User talk:Ratzer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hi Ratzer, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia. Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images. How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status. Manual of Style, how articles should be written.

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism. Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable. Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created. Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one. Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 20:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trindade and Martim Vaz

Hi there - copying and pasting page contents isn't the preferred way of moving an article, as it splits the article history between two pages. The correct way is to use the "move" function, or if that's not available (because you're a new user), you can request page moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Regards, sjorford →•← 09:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isla Sala-y-Gómez

Thanks for all your great work at Isla Sala-y-Gómez. The article has been vastly improved in the past couple days. Tomer ^TALK 20:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Okino Torishima

I'm not subscribed to the newspaper El Mundo online, so I can't send you the text, sorry. I just read the article when I bought the newspaper some time ago and I suppose somehow I got to the article online or it wasn't protected or something.

I did find the same photo with the data in the website of the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, here: http://www.corriere.it/gallery/Esteri/2005/05_Maggio/sindaco/1/SINDACO1.jpg

The corresponding article (in Italian) is here: http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Esteri/2005/05_Maggio/20/okinotorishima.shtml . I hope this info has been useful.

Sorry for taking so long. I don't really use Hotmail anymore... Sabbut 14:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi, please use edit summaries. They help everyone. Short is fine, just be reasonably descriptive. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 14:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farallón Islands

Great work on that article. It's improved immensely...takes me back to Isla Sala-y-Gómez.... Tomer ^TALK 03:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I just spotted your recent comment in my 'units of area' archive

Hi,

I just spotted your recent comment in my 'units of area' archive. Thank you for reading through the discussion page. I will respond to your comments now.

• You said The problem I have with expressing areas that are in the orders of magnitude of 0.1 ha, 1 ha or 10 ha and that are approximate, in square meters, is that the use of these units pretends many more significant digits than there actually are.
  • Units do not imply precision for readers. The number of trailing zeros is a commonly used guide. For example, text might say that the area of eqypt is 1,000,000 km². The precision is not stated. There are 6 trailing zeros, few reasonable readers would believe that it meant the precision is +/- 1 km².
• You said If you must stick to the strictest interpretation of the SI bible, and where the scientific notation is not practical, IMHO it would be more appropriate to say 0.001 km² than saying 1000 m².
  • On a purely numeric basis, it seems odd to prefer 0.001 over 1000.
  • On a comprehension basis, 1000 m² is easier to visualise than 0.001 km². Areas in square metres can be visualised directly, particularly since they are used in descriptions of homes, offices and gardens. Even without direct experience, it is easy to construct the area in the head by imagining an area of 10 by 100 m, perhaps as the area of a 100 m running track. It is difficult to visualise 0.001 km² or construct it in the head.
  • However, if that is what you want, I don't mind.
• You said: What about "square hectometers" (hm²) (same as hectares), would that be totally SI-conformant? "Hecto" is a SI prefix, is it not?
  • Yes. You are correct. As you can see at metre. The 'hectometre' is correct SI. So a square hectometre would be a correct form of 'hectare'. The hectare itself is not encouraged.
  • I would not mind so much if people used square hectometres instead of hectares. But that it is not the real answer. It is a 'soft conversion' and just a translation word-for-word. Translations word-for-word are limited in what they can achieve. I can think in English and translate word for word into Spanish. I might be understood but it will be bad Spanish. It would be better to forget English and express the thoughts directly in Spanish. It is the same for translating metric units. A value in square hectometres just might be understood but the best way to express it is in square metres or square kilometres.
  • It would be easy to test comprehension of area in both directions.
    • 1.From real world to numeric value. Look at something and try to guess the area in hectares or hm². You would almost certainly be more accurate with m² or km².
    • 2. From numeric value to real world. Take a given numeric value quoted in hectares or hm². Then identify an area in the real world that is equal to that numeric value. You would almost certainly be more accurate with m² or km².

Those are just my thoughts. Thanks for discussing it with me. Bobblewik 13:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Desecheo Island

There seems to be a grammar mistake or garble in the following:

The island belongs to the city of Mayaguez, barrio of Mona Island.

Also, this and some of your other islands seems to me to be bordering on qualifying for deletion as not notable, but I'm not too familiar with the rules as they apply to physical geography. Maybe merge all of them into one article.

--David Woolley 12:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egg War

Since you've contributed to the Farallon Islands article, I thought perhaps you'd be interested to know that I've put in a request for an article on the Egg War here. If you write the article, please remember to remove the article from that listing. Cheers, Tomer^talk 17:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Kolbeinsey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kolbeinsey.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:SEFI.png

Thanks for uploading Image:SEFI.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:SEFI.png

[edit] Okinotorishima

Hi Ratzer,

I noticed you added a link to the Okinotori article, but it seems to direct to a 1976 bulliten board archive, and I couldn't find the section you described? Did you perhaps post the wrong link? Or am I blind and just don't see it on the page? (I'd say either are likely :D) Komdori 13:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just search for "Parece Vela" on that page--Ratzer 06:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Subdivisions of France

Hi Ratzer,

I think you started messing things up by moving the template and the article to "administrative...". Are you aware that the article was just moved from "administrative..." to "subdivisions of france" less than a year ago, as you can see in its discussion page? It does not look like you read the discussion page. Or do you want to start a moving war? Now the article still has the ZEAT in it, which are not administrative and which you threw out of the template already...

Sorry if my (unfinished) work on this article (and all other "Administrative divisions of" / "Subdivisions of" articles) seems perturbing. My aim, with support from WP:WPCSub, is to clarify the distinction between administrative and other kinds of national divisions. Although not administrative divisions, the ZEATs are certainly relevant to the administrative division of France, so I've moved their mention in Administrative divisions of France to the #See also section, at least for the time being. Hope this is okay. I suppose a "See also" link to their article could be included in {{Administrative divisions of France}}, but at present I'm not sure if that's wise.

Meanwhile, perhaps you might like to add your views re "Administrative divisions of" / "Subdivisions of" in general to here and/or subsequent threads...?

Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tetiaroa

Thanks for uploading the map of Tetiaroa -Safay 05:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dumont d'Urville Station -- thanks for the picture

Great picture -- thanks for uploading it. It really makes the article. I suspect the day it was taken was probably the nicest of the year -- and it still looks like a cold, forbidding place albeit in a dramtic setting. --A. B. 16:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm also looking for PD photos of Port Martin (previous station) and Charcot Station (former inland station). So far, there are not even articles for those stations in the en-Wikipedia. They are both interesting. It was said that after moving to Dumont d'Urville, that the new environment was much less hostile, with only half of the average wind speed compared to Port Martin. Charcot was largely dug into the snow so the wind would not blow it away. There was not much you could see from outside.Ratzer 12:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Europa Island

Thanks,
I made it from the NASA satellite view and from my knowledge of the island. I am not completely sure of the north direction, so I didn't put it on. The former map was so bad and so wrong, I could not bare it anymore ! Unfortunately, I don't know the other scattered islands enough to draw their maps. If you want a caption in another language, give me the translations, I would make a new version and upload it.
Cheers
Channer 04:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I turned the map 28° clockwise, the uploading was successful, but the new picture doesn't appear yet on the Commons image, nor in the english article. That's a mystery ! Just have to wait the computers do their job ?Channer 18:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Census Bureau area figures

There is a wealth of information available at the U.S. Census Bureau website if you know how and where to look. However, just looking at all the possible combinations of links you can click on might overwhelm and exasperate some people. It did me at first. Now I use it for all kinds of data. It's very comprehensive if you'd care to find out almost any kind of statistical data on any place in the United States that you would want.

How I found out that particular piece of information is this:

Go to the website at http://www.census.gov/

Choose American Factfinder at left side

Choose Data Sets > Decennial Census

It should default to the 2000 census tab here, but if not, choose it

Choose Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data

Choose Detailed Tables at right side

Choose Map tab among the five choices

This should give you a map of the United States

Choose the + (plus) sign at the top which allows you to drill down

Start clicking on Florida, and keep clicking until you get down to where you want (You have to know approximately where the place you're looking for is in order to do this!!)

You should be able to do this with the Farallon Islands. (You will probably come up with an answer of Block Group 2, Census Tract 604, San Francisco County, California. If you don't, then I've made a big mistake.)

By the way, I tried to look up this same information on the Dry Tortugas and could not find it. I just could not find the place on the map. Maybe you can. Good luck! It's nice to know that there are other people here besides me who are interested in arcane geographical matters, such as land area and population.

Farallon Islands: Block Group 2, Census Tract 604, San Francisco County, California United States Census Bureau Backspace 00:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miles vs. kilometers

Direct quote from the Wikipedia manual of style "For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon. " The article pertains to a place under jurisdiction of the USA, therefore USA measurements should be used. The distance between islands in the USA is measured in yards, feet or miles, not kilometers or meters. If metric measurements MUST be used for the rest of the English speaking world outside of where the article pertains, they should be listed in the parenthesis, not the USA ones, since the area the article pertains to is in USA and is subject to measurements used in the USA. - Oh, and the USA is not even close to changing over to metric. I'm not sure where you got your information, but you've been sadly misinformed. - Marc Averette 03:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets keep this discussion in the place where it started, which is your discussion page User talk:Averette#miles_or_kilometers.3F.--Ratzer 06:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table alignments

Text should be aligned left, and numbers right. I've never heard that before in my life or on Wikipedia, and I thought the centered looked better, but you clearly feel more strongly in the other direction, so feel free to revert! jengod 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I already conceded to your greater wisdom. Why? Because I didn't want to drag out the debate. Go do whatever it is that you want to do. I don't care. And I'm not sure if the Averette thing was directed at me or not, but when someone posts on my talk page, I like to respond on other people's talk pages, because otherwise they might not check back and see if I've responded. jengod 18:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiordland

Gruess dich! Danke fuer die Daten ueber Fiordland. Allerdings habe ich den Teil etwas umgeschrieben, und deine Quellenangabe in den Text eingebaut (guck es dir mal an wenn du moechtest, inline-Referenzen sind immer die besten). Die Daten der Quellenangabe NICHT in das Editreview schreiben! Da bleiben sie zwar auch bestehen, aber es wird sie nie wieder jemand finden! gruss, MadMaxDog 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Grüße dich auch! Es heißt ja, dass man beim Editieren immer seine Quellen angeben soll. Das habe ich getan. In diesem Fall habe ich die Quelle nicht für so wichtig gehalten, sie gleich in den Text einzubauen. Ich stimme zu, dass normale Leser die Quelle so nicht sehen, aber jeder, der sich die Sache genauer anschaut (wie du z.B.) findet sie, sie geht ja nicht verloren.--Ratzer 19:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial authorities of New Zealand

I was unable to find the reference in your edit summary for this article, but the changes you made to this article seem implausible. Waiheke Island is part of the Auckland City Council, and has a population of many thousands. Is there another Waiheke Island that I'm not aware of? If so, the link should be changed.

Our article on Mayor Island/Tuhua says it was inhabited until 1901. If it is inhabited again, our article should be updated.

The Territorial authorities section of the stats department page says "All off-shore islands, with the exception of Mayor, Motiti and White Islands in the Bay of Plenty Region, are included in territorial authorities."

For the time being, I'll remove Waiheke Island from the list as the most obvious problem.

If you can fix these problems, please add a link to your source in the article (not just the edit summary).-gadfium 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I took the discussion to the discussion page of the article in question, [1], hoping to invite people with local knowledge to resolve the open questions

That's fine, thanks for your efforts.-gadfium 21:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Juan list

It's nothing personal but sections under construction are best kept out of an article until they are finished. Plus prose is better than bulleted lists. Joelito (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rockall

23 metres tall - above mean sea level? Above lowest spring tide at Dublin Bar at noon on 1 June 1892 or whatever? Please add. --Red King 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. The source (Rockall article in de-Wikipedia) also does not specify this. There seem to be many wikipedia articles that are missing this reference, also the article about the world's highest mountain, Mount Everest.--Ratzer 13:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project proposal

Hey Ratzer, long time no talk... In case you're interested, I've made a new WikiProject proposal here. Cheers, Tomer^talk 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Three Kings islands

Hi there. I put the tag up because this article has zero references - I don't think its much to ask to put even ONE reference into this article. You say "most of the info is measured or taken from the map in the article, or from the external reference given": If its an external reference then it should be under a "References" heading not a "External links" one- external links aren't nessecarily references. As for the link given, there is no information there. It just has some writing in german and a link to some "Lycos" page - the "Unreferenced" tag should stay there to encourage someone to find references for this page. I'm being quite fair when you consider that this is written on the wikipedia Wikipedia:Verifiability page:

Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[2]

Its nothing personal but this page does need references; there is alot of specific information in there ( facts, figures, dates etc) and at the moment its totally unverifiable; whoever wrote this could have made everything up. Kotare 06:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that the external link didn't work anymore. That happens sometimes, and that's the problem with any internet reference. But with Google, I found the original source material somewhere else in the internet now, and adjusted the link in the article. Most of the other facts are heights, distances, and areas, which are taken, measured or gauged from detailed maps such as the nautical chart in the article. I added a further reference to topographic maps, where you can get a detailed view of the islands, and a page of the sailing directions of the area. If there is anything left that needs verification, let me know.--Ratzer 11:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you insist on removing the "Unreferenced" tag without giving this page references. If they're used as references pages should be put under a references heading, otherwise its just misleading. Anyway, much of this page is a cut and paste job and should probably be deleted Kotare 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

External links ARE references. Otherwise they would be unrelated to the article and out of place. However, feel free to change the header of the section. May I also ask you to be specific and stop your global qualifications "much of this page is a cut and paste job". And please don't delete any information unless it is obviously wrong or a violation of copyrights. Wanting to delete much of the article is a destructive attitude.--Ratzer 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was alluding to the reference which you corrected the link for, much of the text in the article is identical to that there, thats why I thought it was a cut and paste job and that it should be deleted - apparently though, that page is most likely a cut and paste version of the wikipedia article, my mistake. Anyway, thanks for sorting out references for this article. Kotare 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peros Banhos

Hi Mohunu, I like your map Peros banhos.PNG. Would you consider adding some information to it: to draw a dashed line from the east point of Île Fouquet to the east point of Moresby Island, and marking the area east of it as "Peros Banhos Atoll Strict Nature Reserve". Thank you.--Ratzer 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Ratzer, Right from the east point of Ile Fouquet touching the point of that little island? And right east of Moresby island cutting across its reef? Or perhaps slightly more eastwards? I have never seen that in a map, that is why I am asking.

Ratzer I tried drawing a line but the map looked too cluttered. So I have drawn a new map showing the strict nature reserve area. It would be useful to know since when, and which animals are meant to be protected to include in the text, for the paragraph gives little information.

[edit] Unnamed Bank

Ratzer: The source is the Admiralty Chart INT 703 titled: 'From the Gulf of Aden to the Maldives and the Seychelles published by the Hydrographic Service in London in 1977. The depth of the bank is charted as being of 33m. The exact shape I don't know because of the scale of the map, but this new bank is marked in pale blue like all the shallows and shoals. Mohonu 04:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Desroches.JPG

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Desroches.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 08:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atoll

Shut your mouth. I thought I was stubbing the main islands. If you didn't notice most of them are described as "isle" not atoll -even the template says Isles of etc.... I started with atoll but then realised they were actually small isles. There are only a few which are worded as "atoll". Please don't overreact. I was only trying to help. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And no I don't intend stubbing anymore. What is the point in stubbing 2000 more islands as you think I'm going to if there is no info available and are only 50 metres wide? Did you have to be so patronising and rude to me? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For instance did you check Lafanga and Lekena etc and all of the other articles not on that first atoll? They all say isle NOT atoll. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Done - a small error sorry. Was there really any reason to throw such a big song and dance???? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks -I see you have done some very good work on islands -I don't ususually respond negatively its just your message was a little patronising and I am not accustomed to messages like this. Apologies for the error - but I'm glad you noticed and it is now corrected. I usually respond to people on their talk page otherwise many people often don't get the message. All the best and keep up the good work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The above is an orphaned piece of discussion taken here by mistake, I presume. The complete discussion is found here [2].--Ratzer 18:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

HI Ratzer. Yes like yourself I am all for as much coverage on wikipedia as possible even in localities. However I strongly believe the primary factor in deciding which atolls or tiny islands should have an article is available information however small it it. If google comes up with some basic facts then it may be worth it but if not I do think its best that they don;t warrant a seperate article but the isles are summarized on a main island page. Red linking a word though -the isles in this case does give a assertion that it must have a seperate article and if you see isles that you believe don;t qualify for an article -there must be thousands then I suggest that they are unwikified. I dont like to see one line stubs either. What do you think amigo? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Dude....

... just what were you thinking? "spatially coincident"? This is Wikipedia, not a math textbook. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

my dictionary does not identify either "spatial" or "coincident" as specific math terms. But if you have a better way of explaining that the geographic term "Little Diomede Island" describes the same spatial extent as the administrative term "City of Diomede", go ahead. It should be made clear that the City of Diomede in an administrative sense does not just occupy a part of Little Diomede Island, but all of it, and nothing more. I'm not a native speaker, and sometimes I overestimate the mastery of English by native speakers.--Ratzer 06:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arquipélago de São Pedro e São Paulo

Thank you watching the article of the St. Peter and St. Paul Rocks in the English. The article still in construction according to new scientific (geological) research data and articles. The source of the figures is recently submitted scientific article to the Revista Brasileira de Geomorfologia, written by our research group, but still not publised. The English, Spanish, and Japanese Wikipedia pages will be enriched soon to Portuguese level. In addition, Until the end of 2007, I will to open a geological homepage of the St. Peter and St. Paul Rocks. This page will show all of available scientific articles in geology.

> Please don't get offended that I am writing English here

No problem. I am not a native Brazilian, only a geologist working in Rio de Janeiro State Government. Very few geologists working at the St. Peter and St. Paul Rocks can write English. It is one of our weak points. Amotoki 04:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar border

Hi, thank you for your message. I would suggest you consider adding it to the geography section, because the lead section is not an appropriate place as outlined before. The use of brackets, particularly in the lead where material should be concise and straight to the point, breaks up sentence cohesion. Vigorous writing is clear and concise. Have a look at WP:OBVIOUS#The_rest_of_the_lead_section, that should explain it properly. And concerns like this are best taken to the article's associated talk page. thankyou -- Chris B • talk 19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I did not criticize that you took the information out of the lead section, which was alright, I criticized that you deleted it altogether, and that you downplayed the size of the Spanish border town. The problem is now taken care of, the name of the border town is now mentioned in the Geography section.--Ratzer 05:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Wind lagoon size

I just saw your edit summary of "corr. Kingman Reef lagoon size (measurement of World Wind sat image)" on the Line Islands page. How do you measure lagoon sizes in World Wind? Or did you just measure it manually from the image? Either way, would you be willing to help me with the List of islands of Kiribati article? I cannot find any lagoon sizes for the Gilberts. Thanks. --Henry W. Schmitt 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A few total sizes (lagoon+dry land+reef flat) are here [3], and a few more here [4]. Maybe you can look thru the figures and see if they make sense. I also find that we need a table of the Gilberts with that information. With Tuvalu, Line Islands and Phoenix Islands I did it already, although some figures I found for the Phoenix Islands seem to be wrong. A few missing areas I estimated roughly from NASA World Wind, including Kingman Reef.--Ratzer 12:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah they don't make sense. I thought the "Log10" was lagoon area, but they are much too small to be so. Thanks for the links. --Henry W. Schmitt 17:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No no, the areas (in square kilometers) are the column before that. From the order of magnitude, they appear to be correct (e.g. 421 km² total area for Tarawa Atoll). But do you have reliable land area figures? Oceandots, unep, citypopulation and bevoelkerungsstatistik give varying areas for some of the islands/atolls.--Ratzer 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay so it says Christmas is 530 square km. That is total land mass, including lagoons and lakes? And to calculate the lagoon area you are subtracting the known land area from this total? That 421 for Tarawa seems a bit too big if Christmas is indeed 530 km². I found a map of both Christmas and Tarawa in the same scale [5], and it just doesn't seem right. --Henry W. Schmitt 02:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tarawa figure seems indeed a bit on the high edge in comparison with Christmas Island. It can also be that the Christmas Island (Kiritimati) figure is wrong (the Wikipedia article says 642 km². The total area includes land area (with interior lakes and ponds), lagoon area, and reef flat area. The latter categorie is not to be neglected, probably larger than the land area in many atolls. The downside of this is that you just can't calculate the lagoon area because the reef flat area is mostly unknown, and also very hard to gauge from sat images. In vol. 127 of the atoll research bulletin, land area and lagoon area figures are given for all Marshall and Gilbert Islands atolls (in square miles), but unfortunately on the download site [6] this publication is incomplete, so only the northermost two islands of the Gilberts are treatet. I wrote to the site already, but I don't know how long it takes them to fix it.--Ratzer 07:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I just found a Swiss UN website (last updated in 1998) that gives area (and a lot of other neat information) of nearly all Kiribati islands. [7]. Some are drastically different from what Wikipedia has (sometimes by ± 10 km²). I am thinking these are pretty accurate numbers, and they are all on one page, so if some are accurate the rest should be. This doesn't concern lagoon area, but I think it is a good reference for all island sizes. Also I do not think lagoon/lake area is included in these numbers, what do you think? --Henry W. Schmitt 02:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: "The lagoon area for Tarawa is 375 km2 and that for Abaiang is approximately 225 km2 or 40% smaller (From Maragos and Holthus, 1999)" [8] page 7. --Henry W. Schmitt 02:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Solander-p5598doc.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Solander-p5598doc.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Solander.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Solander.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

see here [9]. Image can be used IMHO in Wikipedia. You don't add anything new to the discussion.--Ratzer 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Three Kings chart.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Three Kings chart.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

see here [10]. Image can be used IMHO in Wikipedia. You don't add anything new to the discussion.--Ratzer 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Three Kings.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Three Kings.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

see here [11]. Image can be used IMHO in Wikipedia. You don't add anything new to the discussion.--Ratzer 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert Islands overview table

The table looks great! I just borrowed those numbers for List of islands of Kiribati and I will merge that with List of islands of Kiribati/2. Also I cleaned the Gilbert Islands page up so it is more streamline and orderly. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I made these changes. I wanted it to be in a way like List of Nations: Not separated by continent or anything, just a list of everything in order. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of islands of Kiribati/4

What do you think of this? I added photographs similar to the Russian Wikipedia. Perhaps I should separate them by island group... --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a convenient thing for the reader, but at 100 px width it blows up the table size (line height) too much. So I experimented with limiting image height to 20px. If the reader wants to see detail, he has to enlarge the image anyway, therefore it might not matter so much whether the starting size is 100px or 20px. Also with 100px you don't see much detail. Grouping the table entries by archipelago would be nice, then you can save one column in the table. Not all entries are "atolls", some are single low coral islands, like 5 of them are "officially" classified in the Gilberts group. IMHO, the classification as atoll or single low coral island is not always clear-cut. Many isolated islands tun out to be atolls or near-atolls if you have a closer look. Either, they have a small landlocked lake, or a central depression, which is or was the lagoon really. Or others sit at the corner of an atoll structure that is submerged for the rest. Still others seem to be degenerate atolls, like Makin (islands). But I'm not really a specialist in this.--Ratzer (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

K I split them all up. The Russians put Banaba all by itself, but I placed it with the Gilberts. I also called some of the islands with no lagoon a coral island. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:SG-Districts.png

Thanks for uploading Image:SG-Districts.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hey; firstly, the text I put in upper case was aimed to draw people's attention to it - it stands out as opposed to lower case stuff, and has a greater chance of being noticed. Secondly, it is not my duty to find a source for these time sigs. If you look through the history of the page, you'll see most of the edits are reverting or adding unsourced material. If someone wishes to add a time sig, it is their duty to provide the source - the Wikipedia editors cannot be expected to search for sources for other people's additions. The warning I added help emphasises this. ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atlas or almanac facts

I agree with you that atlas or "almanac-type" facts don't need a citation! See my note following your note at WP:NOR. It would be great to hear your reaction to the (somewhat) larger issue. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peros Banhos Map, etc.

Ratzer, I will do so shortly. Please give me a bit of time. Mohonu (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)