of the official declaration, so maybe it's just a subtitle within the article. Perhaps the declaration doesn't even have an official title. So, given all that, I can't see why you are opposed to my description of the statement as "a joint declaration on the establishment of strategic partnerships" - it's practically the same as the "title" anyway. Bazonka (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I just made one small edit and this should be it. Obviously it's not the best solution but we can't have much better atm.--Avala (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Flogging a dead horse

Made the move from 'beating' as per various discussions on the talk page, in which you took part in favour of the move. -- Ishel99 (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair well

I have decided to leave Wikipedia and concentrate on more important things such as my History degree at university. One of the main reasons I set up an account was due to my interest in Kosovo's declaration of independence. They hype has ended now in my opinion. It happened more than a year and a half ago, so I have decided to move on. I have enjoyed editing with you and I trust you to look after the IRoK article and to stop people from vandalising it. I may leave updates on your talk page regarding Kosovo news via an IP address. All the best and take care friend. If your in Bangor again, please let me know by email at i.j.anderson977@hotmail.com Regards Ian aka IJA (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you read my article

So, I've been working on an article dealing with Circassian nationalism (that's the article) for quite some time. Mainly, I've been the only one who's really contributed anything to it, except this one person dump a ton of tags on it, which were not really that ridiculous and I've been working to improve it on those matters. So now I'm left with the "essay" tag... could you read it, and tell me if it "reads like an essay" and if so, how can I improve it (wiki explanation doesn't help much) ? --Yalens (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look and made a few changes. I'm know nothing about this subject (thanks for bringing it to my attention), so I hope I haven't introduced errors. I hope you understand and agree with what I've done. I'm happy to discuss if not. Here's what I did:

• Spelling, punctuation and grammar fixes.
• Added a few links to other articles.
• Put references into a better format. Some still need improving, e.g. Tony Wood's "Chechnya: The Case for Independence" - where can this be found, is it a book, webpage or what?
• Added numerous fact and other tags. There's a lot of unreferenced (or not clearly referenced) stuff in the article. I haven't read all of the current references, so possibly some of the tags are inappropriate.
• Removed some essay-ish phrases, e.g. "of course", "some, as Tony Wood have argued" (this would be better presented just as a reference).
• Removed or toned-down some strong (possibly POV) words, e.g. "spell doom" -> "impede"; "destroy" -> "annex".
• Added explanations for esoteric words, e.g Muhajir.

Some issues still need resolving:

• The Russo-Persian War link goes to a disambiguation page. Your text refers to an event in 1763; however the linked page refers to several wars, but none in 1763.
• The quote "dismemberment will ultimately lead to the death of the Circassian nation" does not appear in the cited reference.
• The sentence "Russians may often view the three republics as integral parts of Russia" is POV. They are part of Russia; the question is whether they should be part of Russia. I'm not sure how to reword this sentence - perhaps it should be removed entirely.
• There are different sections within the article that refer to the same thing, e.g. the Adygea immigration quota. These should possibly be tidied up. Also there are some sections that do not seem to be immediately relevant to nationalism, e.g. beauty products. Again, I think tidying up is needed.

Can the POV and Essay tags be removed once these issues have been resolved? I don't know. I think you should probably ask the user who put them there, and/or seek the opinion of others who understand the subject matter more.

Hope that helps. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tony Wood's book, I remember there was a thing that allowed you to view it online before that had a link in wiki... and I downloaded it to my computer too. Though, I can't seem to find it now. I'll probably be looking in the history for this...

1763 marked the first attack on Circassia by Russia, I believe the Russo-Circassian War page makes note of that, which I linked to... I should check that.

Regarding whether they are part of Russia or not, I think that's really a matter of personal point of view of what a nation is. That's why I put in that Russians view it as such. Nowadays, people tend to equate nation and political country, and to an extent that's correct, but there is a discrepancy in the point of view issue here. I'll use Kosovo as an example.

SERBIAN POV: Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia, and has consistently been so throughout history. During the Ottomon period, Albanians moved in and became the majority, but the land has always belonged to teh Serbian nation, which has a strong emotional attachment to it. Nowadays, control of Kosovo has been illegitimately seized by Albanian irridentists.

ALBANIAN POV: Kosovo has always been part of the Illyrian/Albanian nation, and Serbian dominance there was achieved by invasion of the (at that time) defenseless Illyrians/Albanians, a military occupation. Albanians remained living in Kosovo, and many became Orthodox Christians, leading to census errors. Despite being politically part of Serbia, the Kosovar-Gheg people have always been a subgroup of Ghegs (in turn a subgroup of Albanians), and thus from the Albanian POV, nationally part of Albania.

GENERAL INTERNATIONAL POV: Kosovo was part of the Illyrian state, then part of the Roman Empire, then part of an unorganized Albanian-speaking proto-state, then conquered by Slavs, then part of the Byzantine Empire, then part of Serbia, then part of the Ottomon Empire, then part of Serbia again, and now it is an independent nation.

As you can see, the "international" (as I have termed it) POV has a distinct POV, that political borders necessarily equal national borders, and this is, nonetheless a POV. It is not necessarily any more correct than the Serbian and Albanian POVs. One can apply this logic to Abkhazia, Circassia, or pretty much anywhere. Though, I will change it to "part of the Russian nation"... The problem, I think though, is with the language we are using right now. The English language has some issues separating "political entities" from entities that are truly felt in the minds of the people they claim to represent, so the language itself has a sort of a POV that nation necessarily equals state. This differs from the Ancient Latin language or the modern Chechen language, both of which clearly differentiate states from nations. I think there's a sort of problem in that the languages we use sort of move us to one POV on this issue or another.

So, is Circassia part of the Russian Federation currently? Yes. But does the Russian Federation equal Russia, meaning Circassia is part of Russia? That's the dispute that the whole page is about pretty much.

Do you think I should simply merge teh Russian reaction and Circassian support sections, though?

Thanks. --Yalens (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean regarding the definition of "Russia" - it's certainly difficult to balance all the different POVs, but I would have thought that the international (neutral?) POV is safest. I think that "Russian nation" is certainly an improvement, but perhaps "Russia proper" might be better? (I don't know if anyone actually uses this terminology though.)

I have no real opinion on whether you should merge the reaction and support sections as these are different, but with overlaps. As long as you're not really repeating yourself, I don't suppose it really matters.

Another thought - why not include some pictures and maps? That might make it more like an encyclopedic article, and less like an essay.

Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ICJ

Thanks for updating the ICJ article so nicely and thoroughly. Much appreciated.--Avala (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Spitsbergen

You wouldn't happen to know of newer editions of IHO quotes you could use that don't misspell Spitsbergen? It's really annoying me! I know it's not your fault, but these things just bother me. Jonas Poole (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the 1953 3rd edition of Limits of Oceans and Seas is the most up-to-date version available, and it's full of archaic and unusual spellings - I guess we have to quote it warts and all. There was a 4th edition produced about 2000, but it has never been ratified or (to my knowledge) published. Bazonka (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Chukchi sea

As long as you are working this article over consider the following quote from the article

The Chukchi Sea has very few islands compared to other seas of the Arctic. There are no islands in its midst and only a small number of islands lie along the Siberian coast.

Herald Island is certainly an offshore island and entirely within the limits of the sea. The issue of whether Herald and Wrangell islands are "in the midst" hangs on terminology and the somewhat arbitrary boundaries of the sea.

Also could you comment on Extents? Is this British usage, or technical? A quick search does not reveal a precedent.Dankarl (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph on islands - what do you think? Regarding the extents that I added to the article, this is the official definition of the International Hydrographic Organization, so certainly not just a British definition. Bazonka (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My query was the term "extents" rather than "extent". The islands paragraph is fine. Regards, Dankarl (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. It's not a technical term - it's just what I thought was right. I think "extents" is synonymous with "extent", but I guess the latter is more common, so I will use it in future articles. Bazonka (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Indonesian sea articles were once as bad as mcgonnagals poetry - it appears you have dealt with that (they are now more like milligans poetry) - thanks and have a good christmas SatuSuro 23:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi - the suprise is that no one has challenged you on the IHO publication as a Single source issue - or the public debates about implementation and standing within international law - youre lucky! I would strongly suggest you find separate WP:RS for your edits if you have the opportunity - or at least some cognisance that it is not an uncontroversial choice of source.. 'the extents' as found in the document is one thing - there are also other issues that do exist SatuSuro 13:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments SatuSuro. I am aware that the IHO's 1953 3rd edition Limits of Oceans and Seas document is by no means perfect - but it is the most up-to-date list of definitions that have been ratified and published.

Note that I have not said that "The limits of the Such-and-Such Sea are..."; instead I've said that "The International Hydrographic Organization defines the limits of the Such-and-Such Sea as...". Whether you agree with their definition or not, it is absolutely correct to say that it is the IHO's definition. (I will reword this sentence in the Indonesian Seas articles which are now less clear than the others following the inclusion of the words about the East Indian Archipelago.)

There is no point in finding another source that confirms how the IHO have defined the seas, but if another body has a different definition of a sea's limits, then let's include that also. I'm not aware of any other definitions though.

Also I'm not sure how I can clarify the controversiality of the source, because (apart from a few spelling mistakes and archaic place names) I don't know what's wrong with it, or who disagrees with it. I will do futher research, but if you know, please tell me!

I have added comments to this effect in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean articles, where there is a clear dispute over the southern limits of the oceans, and the existence of the Southern Ocean. These notes refer to the unratified and unpublished (and therefore unusable) 2000 4th edition of Limits of Oceans and Seas. I don't know what other differences there are between the 3rd and 4th editions (if any), so I can't mention them in the articles.

Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to elicit such a well thought out reply - nah - we had some SPA idiots trying the australian project on some time back about the Southern Ocean - and maybe more have returned there - I havent had southern ocean on watch for over 7 months if not longer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_Ocean is not pleasant reading - there are some really weird claims there and in the article - the usage by Australian geographic names conventions run counter to the current version of the article - and also we had someone trying to change all the southern ocean mentions in australian articles to 'Indian' repeatedly a year or two again. (Bit like th eMalacca strait being located in the stuff Pacific ocean) - I would really appreciate your thoughts on the current article and the australian articles usage of southern ocean starting at Cape Leeuwin - as for Indonesian Seas - hey you are fine - just beware the turkeys - if you want to know what I mean just have a read of the ambience and style of arguments at talk pages and edit history of Maritime Southeast Asia, Malaysian Archipelago and Talk:East_India_Company to see what you are missing :) or may yet encounter :( SatuSuro 12:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Another sorry = have gone back to the southern ocean lead para and it (the big problem) is well described there after all - oops - so much for not going back to the acttual article - the talk page remains the same huh i was taught at school there were 4 oceans - so that must be what wikipedia should be stuff SatuSuro 13:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW - any clues on the Australasian Mediterranean Sea ?? SatuSuro 13:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope - I'm not familiar with that terminology, other than what's mentioned in this article. It's unsourced and I have no idea how common or official its use is.

Also, I think I'll have a go at reworking the intro to Southern Ocean, which currently states that the IHO has designated the Southern Ocean as an oceanic division. Not strictly correct - they want to, but haven't officially done so yet. I expect lots of abuse! Bazonka (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Taleigh yates

Hello Bazonka. I am just letting you know that I deleted Taleigh yates, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  11:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)