Talk:Private island

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

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment 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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

Check the recent edits by 84.143.15.190, as they seem to constitute veiled advertisements. – Lunarbunny 07:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added information learned from a BBC report about Private Islands and 2 external Links

The BBC report is available now on Youtube at the BBC World News channel. Due to the fact that the BBC regularly removes videos from their Youtube channel no link to the BBC report was created here. Herbert Alves 20:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sovreignty

I'm curious, how do these uninhabited islands remain in custody of governments who merely 'patrol' the waters around them or may update a beacon placed on them occasionally when for all intents and purposes they are in a state of terra nullius for the remainder of the time? Wouldn't the first man to plant a flag on it and start to live there have more of a sovreign claim than the distant claimant? 211.30.71.59 08:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals can't claim territory, only property. Only collectives such as governments or states can claim territory. States then devolve property rights to individuals. -- Just my uninformed opinion of course. That's something for political scientists or philosophers. sure there theories about these things out there. --213.54.18.110 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

In response to an e-mail and continued edit warring, I have removed all the links and locked the article. I would advise everyone to read WP:EL for Wikipolicy on External links and to notice that Real estate has no commercial/broker links on it. Only non-commercial (not selling Islands at least) informational links can be included. If there are any issues or links you would like to discuss, please do so here. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a blog link. While not a recognized authority, the blog seems informative and non-commercial. Frankly I'd rather have something rather than nothing; but I invite counter-point(s). - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you guys are allowed to talk things out on this talk page. Sending me e-mails, doesn't really resolve the dispute... it just forces me poke my head it. Discussing things here would be better, and more transparent. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark you wish to pursue the inclusion of your blog, which likely won't be accepted since it is a blog, you can make use of the WP:Dispute process... specifically third party options. All the best. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please ban the user Islomaniac. He keeps posting his commercial blog in the external links with complete disregard to the previous edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.219.55 (talk • contribs)

External Links

Please do not post links to blogs or commercial promotion. The link posted violates both guidelines WP:EL, and appears to represent a conflict of interest as well. Acroterion _(talk) 03:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It it a conflict of interest, however I'd like the blog to be assessed for its content. As per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." User:Islomaniac is an authority on islands, if his website does not "primarily exist to sell products or services"; then an authoritative blog can be added. 69.42.219.55 may have a conflict of interest of their own by calling it a "commercial blog".

The header on the blog does specify "Private Islands for Sale", but the content of the blog doesn't appear to be selling islands. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that since Islomaniac's business appears to be the sale of private islands, there's a conflict of interest. Usually (in my limited experience) a blog may be acceptable when it is the product of a journalist or industry observer, not an active participant. As a previous editor noted, the blog is in fact quite interesting, but that doesn't override the COI issue. While the market for private islands is limited to a small group of customers, in principle it isn't any different from the (however interesting) blog of a maker of soap, and it is unfair to someone who has been warned for posting their soap blog to overlook this instance. The Category:Islomaniac also apppears to be neologistic and promotional; to be properly encyclopedic, it should be more generically renamed Category:Owners of private islands. Acroterion _(talk) 02:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I put my first note on the talk page because it appeared that more than one party may be at issue. I do not want to leave the impression that I am exclusively concerned about Islomaniac's blog. Acroterion _(talk) 02:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they - who?

"Although this exclusivity gives the owner substantial control over the property, they still fall within the jurisdiction of national and sometimes local governments." To whom or what does "they refer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.33.104 (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Private island

Cyberbot II has detected links on Private island which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://g.co/maps/6fe37
Triggered by (?<!-)\bg\.co\b on the global blacklist