User talk:Robert L Gee

April 2024
Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to North Sea oil have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.  -  Sumanuil  '''. ''' (talk to me) 03:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Sumanuil, thanks for the message.
 * It was really just for the accuracy of the name, and to add that the Uk PM has issued a large quantity of Scottish North Sea Oil Licenses. (both correct)
 * You say it's not constructive, -that sounds a bit vague. Could you be more specific?
 * Many thanks Robert L Gee (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey @Robert L Gee, for one thing, changing the file to "File:Scotland's North Sea oil and gas fields.svg" entirely broke the image, because that just isn't the name of the file. Second, the claim that the North Sea entirely belongs to Scotland is not supported by the reliable sources in the article. Alyo  (chat·edits) 03:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Samanuil, thanks for your reply.
 * I think you'll find that the territory where the oil comes from is indeed a Scottish sea territory, (I checked) both geographically and legally, thus it belongs to Scotland.
 * It is sold by Englands Parliament in London, with the monies collected via the British Treasury, but the oil is in fact Scottish, as it does not originate from either England nor Norway. Most of the companies who actually do the oil retrieval are internationally owned with the former 'BP' (British Petroleum) now no longer primarily 'British' with at least five main shareholding companies.
 * I really do feel after checking the facts of this that this is something that needs correcting, or at the very least expanding upon in order to correct this for the sake of accuracy.
 * Thank you again
 * Robert L Gee Robert L Gee (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please link to sources backing up your statement, particularly "...geographically and legally, ... it belongs to Scotland." I don't see anything about that. Alyo  (chat·edits) 15:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure of course ALYO.
 * These three references (below) are from the Scottish Government:
 * 1)
 * https://marine.gov.scot/data/facts-and-figures-about-scotlands-sea-area-coastline-length-sea-area-sq-kms
 * https://www.gov.scot/publications/marine-planning-regional-boundaries/
 * https://www.environment.gov.scot/media/1233/water-scotlands-seas.pdf
 * 2)
 * In 1999 ALYO, a big part of Scotlands Sea Territory and therefore the oilfields that go with that were transferred, without consultation, to being a territory of England; if this region of Sea didnt belong to Scotland, why would they bother to make a covert legal transfer of approx 6000 square miles to England in 1999?
 * They (the English Government in London) made the Transfer to England, because the territory and the accompanying mineral rights associated, were Scotlands.
 * 'Scotlands Stolen Seas" -by Craig Murray, former British Ambassador and Whistleblower:
 * https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/01/scotlands-stolen-seas-technical-explanation/
 * Geographically, The Scottish North Sea is a Scottish Sea territory. If and when the Scottish people decide to depart the United Kingdom, (-like England departed from the EU in January 2020, Scotland voted to remain) they will in fact, take their Scottish Oil with them.
 * 3)
 * Dennis Healy (former Uk Chancellor) gave an interview to a journalist for the English newspaper The Guardian;
 * https://www.theguardian.com/politics/scottish-independence-blog/2013/may/29/scottish-independence-oil-healey
 * Mr Healy seemed very convinced the Oil and the Sea it came from were very much Scotlands, even until his death.
 * 4)
 * News network 'Bloomberg' broadcast an interview with American, Jim Rogers, one of the world's foremost investors who founded The Quantum Fund with George Soros. Here in this clip Mr Rogers cites what is likely to happen, or what would have happened if the Scottish had elected to depart the United Kingdom in 2014; much to the agitation of the English lady in the red dress, sitting adjacent.
 * 'If the Scots leave the why wont Sterling go to 80c? If the Scots leave Francine...without the Scottish Oil... England doesnt have much to sell to the outside world anymore...."
 * -Jim Rogers
 * (Bloomberg Clip 2:00 mins)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYzvUpoRsCU
 * 5)
 * From the BBC; Again, Jim Rogers talking on the BBC about Scotland departing the Uk and taking 'their oil' with them.
 * (From BBC 2016: 5 min. Clip)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNMUPIsQjf4
 * Hope that is useful
 * Robert L. Robert L Gee (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi AYLO, did you get my message?
 * thanks
 * Robert L Robert L Gee (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All of those links still only refer to the Scottish/UK EEZ's. They don't own the entirety of the North Sea. Q  T C 02:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just noting for the record that I agree with OverlordQ here, none of these links say what you are claiming they say. Alyo  (chat·edits) 13:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Scotland owns the portion of the North Sea where the oil is, -with exception for the sea territory which became Englands in 1999, and any other part of that sea which belongs to Norway. What kind of evidence are you looking for, respectfully? The English Channel doesnt belong to England, with about half of it belonging to France, who call the English Channel 'La Manche' Like I said, not the entirety of that sea area which belongs partly to Norway, but that is not generally what is referred to as the 'North Sea'.
 * The North Sea is Scotlands, because it is a Scottish sea territory which does not belong to Norway, nor does it belong to England. This means it is the Scottish North Sea as there is no other nation who could claim ownership of it. The Scottish Government say it does, and that Sea territory is in Scottish coastal waters. Which country do you think owns that territory OverlordQ?
 * The information you are looking for is included in this article published by the Scottish Government. Thanks
 * https://marine.gov.scot/data/facts-and-figures-about-scotlands-sea-area-coastline-length-sea-area-sq-kms Robert L Gee (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly the problem. The article is about all of that area, not just the area belonging (per you) to Scotland. The second line of the article even says that: According to North_Sea_oil, there are at least five countries with claims to oil-producing fields. The article is very clearly not just about the Scottish portion of the North Sea.  Alyo  (chat·edits) 03:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, -yes, but you just proved my point.
 * Its the Scottish North Sea, where the oil comes from. Thats the actual defining point. England refers to the Channel as 'the English Channel', where in fact, half (approx) belongs to France. (technically, because of the slight odd way the United Kingdom is made up as a State, it could also be argued that the English Channel could in fact be accurately referred to as 'The British Channel' whilst maintaining technical accuracy, though not full accuracy for want of a better term)' So the English Channel is just the half belonging to England. The 'North Sea' is the Part of that Ocean Territory that belongs to Scotland. Therefore it is the 'Scottish North Sea'. Respectfully. There is even a separate Entry on Wikipedia for this, for;
 * 'The Norwegian Sea' (you can wiki it)
 * Are you saying that to differentiate between the North Seas various areas there needs to be an additional article? (it does seem to suggest that from what you're saying) As to five different countries claiming oil rights, one will certainly be Norway, England got a large chunk of the North Sea in 1999 (most definitely they received territory belonging to Scotland, as Norway wouldnt give any rights to Britains Government I dont think) but the largest interest in that part of the North Sea belongs to Scotland, -if it didnt, the massive revenues wouldnt go to the British Treasury in London who takes taxes from many international private companies in order to recover and land the oil and gas. It would be going to Norway.  It does sound from what you're saying that there needs to be a separate article about this on Wikipedia, for example, like the wiki reference to 'The Norwegian Sea' being separate and more explanatory, -its really about territorial ownership, and it would appear that the article is 'non specific' and I would suggest, not accurate/in depth enough, as opposed to the separate article on wikipedia for Norway, now I take a second look at it. Also, for the sake of completeness and accuracy there should be mention of, and a link to the separate article on wikipedia called;
 * 'The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999'
 * The wiki article discusses Englands acquisition of a large area of the former Scottish Sea Territory/North Sea, back in 1999. This I feel must be included for the sake of accuracy, as this was a significant change to that territory, (approx 6,000 square miles) seeing as ownership of the maritime territory was taken by one country, from the other.
 * I do feel that the title of the article needs changed with an added amendment concerning the 600 square miles transfer from Scotland to England in 1999, and in fact to compare to the separate 'Norwegian Sea' article already on wikipedia, if this article is not renamed; Scottish North Sea Oil, there should be an additional article for the sake of clarification for Scotland, and also the other four countries that lay claim, as you previously mentioned. Robert L Gee (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll be direct here--what you are suggesting re:naming of the article is not going to happen, because it contradicts how Wikipedia works. We name topics based on our they are used in practice, not extremely technical definitions that rely on "gotcha" definitions. This article is not about the North Sea. It's about oil fields in a part of the world that, for the sake of ease, is often referring to as the "North Sea oilfields". The existence of this article does not mean that Wikipedia is taking oil away from Scotland, or in fact that Wikipedia is taking any stance whatsoever on the issue of Scotland's ownership of oil. What you are talking about ("Scottish North Sea Oil", "Norwegian North Sea Oil") refers to a completely different topic: namely, "Scottish claims to North Sea Oil", "Norwegian claims to North Sea Oil". Those topics may or may not be notable on their own, but they are not the topic of this article. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 16:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks again for your response.
 * I say respectfully; first, I'm not trying to 'gotcha' anyone. It's merely about accuracy, and around this subject there appears to be quite a bit of defensiveness (not just on wikipedia) I lived on the east coast of Scotland for a while and have friends in the British Oil Industry there, so I can say with a lot of certainty that any oil/gas there does indeed belong to Scotland, because the 'say so' for oil extraction and the tax monies levied go to the British Government in England, at least while Scotland is governed by the Parliament in England.
 * Likewise the territory in question, belongs to Scotland. At this point thats pretty much beyond any serious refutation.
 * Again, (and please understand I am in no way meaning to be difficult) there is no reference (many would say by design) for the location of the sea in question. North of where? Mexico? I know you most likely will say that 'everyone knows where the north sea is' etc etc, but my point; -calling this the Scottish North Sea is accuracy, -pure and simple in terms of ownership and geographic location (its off the coast of Aberdeen, Scotland)
 * The only reason anyone has ever heard of it is because of the Trillions of Dollars of oil and gas that has been and indeed is being recovered from that Territory (the largest oil find in two decades, reported just last week)
 * But that as an aside (and its not an aside, really) a person could argue that its a British Sea Territory, but again thats not factually correct, -its merely under the jurisdiction of the British Government whom, one might argue, are in fact England's Government (Scottish people havent voted for the Conservative Party for over 50 years and they are the current Governing Administration in the British State)
 * My concerns are for accuracy, and I know that I am correct in the things I have asserted during this thread. The fact that in practice this is how this mysterious 'North Sea' is referred to, without context and no doubt for political reasons, is perpetuating at the very least an inaccuracy.
 * Without the ability to make corrections or amendments on articles such as these (and to be accused of being malicious either by a moderator or by a bot, -which I'm absolutely not) makes a bit of a mockery of Wikipeda as any kind of serious reference. For anything.
 * I have made only one correction to Wikipedia before and no one had any issue with that, because what I suggested by way of an edit was both reasonable and factual (I briefly knew Pat Michaels Widow personally) I can only presume.
 * In the interests of feedback, I think this really puts wikipedia on shaky ground a resource that will last into the future.
 * As I said previously, I do feel that the title of the article needs changed with an added amendment concerning the 600 square miles transfer from Scotland to England in 1999, and in fact to compare to the separate 'Norwegian Sea' article already on wikipedia, if this article is not renamed; Scottish North Sea Oil, there should be an additional article for the sake of clarification for Scotland, and also the other four countries that lay claim, as you previously mentioned the future.
 * In light of the fact that you have said the article is not to be renamed, would you and the other mods you speak with at least consider my suggestion of linking to the other wiki article I pointed out?
 * 'The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999'
 * -that existing article has been obviously been pre-approved by Wikipedia (seeing as its there) and is most definitely pertinent to the main body of this'North Sea' article.
 * Thank you again for your time in this matter, it is appreciated.
 * Kind Regards
 * Rob L Gee Robert L Gee (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Final response: Be that as it may, that's how Wikipedia works. We reflect what sources say--if the sources contain inaccuracies, then we will too. We often say that Wikipedia is not the place to "right great wrongs". If you want to have a philosophical discussion about how or why this policy came into practice, I'm happy to have that, but you'll have to accept that these are the rules that govern your editing. In the meantime, you need to convince the Norwegian government, the Norwegian Offshore Directorate, Norwegian oil companies, Offshore magazine, and the US ITA to stop referring to Norway's continental shelf as the "North Sea". With apologies as I know you mean well, these are the sources I will lean on in a dispute. Once you do that, you can change the article. Until then, this article will continue to refer broadly to "North Sea oil" in a way that encompasses the claims of at least a couple other countries, and thus cannot be called "Scottish North Sea oil".
 * With regard to Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, I have no issues with you linking it as it appears to be appropriately related, and I suggest you go ahead and add the link to the article. Just don't do so in such a way that makes the claim that all of the North Sea oil fields (including those on Norway's shelf) belong to Scotland :) Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 13:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Yes of course I understand, and will link the article appropriately. It does appear that the part of the North Sea that belongs to Scotland as a Maritime Sea Boundary is largely unarguable, -but I think we just had that discussion :) Thank you again for taking the time to discuss this, it is appreciated. I wish you well. Rob L Gee :) Robert L Gee (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Rob L Gee Robert L Gee (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Final response: Be that as it may, that's how Wikipedia works. We reflect what sources say--if the sources contain inaccuracies, then we will too. We often say that Wikipedia is not the place to "right great wrongs". If you want to have a philosophical discussion about how or why this policy came into practice, I'm happy to have that, but you'll have to accept that these are the rules that govern your editing. In the meantime, you need to convince the Norwegian government, the Norwegian Offshore Directorate, Norwegian oil companies, Offshore magazine, and the US ITA to stop referring to Norway's continental shelf as the "North Sea". With apologies as I know you mean well, these are the sources I will lean on in a dispute. Once you do that, you can change the article. Until then, this article will continue to refer broadly to "North Sea oil" in a way that encompasses the claims of at least a couple other countries, and thus cannot be called "Scottish North Sea oil".
 * With regard to Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, I have no issues with you linking it as it appears to be appropriately related, and I suggest you go ahead and add the link to the article. Just don't do so in such a way that makes the claim that all of the North Sea oil fields (including those on Norway's shelf) belong to Scotland :) Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 13:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Yes of course I understand, and will link the article appropriately. It does appear that the part of the North Sea that belongs to Scotland as a Maritime Sea Boundary is largely unarguable, -but I think we just had that discussion :) Thank you again for taking the time to discuss this, it is appreciated. I wish you well. Rob L Gee :) Robert L Gee (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at North Sea oil. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lynch44 (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * HI Lynch44, thanks for the response.
 * I am not trying to be disruptive, apologies if it appears otherwise, no disrespect.
 * I am waiting for another editor to get back to me. This is only the second edit that I have made on wiki so I am still fairly new, but my evidence which I have supplied sources for are legitimate and factual, from respected, legitimate sources. Thank you, Rob L. Robert L Gee (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * -it goes without saying I would not have taken time out of my day to make an edit to this article if it were not constructive.
 * Respectfully, Rob L. Robert L Gee (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As pointed out above, your edits are effectively making the claim that Scotland owns the entire North Sea which is patently untrue. Q  T C 03:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)