In reply to Annoying Twit:
> Some people like to maintain a distance between themselves and their Wikipedia pages. Particularly since editing your own Wikipedia page is a no-no.
Yes, on both counts.
I'm a little embarrassed at your interest, but also flattered of course, so, thanks for the effort. I hesitated to comment but had been thinking I should probably should, if only to explain a few pertinent things.
When I first found that I had a Wikipedia page I was very surprised, and it wasn't initially clear who had made it. But with a little research it became clear.
'My' page, like hundreds of others, is the product of a particular person at the Antarctic Place Names Committee of Bulgaria (or whatever their exact name is). While that may seem flattering, it is in fact part of a broader campaign by them to dominate the internet, and eventually the real world, with their Antarctic ambitions. I have protested at this, and to put it mildly, they don't appreciate me doing that. So 'my' Wikipedia page was actually made by someone who hates me
)
I first noticed it on Google Earth some years ago, when the impressively steep, stormy and remote Smith Island (HW Tilman's eventual destination in 1977 before he died en route) in the South Shetland Islands suddenly had dozens and dozens of feature names on it - a place almost no one has ever set foot on, let alone explored and surveyed. Even the (few) peak names were almost unknown and the highest peak was only summited in the 1990s (after a few British military attempts). Not only were the names on Google Earth, but also matching on Wikipedia, and eventually in other similar databases. It became clear the Bulgarian government had done this.
Now, the Bulgarians have had a base on nearby Livingston Island for some years, and they have done some minor (some may say token) scientific work and exploring around that island. In 2003 me and team mates made the second ascent of the highest mountain, Mt Friesland (1700m) and GPS surveyed it, as its height had previously been very unclear. We made a nice new topo map of the island, using a (freely provided) Spanish satellite image, a general Antarctic DEM (Digital Elevation Model) and our own few GPS points.
Everybody loved this map, and in line with the tenets of the Omega Foundation, my sponsors from 2001-2008, we gave them away for free. The Bulgarians loved it in particular, so much so that not only did they show it to the Pope when he visited nearby King George Island, after I had sent them 50 free copies, that they then upped and
made their own copy, using the same image - but put dozens of new Bulgarian names all over it!
Basically, SCAR guidelines are pretty general on naming, but there is a recognised system, and the names are meant to have some Antarctic connection, not commercial nowadays, and preferably scientific - but they can obviously also be descriptive, or in keeping with some existing theme. The Bulgarians, from the get-go, seemed to think it was fine to name 'their' Antarctic features after saints, priests, churches, Bulgarian places and other irrelevant things. This is craven Antarctic nationalism. Yes, all countries have done it, but mostly in the past AND always in areas where they have done actual scientific work or significant exploration. The Bulgarians have done so such thing on Smith Island, or really anywhere, in real terms, but you could excuse them doing a bit of that around their (minimal, summer-only) base on Livingston Island.
So, I discussed this with various relevant people, most of whom agreed it was wrong and a worrying trend, but were not concerned enough to act. It's hardly African famines or nuclear war we're talking here - I realise that. Bulgaria is a member of SCAR, and for diplomatic reasons, if a member nation proposes a name and puts it in their own database, it now automatically goes into the main SCAR database and becomes 'official'. I should note at this point that their activity had come to the attention of others in SCAR simply because of its excessive volume and rate of input, regardless of quality of provenance.
In my 2010 book 'Mountaineering In Antarctica: Climbing In The Frozen South' I specifically wrote some paragraphs about this issue, on p.183. That section was edited with input from an ex-President of SCAR, so it's not some personal ego rant. I didn't name the Bulgarians, but it soon became clear that they'd read it and recognised who I was talking about. And they were not happy.
Within months they started putting their names on peaks and features in the Sentinel Range - the highest peaks of Antarctica where I had done most of my climbing and GPS surveying, for our new map - in areas they had never even laid eyes on, let alone been to, let alone done anything in. But put it on Wikipedia, Google and other bits of the www and it becomes true.
They targeted specific peaks I had deliberately left unnamed (being insignificant) and features right next to other things I had visited. They have continued this to some extent - actually a lot, over 30 new names - and protesting documentation has been formally submitted to SCAR and other relevant authorities. It's quite ridiculous, and actually pretty sad. I've mostly tried to ignore it in recent years.
So, the only times I have touched 'my' Wikipedia page (as you can probably see in the History) is to correct mistakes that have been made - mistakes made because they have no idea of the place, because they've never been there.
Out of a mixture of ambition and impotence, they just want to cyber-colonise Antarctica, without doing the work so many other nations, organisations and individuals have done to such great cooperative effect for over half a century.
