Talk:List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20030706034718/http://coris.noaa.gov/backmatter/keywords/pac_no_reef_country.pdf to http://www.coris.noaa.gov/backmatter/keywords/pac_no_reef_country.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Virtually occupied or controlled
Please provide the background on these rules. Who came up with them? I'm tagging the section as original research, but don't take that as an accusation. Instead find sources to explain where those rules came from. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A courtesy period has passed. I did a very quick googling of "virtually controlled features" but no results jumped out at me. CapnZapp (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Therefore, with the lack of sources, I will have to conclude this entire section is wholly original research and I'm removing it. Please restore it, but only if you can provide references that verify all those rules aren't OR. Specifically, at the very least we must provide a source of the definition of the term "virtually controlled" that includes the rules on what lies within 9 miles of what and so on. Do note that nothing tells me this stuff is in the Code of Conduct: if it is, that needs to be made much more clear. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am a significant editor of this page, but I only noticed your edit(s) by virtue of you deleting ~9000 characters of text. i.e. I noticed AFTER the event, not before - Hence my lack of participation in discussion. I suspect others have not responded and/or participated for similar reasons. Further, I don't agree with your logic or conclusion(s).
 * I think you need to do a MUCH better job of notifying the "stakeholders", and making an attempt to engage them, before you come to such conclusions, and take such actions. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW: I don't consider myself to be a major stakeholder in this section. I have had almost no input to this section. I suggest you need to locate the creators and major editors of this section and communicate directly with them before arbitrarily destroying their work. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, Pdfpdf. However, please do not intersperse your comments with those of other editors, creating the illusion of dialog. To avoid any risk of confusion, I have highlighted the fact which of your remarks were made after I posted my last comment. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. Fair enough. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ''Please provide the background on these rules. Who came up with them? [User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you examine the edit history. (The section has been there for years.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ''I'm tagging the section as original research, but don't take that as an accusation. Instead find sources to explain where those rules came from. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your sentiments, but I'm not sure that your approach of tagging the section as OR is particularly useful. Perhaps a more useful / more productive approach might be to identify and notify the "stakeholders" and engage them in a conversation? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ''A courtesy period has passed. I did a very quick googling of "virtually controlled features" but no results jumped out at me. CapnZapp (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't think one would be justified in classing that as a reasonable period or a comprehensive investigation. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It has been another two weeks. Please do not add back a completely unreferenced section without first adding at least some references. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For Fuck's sake! It's been there for years!!! As I said, two weeks is a totally inadequate period. If it really bothers you, get off your arse and do something useful yourself. Otherwise, go with the flow. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I must ask you to stop swearing, or I will either have to ignore you or report you for incivility, Pdfpdf. Thank you.
 * Now then: "it's been there for years" is a completely inadequate reason to keep problematic content and I will disregard that argument. I'm not even sure you fully understand the Wikipedia workflow - I do not need to "do something useful myself", and there certainly are no "stakeholders" (there is no ownership of articles). Feel free to ask me (or, perhaps preferably, others) if you are unsure about how any of this works.
 * Tagging the content is doing something useful. It is also all the notification that's required of me. I certainly don't need to hunt down editors that might not even be active on wikipedia (but I welcome you to do so if it's that important to you). If no other editor comes forward, that is to be taken as silent consensus. Removing content is completely fine and absolutely not equal to "arbitrarily destroying" any work - it's all still there, in the page history, ready to be reinstated once it meets policy regarding sources. Even if it takes years for one of the involved editors to arrive here, their work will still be salvageable. But in the meantime, unsourced content will certainly not stand, no matter how long it has done so previously.
 * What I will do, however, is to treat you as an involved party, Pdfpdf. Since you contest the removal of the material by your revert action, I will wait for another courtesy period before revisiting the article's status and this talk section. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for overly emotional language choice. I had intended to remove it, but you saw it before I got back here. Given the choice, I would change it to "For goodness sake!". Pdfpdf (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing new has come to light since 12 December 2016‎: section removed.

Note to all editors: Please feel free to restore it, but only if you can provide references that verify those rules aren't OR. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of maritime features in the Spratly Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106210603/http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/year/y05-19.xls to http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/year/y05-19.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit
Hi. I deleted the entries from the top of the page because we already have those links in the Contents table from below. It's a duplicate --Daduxing (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Initially I didn't agree. Now I'm not sure whether I agree with you or not. I'll think about it some more before I answer further. Thanks for your response, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)