Talk:Pepys Island

British Overseas Territories Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

South America: Falklands Low‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

New edits

Please note my previous contributions and research in this field. (St Brendan's Island - section San Borondon, and the Aurora Islands). I have this very day come into possession of a book reprint in Spanish, the original having appeared in 1839, in which far more information is available regarding the 17th century sightings of Pepys Island. These bring into question the assertions made in the current article. I have posted half the new article and expect to finish the changes on Friday 16 March.Geoffreybrooks (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Geoffrey Brooks 15 March 2012.[reply]

This posting is now complete. Please advise with E-mail address for reception if the HMS Diana sketch is required.190.244.184.7 (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Geoffrey Brooks 15 March 2012.[reply]

I've revised the article to remove what appears to be your own personal commentary. Please read WP:NOR.You miight also read WP:VERIFY. In addition, you need to do inline citations as described at WP:CITE. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have now subjected the map to further examination and obtained the coordinates at which HMS Diana found Pepys island, and can read the scale in leagues. Therefore a further edit.201.250.96.8 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need a source for the coordinates, not your examination of the map - that's just how we work, see WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. See also my edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than read your edit summaries I have been ordered by my higher authority at Villa Crespo to abandon this project immediately.Geoffreybrooks (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My higher authority has now given instructions - this is the way they work - to delete any reference to the English warship. Apparently we must have this out. You can keep the rest. Geoffreybrooks (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note from your Usertalk-Geoffrey Brooks page that you thought I was working out the coordinates from the map. I do not understand how you can have thought that. You jump to unwarranted conclusions as is obvious from some of your previous interventions. One must ask questions before condemning something out of hand. The map (which you have not seen)is just a rough sketch of the island, nothing more. The coordinates where the English frigate Diana found Pepys island are stated in the top left hand corner of the map, but unlike the rest of the map it was difficult to read without great magnification. We greatly magnified it and read the coordinates. I was then told the material was blurred deliberately for political reasons so as not to be read and I must take it out. That is as "bizarre" as it gets. Geoffreybrooks (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date

""Jan 1683 [sic – 1684?]."

There is a simple explanation for this. In the 17th century ( 1600's ), the New Year started on March 1. So 1684 didn't start until 1 March 1684, and the months which we would ( modernly )call January and February 1684, were part of 1683.Eregli bob (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]