User talk:Chipmunkdavis

If you post on this page, I will respond on this page.

If I post on your talk page, I will have it watchlisted for the duration of the conversation (and possibly longer)

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)

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)

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

Pan-American

Maybe, though it's an enormous can of worms to delve into at all. American (word) is already an unholy mess; and Pan-American (word) could probably be an unholy mess as well - nothing related to the Americas is easy or one-sentence-y, in my experience. Cheers, WilyD 11:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

East Sea

While I appreciate your edit on the East Sea question, I kept both names as an effort to keep the Koreans happy. While driving on the freeway in Los Angeles yesterday, I saw a big, well-placed billboard in one of the outlying K-Towns that pronounced that "East Sea" was always the proper name!--S. Rich (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I could take a wild guess at the nationality of the people who bought that billboard ;) I was simply editing per the convention, I won't object to an undoing of what I did, although I don't think it's necessary to have it in all of the time Sea of Japan is mentioned. I do find it an interesting debate though! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Queen

Hi, in more detail than I provided in the article (because its quite complicated, but I thought people would be able to understand the wording and realise what I was talking about), the Queen is a 1st cousin, 4 times removed, to all of her children, due to them all being descendents of Queen Victoria and Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, who were 1st cousins as grandchildren of King George III. The closer family connection was provided for when Victoria's grandson, the future George V, married Mary Adelaide's daughter, Mary of Teck. The source is the ancestry charts on Wiki which show the previous generations of the Royal Family. Nocrowx (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for the Royal Revert.

Hi, I have given you a week to reply to my earlier section titled 'The Queen', which you have not yet done; I have been waiting for you to revert your last edit to the page in question as you promised you would do when I provided the justification for the inclusion of this noteworthy information. If you do not respond soon, I shall have to revert your edit for you and assume you are happy with the inclusion of my edit.

With best intentions, Nocrowx (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC) ' information is gold '.

The problem is that however noteworthy the edit is unsourced. I'm fairly sure under WP:BLP such information should not just be determined by charts. I'm fairly sure if you put that in again that it will be removed by someone else. If you don't source it from an external source I really don't think it's acceptable within that policy. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oceania

Just a heads up that I noticed that the IP that has been edit warring on Oceania made the same edit again; I did not revert because I do not consider myself familiar with the subject, but as their talk page is empty, I did leave an edit warring template on their talk page. Perhaps a note on Talk:Oceania would help in clearing up the issue? Thanks, Kansan (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a content issue for me, but a style issue. There's probably a better way to write it, I'll post on talk. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

6 continents

Hi. I think all these continent models are current and used in differents regions of the world. The 6-continent model is used in Latin America and South Europe, and being the references in Spanish it is logical to use Oceania instead of Australia. In this case and in general, Oceania is not a synonymous for Australia, and they have different articles. To many non-native English speakers, Australia is an island and a country, but never a continent. Puting Australia in this context is misleading and normally unacceptable. What's your point? Regards. --Mauricio (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is there is a long-standing consensus to keep Australia instead of Oceania on that article. Every model, 6-continent, 5-continent, 7-continent, in English and other languages can interchangeably use Australia or Oceania. Australia has been chosen, being an actual continent rather than a collection of everything that didn't fit in other continents, and the footnote below explains the interchangeability. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Dugong copyedit complete

I've completed the copyedit of Dugong that you requested at WP:GOCE. Fascinating article! And such a cute creature you could make them into... Pokemon or something :) I've not made a huge number of changes, as you'd already dealt with all the problematic apostrophes etc by the time I got there. The article is perfectly intelligible from my sub-undergraduate level of biology knowledge, but I've wikilinked a few extra words to hopefully make it even more accessible. As for wording, I've re-phrased some parts but without (I hope) substantially changing the meaning; you might want to briefly skim through a composite diff of all the changes I made. I think the prose is now suitable for a GA attempt. It would need a lot more work to get to FA, although I'd be happy to help with that as well when the time comes.

A couple of minor outstanding issues over what goes where;

• First two sentences of "Capture and captivity" seem out of place in this section - maybe move earlier?

• Last paragraph of "Environmental degradation" seems (slightly) out of place in this section - maybe move to the existing third sentence of "Ecology and life history"?

I've also added a few templates to the talk page, plus a possibly useful extra source. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Looked through the composite diff, and nothing seems out of place. I didn't even think of wikilinking words like Kidney or Lung. I've found it sometimes difficult to determine where information best fits in, but I made both of the changes you suggested, they made sense to me. I'll peruse through the seagrass article and related articles, but BBC nature like the Malaysian government has a bad habit of just copying wikipedia! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Evolution of the British Empire revert

What's confusing about describing Canada as a dominion during that period? Canada's status as a dominion is universally accepted... as the article is written now, it makes it appear as though Canada became independent in 1867 and ignores the fact that it held the same status as the other dominions (which all noted to have been such) up until the Statute of Westminster. There's no ambiguity in Canada's status between 1867 and 1931, it was exactly the same as that of Australia between 1901 and 1942 with the primary difference being that Canada didn't have to pass an act to adopt the Statute of Westminster as it automatically applied to every dominion but Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland. This is reflected in every article on the matter, from dominion to Statute of Westminster to Balfour Declaration of 1926 to British Empire itself. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It could be confusing as Canada is still sometimes called a Dominion. In addition, unlike in the Australia/New Zealand tables, there is no "Event Ending Political Entity" column, which is necessary to make it clearer. However, the lack of this is not anyone's immediate fault, so I've self-reverted. Next time, please discuss a single article content change on the article talk page rather than a user talk page, so other's can see. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominion of Pakistan

(sorry for the late reply. somehow missed your post and didnt see it till now). As for the official documents - instruments of accession signed by states that joined pakistan use that term. Gbooks search for the term "I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of Pakistan" throws up some examples. For example, here is the accession document for Kalat (princely state) and that of Junagadh--Sodabottle (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Cabinda Province

In order to give the historical perspective, I consider it important to maintain the link Portuguese Congo. This is why I reverted your edit where the link was eliminated. If you think the matter has to be discussed, please do so. -- Aflis (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese Congo is just a redirect to Cabinda Province. Absolutely useless. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have the intention to write a page on Portuguese Congo and shall then re-introduce the link. -- Aflis (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sea of Japan naming dispute

Hi Chipmunkdavis. I changed the level of the split section. I realized your intension after the reversion by you. I didn't noticed the level of the section. Now that I lowered the split section, you will understand my edit. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, your change in prose was a good solution for the flow. Still questionable whether those subheaders are needed, but they work better now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

List (and something else)

Hello. I noticed you are interested in Wikipedia country articles, and I think a new list I made might be of use to you. Best, - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be writing here so that I won't need to load your talk page with new threads below. I've generally completed the formatting of sources for Bulgaria, hopefully the text is a bit easier to read now too, and I've made some other minor edits. I added an image of my own, and the MiG-29 image is now available although I'm not sure if I can include it if it hasn't received OTRS confirmation. Could you give the article a full read ? Any advice is appreciated ! Oh, and one other thing - would it be a problem if some book citations are missing an ISBN ? I noticed it as a remark on FA candidate procedures, but some books either do not have an ISBN number or I am not able to find it. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had a close look through your sources, and from what I can see, you need to do a lot of tedious ref cleanup if you want to try and pass an FAC. I'll bullet point suggestions. For future reference, all reference numbers taken from this revision.

• You're missing access dates on a few references, such as 1, 39, 40, 45, 120, 121, 124, 215, 254 (not a complete list). Some of these don't have publishers. The minimum all web citations need is a url, title, publisher, and accessdate.
• When dealing with publishers, don't put something like "Tourism.government.bg" unless they actually title themselves using a url style name. The publisher there (ref 169) should be "Bulgarian Tourism Agency" (unless they have a different official english title).
• Replace references to sites such as "Spainexchange.com" and "Kwintessential.co.uk" if you can. Those are not well thought of by the FAC reviewers.
• Remember to italicise all newspapers etc. You've done a very good job at this, and I've only found one that wasn't, Xinhua in ref 142 (also probably best to delink it since you don't link other newspapers).
• Similarly, remember to place the (in Bulgarian) note for all Bulgarian refs. Again this is good, but do a double check for ones like 184.
• Some of your other references are incomplete. What is Jiriček, p.295? Place the full book citation somewhere. I suggest scrapping the Further reading section and turning it into a list of books you've used a shorter reference formatting for above.
• Standardise ISBN formatting, make them all have dashes or none have dashes. Ref 15 has spaces, which I haven't seen before.

I don't think a picture should be used without OTRS confirmation, so add it in when OTRS comes, the current picture won't hold back a FAC. Other images look well placed and staggered. I'm not actually sure how much not having an ISBN will affect it. While you really should have it when it's there, if there is none out there to find, and some other way of proving it exists is provided (such as a link) either in the ref or when questioned as FAC, I think it won't be too much of an issue. I'll read over the article again soon. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

List of island countries

Could you please single out what you disagree? I've made some other changes apart from what you pointed out in the edit summary, and you've reverted all changes that I've made. Thanks. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikimarkup sometimes makes it very hard to se all changes made. If you want to put in some changes that are uncontroversial, don't mix them with controversial ones. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

How can I tell what are controversial to you when I edit? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I spelled out a specific objection in my last edit summary. If you gave a clearer edit summary listing changes, it would be easier for me to leave something if I revert. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

I was afraid that people would say the my selection of the 12 images for India was geographically biased, which they did, even though my choices reflected the bias in Indian FPs. Fearing more such complaints, and the process dragging on, I've added 24 new images to the Demographics set, making a complete set of 36 representing every state and religion in India, with the exception of native Andaman Island(er)s and Indian Jews, both, sadly, dying communities. If you'd like to mozy on over to the page and offer comments, they will certainly be appreciated. The new images are not FPs, since the first set of 12 had exhausted all the India FPs; however, they are still good hi-res images. I had to go through some 10 thousand images to find them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

History of Georgia (country)

Hi. I just left a note at the talk page of the IP address 92.4.130.108, suggesting that he/she/they might want to consider taking their concerns about the content at History of Georgia (country) to the article's talk page, rather than engage in what might possibly be seen as an edit war. Richwales (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it was just a misunderstanding over part of the page. Their last edit was good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I really need your help

Hey

I'm that one guy that was edit warring you a while back in the Kenya article :). Anyway, I wanted to request a huge favor from you. Since I am not very familiar with using every function of Wikipedia, I was hoping that you could petition 'Semi-Protection' for the article? I have noticed that it is experiencing increased levels of vandalism and I just needed your help on this. Please.

Thanks! collins432 (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked for temporary semi for the article at WP:RfPP, as you're right, it's receiving an unusual amount of negative IP activity. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

'Twas declined. We'll just have to keep reverting if anything else happens. You can always report again later or ask again and I can do it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the try :). Although, I don't understand why it's such a big deal if it's protected or not. I think it would be ideal if all users had to be autoconfirmed to edit anything.. collins432 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

India Page Final Dem Img Rotation Vote

There is currently a vote going on to decide the final images to be selected in the Demographics Image Rotation. Some new images were added to the pool. Please carefully see the new proposals and vote for your favorite images that best represent the people of India.

Please vote here.

Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Turkey

Please discuss on page. You are NOT looking at the facts there. Look at the page of sovereign European states. Turkey is on the list!! That's the Wikipedia article. I might be break an 3RR rule, but at the end, administrators will agree with me that the facts have been layed out and that if Wikipedia's article on Europe includes, Turkey, than it should be listed under Turkey. Look at [1] and see that you're wrong. The definition here is set by Wikipedia's definition of Europe, nit by the UN. Not reverting anything as I have nothing to revert.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, on October 7th you edited the artcle [2] and no made NO changes to it by not removing Turkey from the list. Hence you acknowledge back on ctober 7th that Turkey is part of Europe. Why aren't you recognizing it now? Check edit history and realize the editorial hypocrisy you're showing today.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey mate. Trying to get this solved here. Nightw 06:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

XLR8TION and Turkey

You may wish to know that XLR8TION is conducting a wide-ranging campaign of listing Turkey under Europe. (No need to respond to me about this.) Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You are NOT looking at the facts there. Look at the page of sovereign European states. Turkey is on the list!! That's the Wikipedia article. I might be break an 3RR rule, but at the end, administrators will agree with me that the facts have been layed out and that if Wikipedia's article on Europe includes, Turkey, than it should be listed under Turkey. Look at [3] and see that you're wrong. The definition here is set by Wikipedia's definition of Europe, nit by the UN. Not reverting anything as I have nothing to revert.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, on October 7th you edited the article [4] and no made NO changes to it by not removing Turkey from the list. Hence you acknowledge back on October 7th that Turkey is part of Europe. Why aren't you recognizing it now? Check edit history and realize the editorial hypocrisy you're showing today.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide me an honest answer why you edited this article ---> [5] on October 7th and did not remove Turkey nor Cyprus from the list? Why not? The fact is that you're wrong. Cyrpus is not Middle East! Alaska is near Russia. DOes that make it part of Asia? NO! Cyprus has had a Greek culture for centuries. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ASIA!

With regards to Turkey, Turkey is defined by the Wikipedia article on Europe as being part of that continent. Wikipedia articles on continents are NOT determined by the United Nations. The definition of Europe has remained unchanged for centuries. Turkey is part of Europe. Istanbul is in Europe. The Bosphurus is the mouth to the Black Sea. Russia's territory stretches out to Russia but that doesn't make Russia an Asian country. They are not part of ASEAN or any other regional Asian orginization. Take a step back and realize that you're wrong. It's ok to accept a mistake, but please put an end to this ridiculous edit war and accept the facts set forth in the Wikipedia article of Europe.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

HELLO. I made THIS edit which may be of interest to some. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Peru

Did you notice that the couple updated the IMF link and it was supporting their data (though I have no idea how IMF can seriously predict GDP for 2016. Materialscientist (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I did notice the link change, but it doesn't account for the unsourced paragraphs in the Economy section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Lamentable Javan rhino

Hi, I see you were able to modify that image.
Would it be possible to correct the key, changing it from "historic" to "historical"?
"Historic" is wrong in this context.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, trusting you on this though! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh. The two adjectives are quite distinct. "Historic" means of great significance is history. The extinction of a species is historic.

"Historical" means occurring in history but without any overriding importance. By tomorrow, our conversation will be historical, but not historic.

Unless we subsequently become really famous!!

Varlaam (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Adélie Penguin

Warning vandalism on the page Adélie Penguin. As you are one of the last contributors, serious and English, I speak to you because I do not know how made. Thank you ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Socking?

• Strange... is just me or do you have the same sneaky suspicision that annoying thing is back... editing on the article page of Singapore under a new moniker, the edit history seem to be pointing towards that. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I had exactly the same thought. I honestly haven't had time (or the enthusiasm) to do a close look through all their edits, but the promotional tone and very familiar edits have made me wonder. I have seen some very similar edits to the ones I spent so long discussing on the talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Can't stand the like of such people editing in that manner but I can't disagree with their actual edit at this moment, think it'd be best to keep our eye on the ball. If need be, raise an SPI when the situation calls for it. Best and cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Greetings! Things are beginning to rear their head now and I've raised the issue with an Admin on User talk:JamesBWatson#The need to clarify something, care to share your thoughts there? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Cenwin88lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 202.65.245.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• FWIW, I went back to recheck some old contribution history/information of Singapore from 2009/2010 and someone caught my attention, methinks the frog and the fantasy are all related to this first problematic account. Even another editor thought that the IP could very well be Cenwin... (diff) Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

From a look, similar edit summary style, discussion style, and lack of talkpage knowhow, and surprise surprise there was a talkpage conversation about whitewashing. It's weird how the accounts seem to stop editing at a point and then a new account is created. I'm struggling to figure out how to deal with the way Fantasy managed to added 30kb of stuff to the Singapore page. It may have to be a section by section examination and cut down. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I would revert them to the pre-nonsense version and rework the "doctored" version in your own sandbox until such time when you are satisfied with the look and feel before introducing it into the article page. No matter, should we encounter the same nonsense from a new account, just revert and tag it as possible sockpuppetry so as to alert, I'll take care of the rest. Seriously, I want this guy out of here for good, I've had enough of his BS already. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've got pre-Fantasy and current revisions saved here (with dates in revision history). I've been looking through the sources fantafrog added and seeing if anything's worth keeping. I'd love to do a revert to the pre tiny paragraph pre bad prose pre puffery version, but having had possibly more conflict in that article with Smilingfrog than others I wouldn't like to do it till I have accommodated any possible improvements to justify this. I cannot deny bias. However, if you reverted that would no doubt be far more acceptable, and allow us to get it back to what was basically about a GA level. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Europe topic

• rv

Kindly put that back. You probably just need to clear your cache and see Template talk:Navbox#How to implement flatlist?. 13:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Alarbus (talk)

• see MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Flatlist css tweak, too. Alarbus (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Q. Why did you revert that edit? Thanks, Alarbus (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

By total accident. My apologies, must have hit rollback in the watchlist. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries; and I see others have pretty much restored it. Alarbus (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you seeing this problem as well? I reverted some of the formatting changes, but then I saw this on your talk page and thought it was probably just me. Nightw 13:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Navbox#Wrapping issues. Browsing in Incompatibility Mode. Please stop thrashing these templates; they're used by a huge number of others and ya might melt a server.

Also, it's not a formatting change, it's a structural change, made for accessibility reasons. Alarbus (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The dots are larger than they previously were with more space on either side, which makes it as a whole longer, but it is wrapping nicely to fit my browser size (I'm using chrome). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

options

• http://getfirefox.com/
• http://google.com/chrome/
• http://apple.com/safari/
• http://opera.com/
• http://seamonkey-project.org/
• http://caminobrowser.org/

According to the thread the only solution is turning off compatability mode, which I can't do. So... if this is all being done for accessibility reasons, who's accessibility has mine been sacrificed for? Nightw 13:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There should be a button on your toolbar, or enable it in preferences. Or upgrade ;> Know anyone with a visual impairment? WP:ACCESS. Alarbus (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You've just pointed me to ACCESS. There's nothing in the talk page or recent edit history about changing template markup or how it affects visually impaired users. Nightw 13:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse; that's about the general topic. See the other links for the current discussions. Alarbus (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• WP:ACCESS#Horizontal lists

Alarbus (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand the concept of the policy you're linking to by presuming (incorrectly) that all readers have the freedom to install and run whichever browser they choose. Nightw 14:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't assume. It's not a policy, it's a guideline; it's been talking about hlists for some time. I know not all can install software on machines they use. If you're going to use IE, use the compatibility button as needed. That backward compatibility mode is for old sites, not this one. Don't seek to retard it. Alarbus (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

However you might feel about it, it's undoubtedly used by a lot of readers, who probably won't know what's causing the problem. Nightw 15:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been all sorts of dots used, in all sorts of sizes: • and · are most common. This is now using File:Middot.png, as a background image. This means it's not really in any of the templates, it's just an ornament. User:Edokter has been tweaking the padding, and it's pretty good, now. Alarbus (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for all the orange boxes Chip. Nightw 14:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Colonial Protectorate v Colony

HI Chipmunkdavis

Saw you reverted the changes I made to the British Empire article. Apologies if I offended the editing mores. I am new to this so still learning! I have started a new section on the artcle talk page so I welcome any comments

regards Freedom1968 Freedom1968 (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

U.S. topic template

Any thoughts on getting rid of the links to outlying islands on Template:United States topic. It'd get rid of a lot of perpetual red links... Nightw 13:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Antarctica / Malaysia

First, I have not forgotten your kind invitation to add something about fungi to the page for Malaysia. Time is the enemy.

Before I do, I would like better to understand your view about editing the biodiversity sections of such pages in the light of what happened on the Antarctica page. I responded to a call on that page to add material about fungi, and structured the section on biodiversity so that each major group of organisms was treated at an equivalent level without the usual bias to animals and plants. It was a little disheartening to see this all re-arranged with a return of the animal / plant bias. There are rather few plant species in Antarctica, and only two species of flowering plants, so why give them a paragraph of their own, and consign the fungi, with well over 1000 species to a final catch-all paragraph lumped with all the other groups which are also species rich and also at least as important as plants?

The sentence about fungal conservation was removed as being "meaningless". In fact it was very informative: it provided evidence that someone somewhere has been thinking about the topic.

I would like to go back to the Antarctica page and restore the previous text on biodiversity, but don't want to involve anyone in fruitless changes, least of all myself.

With kind regards, Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Antartica page is rated as a Featured Article, and one of the editors who works with FA promotion and downgrades posted that it needed work to make it an FA. Due to this I went through and formatted the entire page, of which biodiversity was a part. As a first point, there's not enough text there to divide it into different subsections, so subheaders are unhelpful. Just making different subsections doesn't mean that they're treated at an equivalent level. I rearranged them based on the amount of text (which is the real measure of equivalence). Fungi and protists have a very small amount of prose for each of them, so giving them their own paragraphs, let alone sections, would be bad style. The "catch-all" paragraph was necessity based on the information on the page. If one really wanted to redress the balance away from animals and plants the answer is to add more information about Fungi, not to give two lines their own title. I'd be quite up for removing some text on animals if text on one of the lesser explained parts of Antarctic biodiversity replaces it.

As for the sentence I removed, it's fairly intuitive that someone has been thinking about different topics. "Soandso did a study" is not useful information. "Soandsos study resulted in conclusions A and B based on C and D" would be better, and "Due to C and D, A and B" would be the best formulation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

SPI results out

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smilingfrog, very interesting results indeed, IP/proxy originating from Holland has been blocked as well but not the 3 confirmed smelly footwears, yet. Feel free to add your comments if you so wish, cheers and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Funny thing is, he has a big double standard and he resents me calling him "Kermit" (1) even though he conveniently forgot that he started it when he called you "Chipmunkies" (2). Strange how these wankers turn out sometimes, conveniently forgetting things to their own advantage and hoping that we wouldn't noticed. The nerve of these people. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Nations Capital

Dear Sir; Would you please advise why did you undo my edit?

Best Regards --Ibrahim Ghalghay (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the areas you added have any real or recognised independence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Malaysia

Firstly I don't know why you are constantly deleting one word. Secondly only you are objecting about Malaysia's constitution being secular. I asked you to give a source but you didn't. Where exactly does it say in Malaysia's constitution thats it's secular? Mentions to Islam appear over and over, and a few of the Prime Ministers have said Malaysia is an Islamic state.

Also why are you deleting my sources? Those were reliable and you'll notice similar stuff appears on other countries' pages as well. I will be reverting your edit again soon, so don't be surprised. TelusFielder (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that the constitution is not a reliable source on its own nature. Nightw 00:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How can I give a source if you don't start a talkpage conversation (which should be held at Talk:Malaysia and not here)? I've done my best, linked you to a section of Religion in Malaysia with tons of sources on Secularism and the debate on it, as well as given two in the last edit summary.

As for the other information, it's WP:UNDUE and against WP:LEAD guidelines. It's reliability has nothing to do with removal. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I wanted the exact quote from the constitution where it says religion will not alter politics. On the other hand the constitution mentions Sharia courts, Islamic laws being made for every state and so on. That doesn't seem secular to me at all. And honestly saying freedom of religion is protected by the constitution sounds MUCH better that seomthing thats ambiguous. TelusFielder (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As directed to you by Night W, I'm afraid that if I made my own interpretations of WP:PRIMARY sources that would be WP:Original research, and thus highly discouraged on wikipedia. All I can do is point you to the wide body of secondary sources which discusses Malaysia's constitution and discusses whether it is secular or not. The current statement is not ambiguous. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not understanding. If there is a debate on whether or not the constitution os secular, then calling it a "secular constitution" anyways means you are ignoring other views. If we JUST say 'constitution' insteatd of 'secular constitution', it sounds MUCH better and MUCH more neautral. So please do not revert my edit. TelusFielder (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read, there isn't much of a debate over the constitution. The debate is over the country as a whole, and over where the constitution applies. I won't revert your edit for now, as there is a point here, but please remember that justification for edits to articles should most of the time go on the article talkpage, not my user page. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, by the looks of it, Smilingfrog seems to be cherry-picking/stalking your edits on both Singapore and Malaysia... want me to raise this issue on ANI or take it instead to another Adminstrator for his/her non-involved third party opinion? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Article is now under full page protection after I've discussed this with an un-involved Admin who is also monitoring the situation, do use the talk page to discuss things with the Frog, you have our backing on this. If that doesn't work, buzz me again. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Curation of controversial images

Hi. I notice you commented recently in a discussion about controversial image use at WT:NOT. If you think there is presently a problem with the way we use controversial images, would you like to give me a brief summary of what you think the problem is here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Energy tempaltes

Thank you - no disagreement - I smile since you made me happy with Energy in Africa, Energy in the Middle East and Energy in Europe. This was complicated. Watti Renew (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strange, whenever did I send a wikismile at you lately? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Greetings. If you think that my wording at Northern Cyprus is preferable to Masri's POV pushing, then would you consider reverting him? Cheers. By the way, I didn't send that smile above, Watti Renew did. I don't know why it was labelled as being sent by "Taivo". Strange. Unless I accidentally clicked on that heart at the top of the page. But then why is it in the middle of Watti Renew's post? Strange. It's not that I don't like you, I don't know you personally, but clicking on a heart for you is a bit much ;) --Taivo (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Slightly concerned about some of your actions

Hello Chipmunkdavis,

You seem to be showing Wikipedia:Ownership of articles on a few articles including Malaysia. I was also quite concerned about you showing signs of [wikihounding] me for a bit when you [reverted these edits of mine on the Singapore article)] on 16:29, 5 December 2011, which is just minutes after you reverted four of my edits [revert 1] [revert 2] [revert 3] [revert 4] on the Malaysia article. The four reverts you made against me on the Malaysia article were just 1-2 hours outside the 24 hr window period ([Please note the 3 revert rule here...and please note that any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.]). But you seem to have stopped and I think that is a good thing. I appreciate you not edit warring, breaking (gaming) [the 3 revert rule (any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.)] and [wikihounding]. Many thanks,Smilingfrog (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that editing an article I've made numerous edits to and have had watchlisted for ages isn't wikihounding don't you?

You also realise that an edit war can not be made by one person alone don't you?

You should also realise that a very good example of gaming is making a bold edit and edit warring it back in while warning the other editor of 3RR.

You may report me as you wish. While I have no doubt made mistakes in conduct (being a human and therefore not perfect), I am happy to explain my actions to a wider forum if that is what you desire. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't take it the wrong way, this is not a confrontation. I do not intend to make you 'explain your actions to a wider forum', I was just concerned about your actions.

Editing the Singapore article, an article you claim to have watchlisted, is not wikihounding (WP:HOUND) by itself. But reverting four of my edits ([revert 1] [revert 2] [revert 3] [revert 4]) in a row in the Malaysia article within nearly 24 hours, and then within minutes, heading over to the Singapore article, which you have not edited in many weeks, to revert another few of my edits [here] would be wikihounding. And you seem to show Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

As for the 'edit war', the first person to revert the other's edit (spark it off) was you with this [edit]. I was not the one started the edit war and I was the one who started the discussion over the disputed edit to reach a concensus[| here], and have posted most in the discussion. If I wanted to edit war, I wouldn't have started the discussion, much less post so much to attempt to reach a consensus, would I?

Anyway no hard feelings. I appreciate you stopping what you were doing back there. Many thanks, Smilingfrog (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting edits on pages I have watchlisted, especially on pages for which I am a major contributor, and especially for the most recent edits on a page, is in no way wikihounding.

A revert is not the start of an edit war. An edit war starts when someone reverts a revert. Whether one starts a discussion is irrelevant to whether one is edit warring. Edit warring while discussing is still edit warring.. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting an edit to another editor

Hello, Chipmunkdavis. I am somewhat concerned about your remark above "I'd love to do a revert to the pre tiny paragraph pre bad prose pre puffery version, but having had possibly more conflict in that article with Smilingfrog than others I wouldn't like to do it till I have accommodated any possible improvements to justify this. I cannot deny bias. However, if you reverted that would no doubt be far more acceptable..." Unfortunately this looks dangerously like an attempt to avoid the consequences of your action by getting another editor to do it for you as a proxy, in fact something akin to meatpuppetry. I don't suppose that is how you intended it, but I suggest you think carefully, and avoid doing anything which might give such an impression. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• IF I may, I'm "guessing" that Chipmunkdavis was just thinking out aloud and since we're both established editors, I can understand his frustrations at Mr Frog (since the articles are stabilised at GA or sub-GA class levels, Davis's been trying to get them up a notch or two) so there's really no need for meatpuppetry. Otherwise, I would have naively done it without him even asking but no, I did nothing of that sort. May I also remind you that Mr Frog is no angel either, he broke the cardinal rule of 3RR by edit warring (blind reverts mostly, check them!) with someone (two, in fact) whom he has had disagreement with in the past. So long as Mr Frog behaves himself, I think I speak for me and Davis when I say that we will not be even remotely interested in his eccentric behaviour. So there. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the background Dave, I was indeed thinking out loud. Wihtout going over what Dave has already said, my basic thought process was that if I was looking at another editor in the same situation I am in, I wouldn't approve of them making the kind of edit I was thinking about making. A similar spirit if you will to WP:INVOLVED. That was all I was trying to convey (and the situation is now even worse in that respect as I've been accused of ownership). I was basically trying to ask for a second opinion on the action from Dave (an established editor who has also edited Singapore) while at the same time explaining that I didn't think I could make such an action myself, if that makes sense? I wouldn't expect most editors, let alone Dave, to make a massive content edit if they weren't behind it fully, and I believe that Dave would have had thoughts along similar lines beforehand. I am not trying to avoid any consequences, I was (and am) trying to avoid the creation of an action that needed consequences. Does that explanation make sense? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense. I was 100% sincere when I wrote "I don't suppose that is how you intended it", but I thought it important that you realise that there was a danger of it being taken that way. I am aware that you have both found Smilingfrog's editing frustrating, but it is essential to make sure that you don't allow yourself to slip into patterns of editing that could backfire against you. I think that Dave has, unfortunately, allowed himself to be dragged down into problematic behaviour, and I hope that he can back away before it is too late. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you pointing it out, and also do see how it could easily be taken that way. I took note of your adminshop warning on Dave's talkpage, and have clarified with another admin that there is already a first admin involved, and I am not seeking action. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You may like to read my comment at User talk:Zscout370. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I don't want to be editing Singapore at the moment, and Malaysia is being discussed, I hopefully can avoid asking for admin action anytime soon. Thanks for clarifying the Zscout issue, and tell me if my behaviour steps out of line again. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just to respond to Dave1185 on the 'edit war' with Chipmunkdavis's issue. I think it is worrying to me that he is making more personal attacks through accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence i.e. WP:NPA#WHATIS even after being warned by James and even after promising (for the second time over a few months) that he will lay off it. He accused me of breaking the 3RR but I have never made more than 3 reverts on the article within 24 hour, as can be glanced from the article's edit history [here]. So another baseless accusation. Chipmunkdavis however has reverted four of my edits [revert 1] [revert 2] [revert 3] [revert 4] on the Malaysia article just 1-2 hours outside the 24 hr window period, and then within minutes, heading over to the Singapore article, which he has not edited in many weeks, to revert another few of my edits [here]. I think it is clear who stepped over the 3RR here as well as showing clearly wikihounding (WP:HOUND). So Dave has been leaving edit warring tags all over my talkpage as per WP:HUSH but of course, he has not left any edit warring tag on Chipmunkdavis's talkpage since they are good buddies. And I seem to be their target as of late.

As far as I can recall, the entire incident began like this. I edited the official scripts of Malaysia to Rumi and Jawi from Latin [here]. Because the Malaysian constitution itself states Rumi and Jawi are official not Latin. My edit was reverted by Chipmunk for the first time [here] who states 'Rv, the Latin alphabet is official, not Rumi'. I reverted him for the first time [here] stating 'rving ya. constituition states clearly rumi script is official. see discussion'. And he reverted me for the second time [here] stating 'Rv Smiling. Undue, pointy, and just plain wrong'. I reverted him for the second time [here] just stating 'rv' and immediately started a discussion on the article's talkpage to point out the constitution does state rumi is official not latin [here]. He did not reply but reverted me again for the third time [here] without stating anything 'Undid revision 464217988 by Smilingfrog'. I reverted him for the third and last time [here]. A few minutes after this, Chipmunk made his way to Singapore and reverted one of edits [there]. I was still at the Malaysia article and I realised that this looks like a difficult edit and an edit war looks possible, so I left it alone and went to edit another part of the article [here] by removing a non-neutral source and line from the article to improve it. Barely 5 minutes after I made the edit, Chipmunk came back to the Malaysia article again and reverted me for the fourth time on the same article [here].

Look at the discussions outcomes at Malaysia talkpage for the first disputed edit [here], after quite a bit of explaining from me, Chipmunk seems to agree that Rumi is the official script of Malaysia now and that Latin and Rumi scripts are slightly different, hence it is not apt to write 'Latin' in place of Rumi. Which is a change from what he states when he reverted me twice. [first revert] -- 'Rv, the Latin alphabet is official, not Rumi'. [Second revert] -- 'Rv Smiling. Undue, pointy, and just plain wrong'. In May 2011 he also stated [here] -- 'the official script is Rumi, which is basically the Latin alphabet. The Jawi script article is oversimplifying'. Anyway, no matter what happens, I accept the general consensus for that, as per usual.

For the second disputed edit, I started a discussion as well on the Malaysia talkpage [here] and the general consensus provided from an administrator and another editor was that I was right in removing the source and line. Chipmunk has gone on to state that WP:NPOV does not apply to the source etc etc which I think I shall not comment about.

If you read the section just above this on his talkpage [here], I approached him just telling him I am slightly concerned about him breaking WP:3RR on Malaysia and his WP:HOUND behaviour by reverting my edits in Singapore, hoping to resolve it amicably. He defended himself by stating I was the one who started it and that he was not wikihounding me by reverting my edit at the Singapore article (an article which he has not edited for a month) just minutes after reverting 3 of my edits at the Malaysia article, and later going back to the Malaysia article yet again within minutes to revert another of my edit. I respect his right to defend himself and I did not respond after that as I don't see a need to aggravate the situation. But personally I did not accept that explanation as it was clear to me it was WP:HOUND.

I am just writing to explain my stance. Dave1185 has been accusing me of this and that and everything under the sun as per WP:NPA#WHATIS for a long time now. I would just note that this latest accusation is after he was warned by JamesB to stop it. So, lets hope he really intends to stop harassing me. As per WP:DENY, I don't think I will be replying to any of these issues anymore, especially to any stuff coming out of Dave1185. My only purpose of replying is to explain my actions over this 'edit war' with Chipmunk. You can defend yourself etc, it is your right to. I have no malice, and I certainly do not wish to get Chipmunk into any trouble. I just wish for peace, and I just wish for Dave1185 and Chipmunk to leave me alone and I just wish for them to not be vindictive. Merry Chirstmas one and all. It the the season of peace, so cheer up and lets stop this stupid bickering from now on. I've made mistakes, you've made mistakes, let's shake hands, and move on like men. Many thanks, Smilingfrog (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't realise my four reverts were that close (and actually forgot the fourth one related to the first three), so I apologise for that. I also made a mistake in my summary "Rv, the Latin alphabet is official, not Rumi", I meant to say "Rv, the Latin alphabet is official, not Jawi". Blunder, again I apologise for that. In the second edit summary, the Undue and pointy notes were about your edits on religion, not about Rumi and Jawi.

To be clear to any third reader (and to be clarify for us both): The conversation you opened was not just about Rumi, but about Rumi and Jawi. Your characterisation of that conversation being just about Rumi is incorrect, and once again, your edits weren't just making Rumi official, but making Rumi and Jawi official.

I stand by my denial of hounding, and by my comment that an initial revert is not an edit war, but a simple part of BRD (If either of these positions is incorrect, someone please tell me and explain why). I also deny that Dave and I are a team who set out to get people, we simply discussed an SPI and its implications.

Again, if a third party sees anything I have done as wrong (other than the two silly mistakes I mentioned above), they should inform me. Sooner rather than later, so I don't make similar mistakes again. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My last point. You seem to have misunderstood the WP:3RR policy. Making 4 reverts against an editor on the same page within roughly 24 hours, regardless of whether the reverts are related, is considered breaking the 3RR. WP:3RR -- An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.

Also, [BRD-NOT] -- * BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. * BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD. Anyway, this is already water under the bridge. Lets shake hands and move on. Merry X'mas to you! Smilingfrog (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand it perfectly, hence the apology. As for BRD, I didn't revert using BRD as a reason. Both reverts had completely different reasons. I suggest you learn the spirit of the policies before quoting them to me. Merry Christmas. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: ROC talk followup

Sorry I've been a little busy this past week. I've responded on my talk page, and will post more thorough responses to Talk:Republic of China, as well as initiate a move request at Republic of China (1912-1949), in a short while.--Jiang (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan renames

Hi. Glad to see you and Readin have finally taken the bull by the horns and decided to rename the Taiwan articles. I can see some people are refusing to accept there was consensus, but it seems to me that there was one. If necessary I suggest you ask for an uninvolved admin to help close the renaming discussion (the earlier one) formally. Or indeed a panel of three closing admins. If you like I would be happy to approach a couple. John Smith's (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a consensus in the discussion for a change involving the country article being called Taiwan, but no agreement on the how. An admin could not do much with this, so the thing to do now is to figure out the best way of dealing with all the pages we have. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Denmark review

Hello again, friend. Are you busy? I have at last managed to post, at WikiProject Denmark, that question we talked about months ago! Would you be interested in sharing your thoughts? You mentioned that Orange Tuesday had some thoughts also on the subject. Is there anywhere else we can recruit some more involvement? Rennell435 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully you'll get some responses! I certainly didn't. I'll watchlist it, but wait till other's post before saying anything. Good example with France by the way. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

When/where did you post? You said you were going to but I didn't know you had already done so... Rennell435 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly the same place, a long time ago. You can find it at the bottom of archive two. I think if there's no response here we start a merge request on the Kingdom article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You have started a merge request. Well, good job. We'll see if we get a response now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I missed that! I'd like to be proactive so I think if we don't see a response in a week's time, we should be BOLD and do the merge. Rennell435 (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I agree. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Got consensus. Could use your ideas though if you're not too busy. Rennell435 (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan

I am letting you know, since it seems you are one of those who supports the moves, that I have created a subpage of my own user so that we can begin to create the proposed articles and give people their own input so we can use this as a test page for the articles, instead of reverting directly on the pages and continuing to discuss them on the talk page. The link is User:Jpech95/taiwan. Thanks! Jpech95 23:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Georgia

Hey, why do you change Georgia (country) edits? Don't do that again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgianJorjadze (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

For the reasons given in the edit summary. You placed some random map including the EU, added a couple of WP:UNDUE and WP:PEACOCKy statements, and shifted pictures above a main, which they shouldn't be. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to keep deleting me edits all the time? I demand explanations from you. In case of Georgia, why did you delete my edits? I've put the anthem of Georgia and you edited it. I've put the map of Georgia, but you still put the map of Georgia with separatist regions highlighted. There are all the sources of Russian occupation of Georgian territories linked with every source and still you kept deleting my edits. Cannot you just stop already? --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've given some explanations. The anthem was an incidental removal, you should propose that separately. You put a map which implied Georgia was part of the EU, the one with the separatist regions is far more neutral and informative. We already say it's occupied. I suggest you discuss on Talk:Georgia (country) as multiple users have reverted you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand what I am saying? Where is the anthem? Where is the normal map without highlighting separatist regions? Where is the 'Russian occupation of Georgian territories' written? You're not letting me to edit and keep deleting everything I write. I am NOT biased. PUT THE ANTHEM! PUT THE UNITED MAP OF GEORGIA INTO INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BORDERS WITHOUT SEPARATIST REGIONS! PUT THE RUSSIAN OCCUPATION! AND THEN YOU CAN LOCK THE THREAD! Do you get it or not? Stop this editorial war for god's sake! --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I do. The simple solution is to discuss, not through all caps around. The current map is useful, showing all claims, and far better than an EU map. The Russian occupation is mentioned in the history section, although I'm sure it could be included in the lead somehow. What thread am I locking? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So DO it! Where is the anthem? Put some other map of UNITED GEORGIA! and put in the HEAD the RUSSIAS OCCUPATION. It's not the fairy tale called just like that. Russia still has occupied Georgia's 20%. SO PUT THAT IN THE HEAD of the topic. And LOCK the TOPIC with this little lock in the right side --> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Padlock-silver.svg/20px-Padlock-silver.svg.png --GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The anthem was reverted as a copyvio, so I don't feel comfortable adding myself. What fairy tale? Why would I lock the article? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Can I ask why you removed my edit? It better reflects what the sources say and I have tried to talk this through on the talk page, unlike the other editor. No one objected to what I proposed there. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the talkpage, your edit was far too closely paraphrased. The source said "etc, and appalled by the cost of the campaign", your edit said "etc, appalled by the cost of the campaign", basically a copy paste. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion

Hey there,

Just wanted to mention, that though we probably won't see eye-to-eye on Western Sahara, I do appreciated the civil discourse and reasoned debate, which is so often lacking on WP.

Yours, NickCT (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope my comment was clear, even if others don't agree with it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Malaysia

I will look at this in the new year. Remind me if there are no edits by say Jan 5th. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around to help with this. I had it on my to-do list. Didn't realise it would be closed so quickly. It's still on my list, and I'll help with Johnbod in the next few days. Hope you had a good Christmas. Nightw 02:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry X'mas~!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Peer Review Pakistan

Hello, per your quick comments on Pakistan's peer review we made adjustments. I was just wondering, as the article has been significantly changed since you commented and the peer review is still open, if you could take a quick overview again and suggest anything major that still needs to be taken care of for quality? Thanks. September88 (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Andriabenia

Hi. There is currently a discussion about this editor at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satt 2. They are evidently not a new user. Their arguments on Europe and other geogrpahical articles are too similar to those of ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs). Since you already seem to have encoutered them, you may wish to add your comments there. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Davis, I concur on this latest finding, for someone who started editing on 20 December 2011, he sure knows how to archive his own talk page. Something about this guy just doesn't add up. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User unblocked, this is not relevant. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to post a note to the blocking administrator about this block. My preliminary review is that it seems unnecessarily harsh, especially in the absence of any warnings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, my apologies for this confusion, I should have stepped in and talked first before I had used the buttons. I still do not approve of the actions that you took on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, but you were not warned, and the block was not warranted in this case. Please do consider this a notice though that edit warring is inappropriate and that you have alternative venues like WP:RFPP and WP:AN3 to report the issues to. Again, my apologies for overstepping my bounds, and I wish you the best of editing. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation DQ. In light of the above explanation and the one on your talkpage, I'd like to know what to do further in a similar situation. I made my series of reverts with the following in mind. The user was edit warring on multiple pages, some of which I was not involved at all, so discussion on the single page wouldn't solve the issue. This was especially true in light of the fact that a talkpage discussion had begun (but had admittedly stalled) on Talk:Europe (a page in which the dispute was exactly the same), so discussion with the user had taken place. On both pages, I was not the only one who had reverted the other user, so it wasn't a personal edit war (better term?) either. In regards to noticeboards, I didn't think that another report would help. The user already had two cases at AN3, and one open AN/I. Another report I felt would be very redundant.

This I suppose stems from a problem I often have trying to reconcile the spirits of the BRD and edit warring guidelines. Any bold edit that is warred in could theoretically remain. But that's tangential. Any advice appreciated, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that you could have made a well seasoned report yesterday specifically about the edit warring (to ANI would probably been better) yesterday. I do see that the other user was very disruptive, but some sort of discussion about the edit warring somewhere (doesn't even have to be an admin noticeboard, it could be another admins talkpage or something), or asking for a third opinion, would have stopped me in my footsteps in considering a block. I do see the fact that it was not only you reverting on that page, but you seemed to take it on as your job to keep cleaning up the situation by reverting. I don't know if there is truly a right answer here, but that's my two cents on what lead me to the block. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll definitely keep this in mind. Thanks again for the explanation, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Jpech95/taiwan

Hey! I haven't seen you in a few days, which of course you are more than entitled, but I had posted a new topic on our taiwan talk page and I would like to have your input so we can get a better picture and get this rolling to approval. Thanks. Jpech95 22:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Update

Just to let you know, I've started trying to get our final stages moving in: We should possibly go ahead with the RM and notify and articles that could be affected on their talk pages, in my opinion. Head over to the talk page so I can get a better idea of where everyone stands. Jpech95 22:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Malaysia

Please, DO NOT reverted my edits as you did on it. — NZscout  04:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Secular

Hi. You said you always welcomed my opinion, so I'm going to offer one, even though I think it's different to yours.

I think the Malaysia lead is better without that word. Most of my reasons are similar to those you've discussed with others, like: "why have it there if it's controversial?" or "it's just an opinion that it's secular", so I won't go into them in depth, except to say that I actually think they are enough of a concern not to include the term in the lead.

But, here's one aspect I wonder if you've considered. It read:

• "The secular constitution declares Islam the state religion while protecting freedom of religion."

But to me, that feels something like:

• The secular constitution contains this non-secular statement:...

Maybe a clumsy way to express it, but the main point is that I come away from that sentence wondering what a secular constitution is doing declaring any religion the state religion. I think there's enough potential confusion just there to make it unwise in the lead. I also think anything done to try to "fix" it would be likely to make it more clumsy and unnecessary.

Anyway, that's all this is, my opinion, and they are cheap. Begoon ^talk 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It was one of my greyer decisions, and you're right, I hadn't considered it exactly along those lines. I had thought the contrast was quite interesting, and I thought not that confusing, but if it is... Another user has removed i (justifying it on my talkpage I see now that I view history). If secular isn't there, I think the paragraph would work better with the preceding sentence on multiculturalism and that sentence moved to the beginning of the paragraph. I'll definitely mull it over, and I suppose with two more opinions against consensus may be tilting against me. I don't have any great deal of time for a great deal of actual article work before early february anyway. Thanks for the opinion, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's cool. I just noticed it going back and forth in my watchlist, is all, and thought it would be wrong not to share a perspective you might have missed, once it occured to me. Turns out I might have been right, so I'll put that down as my one for the week. Consider yourself priveleged, I've got little else right this week :-) Begoon ^talk 12:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:China IP

The IP editor you are replying to at Talk:China has been blocked on behavioural grounds as being a banned user - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood. Therefore its probably not worth replying ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ready to go

Is there anything specifically I can help out with on Malaysia? Is the to-do list on the talk page still relevant? Otherwise, I can look into addressing Johnbod's comments on the FAC page...? Nightw 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't be doing much until February due to real life unfortunately, but thanks. The to do list is not fairly relevant anymore, with it mostly being done or unnecessary. Johnbod's comments should be addressed, and a few citations are needed as one was removed from the article. What I'd appreciate from an outside view most is a look through Biodiversity with a mind to making it more concise by removing undue information. That may apply to Culture too, although less so. Hopefully that'll mean Economy can expand. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you read the biodiversity section? Never favour the economy at the expense of the environment! But seriously, to me it looks like all quality information, though could probably be condensed through style; I can see a few sentences that could probably be merged. I'm look into the sourcing now. Nightw 13:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Czech Republic

Česká republika vznikla dne 1.1.1969, Československo se stalo federací protože Národní shromáždění Československé socialistické republiky přijalo ústavní zákon dne 27. října 1968 a vyhlášen byl pod číslem 143/1968 Sb. Takže Česká republika existuje 43 let. Historicky prvním předsedou české vlády, se stal v době od 8. ledna 1969 do 29. září 1969 Ing. Stanislav Rázl. Po zániku federace, se již existující republika osamostatnila, ale datum vzniku je 1.1. 1969.

Czech Republic came into existence on January 1, 1969, Czechoslovakia became a federation because the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic adopted constitutional law of 27 October 1968 and was declared under number 143/1968 Coll. So the Czech Republic there 43 years. Historically, the first Czech Prime Minister, became in time from 8 January 1969 to 29 September 1969 Ing. Stanislav Rázl. After termination of the federation, the republic became independent of existing, but the date of occurrence is 1 January 1969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.236.5 (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of International Futures in Country Pages

Hello,

I was referred to you by a fellow editor of country pages (Saravask) - I guess your name has gotten around! I've come in contact with a source that I believe would be a tremendous addition to Wikipedia pages dedicated to countries. I just posted a full message to the talk:WikiProject Countries page (under the same subject line), and I'd like to ask for your opinion on the matter. Instead of re-posting the message here, I'd like to ask you to check it out. Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you. (Shredder2012 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

Danish realm

Hello my friend. Can you please comment at Talk:Rigsfællesskabet? There's a move request that could use your opinion. Rennell435 (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Rui Gabirro

Thank you for eliminating the mud this man decided to throw at me, on my talk page. As the man is alsways writing in this vein on José Eduardo dos Santos, on different pages, I wonder whether this canot be stopped for good. -- Aflis (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of Attractions in Belize Article

I withdraw my comments. I now see the deleted section was nothing more than a redundant copy of Tourism in Belize. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

History of Georgia template

I already cut down the infobox and they block it. That is why I remove them from pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, see contributions of this user, please. This is typical vandal! In this resume, he (or she) outrage georgian user (shegeci jaba menas in georgian fuck you jaba). I request to you block this user! --MIKHEIL (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not the most amicable of users, but let's see if they get the message and go to talk shall we? If they cause more trouble and you think they should be blocked, I suggest recontacting User:Wifione. I'll drop a warning though, they shouldn't be using profanity. CMD (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I just notice that the Georgia template was just fine before it was inflated unnecesrly to its present size by a blocked User:Tanllocittis. Do you think theyr the same person and that explains the attacks on me by so many Georgia editors at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's Satt 2, in case you didn't notice. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Noted, you might want to read up on s:Bible (King James)/Proverbs#26:11 too. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to assume any editor of Georgian articles that swears at others is Satt 2... sigh. What we'd do without CU, I don't know. CMD (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

arab's league map

Hi arab league consider western sahara as part of morocco, please go and see arab league's web site, so don't revert my modification, thank you --41.248.105.212 (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

the map you put is not neutral, because it shows western sahara as full independent state, wikipedia is not UN or a political referee, the arab league's opinion and the fact that this territory is controled by morocco and not a no man's land must be taken in consideration...thanks to be neutral...--41.248.105.212 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

this is a neutral map of morocco, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Morocco_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg, it's used in many articls. When you put western sahara with international borders and in grey color (similar to independent countries) it means that this territory is a full independent state and this is extremely FALSE because the territory is under morccan control regardless international recognitions, I'm inviting you then to be neutral !!! Thank you --41.248.105.212 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

take a look to arab league members map in the arab league website : [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.105.212 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Moldova

Please see Talk:Moldova. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan

I've removed your speedy tag from this article, as it doesn't qualify under WP:CSD#G4. Only articles which were deleted as a result of a WP:Deletion discussion (such as an AFD) are eligible for being speedily deleted under this rational. As far as I can tell, the only deletion discussion which has taken place on this material is at WP:Articles for deletion/International recognition of South Sudan which concluded that there was no consensus for deletion. If there is another AFD that I'm unaware of, feel free to re-add the tag. Otherwise, you'll need to file a AFD if you feel that the content should be deleted. Thanks! TDL (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hexapoda and Insecta

Hello. Regarding your edit to Dicopomorpha echmepterygis, please note that Hexapoda is not a synonym of Insecta. The former is a subphylum, while the latter is a class. Hexapoda includes other organisms that are not insects, namely class Entognatha which includes springtails, diplurans, and proturans (the latter are sometimes treated as separate classes).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the definitive authority in regard to Insect taxonomy? (Is there one?) I've encountered Hexapoda being treated as a class many a time. CMD (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is none. But unless you want to revise all the hundreds of thousands of arthropod articles to follow outdated systems (in which Insecta is a subclass), that is irrelevant. For consistency we are using the most recent accepted phylogenetic system which treats Hexapoda as a subphylum, with Entognatha being separate from Insecta. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the most recently accepted phylogenetic system? This isn't to dispute what you're saying and argue for a change (I really don't think it's all that important what rank different clades get), but just something to know. CMD (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The ranks are unimportant, what matters is consistency.

And please do not expect me to point you to a single page which summarizes all the studies done on athropod relationships. I neither have the time nor the expertise to hunt them all down (I'm currently expanding Caprella mutica under a time limit). It would be really nice if there was one, but higher taxonomic ranks are not governed by any ruling body and Arthropoda particularly has been very controversial. The classification we use is a hybrid of dozens of opinions, and this is one which works.

AFAIK, Hexapoda has traditionally been treated as a superclass. The only rank-based systems that treat it as a class are those that include Entognatha under it as orders or those which treat Hexapoda as a synonym of Insecta (both systems still survive today, mostly in outdated highschool-level textbooks). Both have a long and confusing history ever since Linnaeus used his "Class Insecta" as a wastebasket taxon for all arthropods. See the pages I linked in my first post for the history of their classifications (and do a Google search if you're still not satisfied). If you have any issues with the current system used or if you contest the splitting off of entognathans, please post at WP:WikiProject Arthropods. Until then, do not change any taxoboxes of higher ranks without consensus as you would be affecting thousands of articles.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I at no point in this conversation have desired to go off and change all Insect taxoboxes to have Hexapoda as a class. None of the wikilinks explain why Hexapoda is a Superclass (or subphylum) and not a Class, and neither does google. My questions were due to my writing of Megaphragma mymaripenne, which from google I had found classified as Class Hexapoda. If we use a hybrid, we use a hybrid, I'm fine with that explanation. CMD (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicities

And WTF? "Aryan race is just outdated not factually inaccurate"?!! Are you neonazi or something? That has to be the most insulting condescending bullshit I've ever heard. You might as well just call us the "little brown people" while you're at it. After all, it's just a name right?

Has my attempt to correct you on Hexapoda led to you to attempt to do the same to me as well? I'm starting to think I should just revert quietly. Too many people always take it personally. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Aryan is just a term, and one that was used until it gained rather damning connotations in the mid twentieth century. I'm not sure who the little brown people you refer to consists of, but I wouldn't use that term here, as there is no doubt a more current term for that group of people, just as there is a more current term for those who were referred to as Aryans, and as there is for those who were referred to as Malays. None of these terms are "factually inaccurate" (well, little brown people is obviously going to be inaccurate in many instances), but there are other reasons for not using them. CMD (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Aryan. See Christoph Meiners and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach for a glimpse of early scientific racism which began long before Hitler. As for the little brown people bit, you mean you were not aware that Malay race is basically the "formal name" of the third color in Blumenbach's system? We were supposed to be the "brown people". A highly scientific classification, I'm sure. </sarcasm>

If you felt insulted by my correction of your change to Hexapoda at all, just please tell me, and I'll just stop doing it. In turn, I ask that you drop any grudges that may have caused. If you wonder why I came to that conclusion, it's the only reason I could think of on why you reverted me on Ethnic Groups of the Philippines with that kind of rationale.

I am Filipino, and Blumenbach's five races system is an especially insulting example of scientific racism for my own ethnicity (and any non-European ethnicity at that). It is more than "just a name" and has no validity at all in modern anthropology. By arguing that it was valid, you are actually advocating creationism, agreeing that Europeans were the original "race" (to which all races can apparently revert to with "proper nutrition"), and that humans came from Asia. None of those are scientifically valid. Not to mention that there is an actual Malay ethnicity, which does not apply to all the Southeast Asian Austronesians. So it is inaccurate. Just because we look alike does not make us the same people.

That said I'm perfectly happy with removal of that term altogether, and is what I should have done in the first place. So I'll shut up now.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Scientific racism is old stuff, but that doesn't affect the point at which different words became associated with it. I don't know what you're trying to prove here, that human races don't exist? I don't mind about Hexapoda/Insecta, if there's a wikipedia standard, let's use it. I reverted on the Ethnic Groups of the Philippines page because I saw it in my watchlist and disagreed with the change. I would have done it for any editor, and I stand by my reason for reverting, but as you say, problem solved. Just because another group of people has the same name doesn't make another name inaccurate. What no doubt happened was the meaning of Malay shrunk while its former meaning has been adopted by the name Austronesian. That's really it. CMD (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh god, you're even more scientifically naive than I thought. "Race" as a popular concept is commonly used (particularly in the United States), as a social construct to quickly "classify" people, no matter how inaccurate that classification may be. But as a biological and anthropological concept, they are meaningless terms. Human migration and genetics is simply too complex to be neatly divided into the "white", "black", "yellow", "brown", and "red" races. Particularly when those classifications had bitter historical applications.

The Malay race concept is ANCIENT completely obsolete stuff. Neither is "Malay race" synonymous with Austronesian peoples as you seem to think it is. The former is a fuzzy concept applied by Blumenbach to people with brown skin who were supposedly a mixture of the black and yellow race (thus reducing people to mere color palettes). The latter is a real ethnic group with a shared genetic and linguistic history and encompasses peoples from Madagascar, Southeast Asia, Micronesia, Polynesia, and New Zealand.

Again if I described the people of Germany as "The Germans speak a Germanic language and are members of the Aryan race". You're saying you wouldn't have any problems with that? What if the article on Mexican people started with - "Mexicans are a mixture of the red and white races." Would you also just nod and smile and perhaps clarify it a bit more by saying they're a pink race?

The term has originally applied only to a specific group of people in the Malaysian peninsula. What happened is the opposite. Europeans applied a demonym inaccurately to an entire group of people. That's like calling all Europeans "French" because they all look similar and have similar languages. If you would like to be known as Aryan, be my guest and edit your own ethnicity's article, but please not mine.

And do have a look at scholarly sources. You'll immediately notice that the majority of sources treat the "Malay race" as a colonial construct with no basis in real ethnicities. And update your biology to the 21st century while you're at it. In case that was too complex, yes, races do not exist in any meaningful way. Unless you're a klanner, a neonazi, or a particularly insensitive European, of course.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I just don't bother with pedantic semantics and understand the development of ideas throughout history. Nothing in biology is neatly divided, yet divided it is. There was a study done some years ago which showed that the genetic differences between various races was increasing. The best analysis of this study I ever read was in new scientist, which concluded by noting that with ever increasing integration this difference was disappearing. Unfortunately, I can't find the study or the new scientist article (no doubt both are behind paywalls somewhere), but it was commented on by other outlets, such as the BBC.

The Malay race was a fuzzy concept, but as with everything in science, it has become more nuanced and specific as evidence progresses, and the major part of this group has been redefined as Austronesian. I'd compare it to how old biological taxa are sometimes scrapped even if the bulk of the group remains the same, but you'd probably twist it so say I think different groups of humans are different species or something like that.

As I said above, I wouldn't use the term Aryan myself, and I doubt many people do, but I'd understand it, however much I disagree with its usage. Mexicans originate from many different ethnicities, not just the "red" and "white" ones. Much of Latin America actually, making old ethnic classifications quite pointless. A microcosm of the future I'd say.

I know that the Malay race was originally a colonial construct, but that's the case for much of information from that period. Modern science is rooted in Europe, and its not unusual for the name of a familiar group to be expanded to cover others. Science was rather eurocentric at that period of time (it's better now though). As I noted above many times, the term Malay race has fallen out of use, with as you said everything being more nuanced. It's still a historical term though.

As a final point, I invite you to not make assumptions about my ethnicity. I also invite you to read the first sentence of the Department of Tourism Philippines page on the people of the Philippines, which opens with "the Filipino is basically of Malay stock with a sprinkling of Chinese, American, Spanish and Arab blood." CMD (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know. And that was the fault of the American education system during the American Commonwealth of the Philippines, which basically labelled us "Malays" in the same way that the Spanish labelled us "Indios". Being a country of hundreds of ethnic groups without a single name to unite us, we enthusiastically adopted it not knowing any better, even when it was used as a justification for American imperialism and anti-miscegenation laws. I know one other Filipino editor in here who keeps belligerently inserting Filipinos and Indonesians into the Ethnic Malays article for exactly the same naive reasons. Then again, as a culture, we've always been quite xenophilic even when we're being taken advantage of.

As for the taxonomy comparison, not quite. This is more like Linnaeus' "Class Vermes" in comparison to all the non-vertebrate and non-arthropod phyla in modern taxonomy. And by you admitting that it is a historical term originating back when science was still eurocentric, you have basically just said the same thing - the term is inaccurate. That is not opinion but simple fact. It should not be treated as valid in the same way that you would avoid "Aryan".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it is a historical term means that its original criteria are no longer relevant. It's still a grouping of people, which worked for what it was defined as. It's not accurate or inaccurate, it is what it is. It's also a fact that it is still widely used to describe Austronesians, for better or worse. It is not as obsolete as Aryan. CMD (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved thread

Hey, I moved that discussion thread which you started from here to here so it wouldn't get left behind. I hope this is okay, if not just let me know and I'll move it back. I also replied to your comment on the uninhabited territories. Nightw 12:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rwanda - testing waters for second FAC

Hi Chipmunk

I hope you're well. It's been a long time, but I may finally have a little more time to spend on Wiki so would like to try to push the Rwanda article forward again. I know you contributed to the first FAC and you're an expert on country articles so your advice would be valuable if you have a spare moment.

One of the points raised was that the history section was overlong and also unbalanced in having too manby paragraphs for the 1990s. I have therefore recently reduced its length from 9 to 5 paras, of which only one is for 1990 and beyond. Do you think it is now acceptable?

The other major sticking point as far as I could tell was the explanation of the Hutu/Tutsi distinction. Unfortunately I didn't get a clear idea of what people wanted with that one. It's a notoriously difficult issue to describe, not least because it is contentious as to what the terms actually mean. If you have any ideas as to additional or alternative points I could make on that topic in the lead/history/demographics section I'd also be grateful. Many thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Serbia and Kosovo in the Balkans page. Label status

Dear Chipmunkdavis: Do you think we need a label status for Serbia without Kosovo? In my opinion, the zero value is when the note concerning the Kosovo status within Serbia is not being located besides Serbia! We need to discuss this. Hope to have your answer! Have a nice weekend!--Estaurofila (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)