User talk:Chipmunkdavis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:06, 24 August 2010

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Chipmunkdavis! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 00:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De Admin warning

Please stop pushing POV on this article. I have have edited the article but is is continuesly reverted by a team of POV pusher vandals. I have continued and changed my edits, but everyone was reverted. Stop now or I will have to report for supporting POV pushing vandalism.

The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop. This is the warning

--Croq (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the terrible spelling/grammar of De Admin warning, and the fact you copied my warning, I am not pushing POV, or supporting POV pushing vandalism. There was an established status quo, which you broke, leading to wikipedias edit, revert, discuss cycle. You however skipped the discussion part, and went on to re-editing, forcing many of us to keep reverting your blatant vandalism. Any wikipedia admin will see this. Best regards, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official data

Please do not delete official data collected by government institutions, and call it POV. Your edit is actually POV. Thank you. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse people of that without saying where it was. Additionally, assume good faith. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalisms

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kubura (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Administrators noticeboard (not for you) about the Serbocroatian article

LoL, silliest post in the world. Wouldn't worry, just don't fall for these bullying methods. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states

Hey, I reverted your edits on recognition because the statements were already relayed in footnotes, which I hadn't realised when you brought it up on the talk page. Did you want to move the statements to the main text? Night w (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of consistency, and as stated the recognition is covered in some countries but not others. Will take this to the article talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to List of European countries and territories: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was inappropriate about my revert? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep a conversation in one place. After I, and most other users, post a message on a talk page, we'll watch the page for replies. Nothing was wrong with your revert. If you read the message it simply says to place a message a the vandal's talk page (like the one I placed on yours, except different). The vandal may take no notice of the message but it allows other users to see how much they vandalise and tells administrators for how long they should be blocked. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, thanks for the message.

Talk:List of European countries and territories -basic policy...

That may or may not be true Chipmunk, but it's usual to leave a linked reference to it when you base something on policy - even those of us who have been around for a long time can often not see the wood for the trees in the jungle of Wiki bureaucracy :) --Kudpung (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Still working out all the ways of Wikipedia :) I was more referring to this Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle! Thanks for helping me. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of being a tendentious editor and you ask me to AGF. Real classy. Are you having a laugh? Daicaregos (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not, and I tried to word what I said as diplomatically as possible. I've done my utmost to AGF this whole time. That I assure you, with the fullest sincerity. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for stating that HiLo49 was not being entirely accurate on the Australia talk page. Bidgee keeps deleting my response. Silent Billy (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I noticed he kept deleting it, and tried to just summarize it so it was there. I'm personally not sure that your post broke what he said it did, but I assume they have their reasons. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't an Admin and you really have to be very naughty to get banned. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&oldid=377803767 you will see what I said. I don't why Bidgee is deleting what I wrote. If he wants me banned he is better of leaving it there so others will complain. What HiLo48 says is not accurate. Silent Billy (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Chipmunk.
Some of the people that mess around with Wikipedia flip barnstars to each other like postcards. I don't work with them so when I get a barnstar I feel particularly honored because I know it wasn't awarded flippantly, and it reassures me that there are indeed some editors that really appreciate each other's work. Two in one day for one exercise is almost too much - it blew my mind and made ammends for all the stuff that has been worrying me lately. It boosted my ego too, but I'll try not to let it go to my head! Thank you :)
--Kudpung (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I see you are a fan of Dr Who. My very good friend and near neighbour (48 Km) here in Isan was scriptwriter, director, and producer of some of the earlier series (ca. 1967 - 1970). --Kudpung (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about giving two. I thought you deserved the act of kindness one, and I just saw the socrates and thought "Wow, if anyone deserves that"... Honestly thought you deserved both. I promise not to give you any more in the near future, if that helps! (Those are the first ones I've given by the way, so tell me if I'm off base)

In response to your PS, I'm jealous. I know my infobox says only after the 9th, but that's because I haven't seen many of the previous ones, although I've seen some, and they were good. I do hope they feel the new series continues the doctor who spirit and ideals! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, 2 barnstars was super! Give me as many as you like! Derek was the director who hired Jon Pertwee - Oh, way back in the days of beautiful teenage Wendy Padbury...--Kudpung (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW; it seems as if one contributor to the List of European Counries has gravely misunderstood a piece of Wikip)edia policy. I would just like to point out that I am not intimidated by his threats and nor should you be - in spite of the Welsh dragons all over his user page. --Kudpung (talk)

If you keep it up, I might retract the barnstarts I've already given! My dad liked Jon Pertwee, and he is a hard man to please.

As seen before, I'm not the best one to judge wikipedia policy at the moment! To be fair on him, your post was worded slightly weirdly, for example, I have no idea what you meant when you said I imagined TE (although that may just be my stupidity). Don't worry about me, I've apparently got bigger problems on wikipedia right now, which I won't drag you into ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think you were the first to mention TE, but no matter; my post was wierd because I tried to explain as obliquely as possible that natioanl flag waving is not welcome on Wikipedia. if you have any problems on Wikipedia don't hesitate to ask for advice, anyone can make genuine mistakes -`I make them all the time and I'm also in rather deep water now over an RfA dispute.--Kudpung (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually, so feel free to chuck the blame on me. Really, if it's my fault I'll accept it. National flag waving can indeed cause problems, but sometimes is can be used constructively to help build up the balanced points of view desired I suppose. I'll keep in mind that offer, thanks a lot. Good luck in the RfA dispute, hope you get out okay. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not chucking any blame around at all. Blame is what you get for doing something wrong; what you said was perfectly legitimate under the circumstances and rest assured that if you hadn't been the first, I would. You only need to take a cursory glance at the person's user page to see what the true issue is. I'm quite happy with letting him think what he wants, and I won't rise to his silly challenge. The problems I have on the RfA are of one admin telling blatant lies, and another admin being grossly uncivil, and both of them using me as a scapegoat. So many people wrongly seem to think I'm an admin, perhaps I should run for adminship and balance the score a bit! --Kudpung (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would only expose your habit of using disinterested editors talk pages to make sly personal attacks.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you, Alistair Stevenson, appear to be the master of such action - and for the exceptionally sly way that you WP:STALK my edits and look for any possible path to attack me, and then run for cover with cries of victimisation. Its called WP:GAME. If you hadn't banned me from your talk page, I would have put you wise to a lot more of your mean behaviour, without posting about it all over the project, and although I don't run and report people for every little misdeed, I suggest you start offering something worthwhile to this encyclopedia project for a change instead of sneakily wreaking revenge for things you got wrong and got told off for in the past. Time to give it a rest. --Kudpung (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist

Hey, on List of European countries and territories and List of North American countries and territories you changed {{Reflist}} to {{Reflist|2}}. I just wanted to point out, in case you didn't know, that {{Reflist|2}} creates a two-columned reference list for long reference lists, it does not mark it as a second reference list. No worries though. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whoops, sorry. Thanks for informing me. I will keep that in mind for future edits. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Perejil

Hello, As it has been discussed more than 5 years ago[1], and according to the articles Perejil Island and Perejil Island crisis, this island is not a Plaza de Soberania, and the current/ante status quo is that this island doesn't belon to any one the the two countries. Please stop inserting POV information in the articles. We're trying to keep a neutral approach on articles related to disputed issues, then don't act against that. Thanks. Omar-Toons (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, is that what counts as a discussion? It's one statement by one editor, unsourced may I add, from 5 years ago! Start a new discussion if you wish too, until then, observe wikipedia policy. Edit, Revert, Discuss. Please move to the discussion stage, bring it up on the talk page. If you can provide a good argument, complying with WP:V and WP:RS then that would be fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Perejil Island and Perejil Island crisis are clear: current status quo and no sovereignty over the island.

Thanks

Omar-Toons (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles simply state that Morocco retreated from its attempt to seize it militarily. Nowhere does it state that they are not part of the plazas. Besides, WP:V states not to use wikipedia as a source. Will you bring it up on a talkpage or not? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<<The resolution is expected to return the island to what it had been for decades -- an uninhabited rock -- barren and largely ignored.
A statement from the Spanish government's office of chief spokesman was released shortly before the troops were withdrawn. "Spain and Morocco have reached an agreement over Perejil Island that means a return to the status quo," it said.>> [2]

<<The statement which the Spanish Foreign Minister, Ana de Palacio, made to Congress was much more measured.
"I want to make it very clear that the aim of the Spanish government is to re-establish the rule of law, to return to the status quo which existed before the 11 July," she said.
"We have not changed our position. Before and after this morning's operation the Spanish Government said and defended the same thing, the return to the status quo and frank and constructive dialogue with Morocco," Mrs de Palacio added.
(...)But several Spanish commentators have pointed out that the legal status of Perejil is complex and open to interpretation.>>[3]

Omar-Toons (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you just quoted in no way say that the dispute is different from the dispute over the plazas in general. In fact, you seem to have quotemined, intentionally or not. I'll take quotes from them aswell.

Madrid says the island is Spanish[4]

Participants take it for granted that the island is Spanish and as such, must be defended to preserve Spain's sovereignty.[5]

Please consider your own POV in this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that WP should consider it as a Spanish territory? Certainly not.

Again, since the territory is disputed, and that no country controls it, the island (according to WP:NPOV) shouldn't be categorized as dependent to any of the two countries claiming it.

For your last remark, my opinion is that this island is Moroccan, but since the WP:NPOV policy should be respected, I contribute without considering my opinion, and keeping the information about the island as a "disputed, uninhabited and until today not dependent to any country" territory. I hope you'll be able to do so.

Omar-Toons (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the territory is disputed yes, so are the others. Anyway, your edit actually reads to me to be a Spanish POV, saying the others aren't disputed. If you want my opinion, remake the map that was originally there, but change the colour of all the plazas to a different colour than Spain and Morocco. That would show that they are disputed, and wouldn't automatically incline the reader towards one point of view or the other. Also removes the frankly confusing circle with disputed you added. Please WP:AGF next time instead of just accusing me of pushing a POV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I didn't assume your GF. Since there were too many edit warring and vandalisms on this kind of articles, it is not easy to make a distinction between vandals and GF contributors. I was wrong!

I think that the difference between Perejil and the Spanish territories is that the UN, EU and most countries recognize the last ones as Spanish, while they don't recognize the island to be so. Even Morocco is (for example) the main water supplier of the "disputed territories"! Putting these territories in another color is, in my opinion, a POV since only Morocco, the African Union and the Arab League consider them as "disputed". In my opinion, the fact that it is mentioned on the article that these territories are claimed by Morocco is sufficient, what do you think about that?

Omar-Toons (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the UN makes a distinction between them, and I'm sure the EU tries not to get involved. If it did no doubt Gibraltar would come up as a major issue too. There is the question of de facto control that is more blurred than the others, but the Spanish military did manage to deal with the Moroccan one quite well, if that means anything about that. I'm not sure what water supply has to do with the island, it is legally uninhabited. And as for who considers them disputed, I have no doubt the whole world recognizes them as disputed. They are disputed, there are two claimants. There is no argument about that fact. I'm not comfortable with making such a distinction on the map really, Spain considers the island as Spanish as the other islands are. Morocco considers it Moroccan, as it does the others. Maybe recaptioning the old picture?

I understand the problem with vandalism perfectly, don't worry, water under the bridge. Have been exposed to it and made similar reverts as you have. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the UN makes the difference...

When I was talking about water, it was about how Morocco deals with the issue (it was about Ceuta, Melilla and the Plazas (where Spanish army is stationed, it is not the case with Perejil).

Btw, I think that we shoul create a new article about the status and the recognition of Spanish territories in Africa, by giving the details about the positions of Spain, Morocco, the EU, NATO, AU, Arab League, OIC, UN... would it be an easy target for vandals and POV contributors?

Omar-Toons (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link me to that difference? I'm interested.

I'm not sure what the supplying of water has to do with sovereignty, but I suppose it must for the mainland cities.

I think the problem with your map is that the improvement it makes on the last one is unclear at best. Additionally, it's French, so could be improved! :) Did you make it by editing the old one?

The article sounds like a good idea, though I'll be shocked if it doesn't exist in some form. Before creating that article, might be better to add the information on the Plazas de Soberania page. Once it's long and detailed enough it can be split off into its own article. I'm sure vandals could be dealt with. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I know is that the UN recognizes Ceuta and Melilla as Spanish, while it doesn;t recognize Perejil as (nor Spanish nor Moroccan). The main difference remain the fact that Spain exercises its sovereignty over the Plazas (military) and the two cities, while it doesn't for the case of Perejil. You can take as example the declarations after the crisis. I'll try to find a reliable source for that, I don't have it right now (sorry :s)

For the map, I just adapted the existing map, using a neutral map that was already existing on Commons but that wasn't in use.

However, I don't think that my English level is high enough to create an article, I prefer that somebody else do it.

ps: I didn't understand what do you mean by "additionally, it's French"? :s

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Guinea

I remind you of the policy WP:3RR. The lead of the article New Guinea is not the place to debate the merits of whether the term Malay Archipelago is arbitrary or a colonial construct. The term Indo-Australian Archipelago is perfectly applicable and neutral and no editorializing is necessary.

I have not made any reverts or debated whether the term was a colonial construct. Your edit removed more than that anyway. Bring it up on the talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. If I change the name of the archipelago back to indo-australian archipelago, logically I would revert the comment that inclusion in the malay archipelago is arbitrary. Is this okay with you? It would only leave your linkification later in the first paragraph. If this is not okay, and you want to say that its inclusion in the malay archipelago is arbitrary, let me know on the talk page of the article. (I have no problem with explaining this in the body of the article, if you think it is important, but it is to much a fringe issue for the lead.) If I don't hear from you, I'll revert to indo-australian archipelago. in the first sentences.μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my inclusion in the talk page. Hope it helps. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Decision

This template must be substituted. You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. There was too much edit warring going on at Serbo-Croatian language. I'd advise you to read and understand this decision going forward. Courcelles 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 ::Thanks for the suggestion.  If I change the name of the archipelago back to indo-australian archipelago, logically I would revert the comment that inclusion in the malay archipelago is arbitrary.  Is this okay with you?  It would only leave your linkification later in the first paragraph.  If this is not okay, and you want to say that its inclusion in the malay archipelago is arbitrary, let me know on the talk page of the article.  (I have no problem with explaining this in the body of the article, if you think it is important, but it is to much a fringe issue for the lead.)  If I don't hear from you, I'll revert to indo-australian archipelago. in the first sentences.[[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 01:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 :::I explained my inclusion in the talk page. Hope it helps. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis#top|talk]]) 06:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
+== Notice of Arbitration Decision ==
+{{uw-sanctions|topic=b}}  There was too much edit warring going on at [[Serbo-Croatian language]].  I'd advise you to read and understand this decision going forward. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)