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)

Etymology in Country articles

Please avoid the perception of tracing my recent edits in country articles. You have specifically separated Etymology sections from History main section in country articles after the recent edits that followed the MOS History. From an outsider position your edits could be interpreted as a personal edit war. Please avoid this impression in the future. Because my edits have a solid base in the MOS Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (concerning the Etymology part) and yours haven´t, I have to ask you stop this. Italiano111 (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an RFC on the matter, stick to it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not concerning the Etymology recommendation, as this was already a recommendation before my recent edits on this Project Page. Italiano111 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It does concern it. Etymology is point 3 in the RFC. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you or any other editor have NOT made a relevant proposal for changing the MOS Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries in terms of positioning of the Etymology part. Am I wrong ? I´m afraid I´m right. Italiano111 (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. I made a proposal in the RFC. "...it should be a separate header" Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither you nor any other editor have made a proposal for changing the recommended position of Etymology (preferably in History) in the relevant talk page here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries ! There is NO evidence not even an edit made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries that indicates a change from the established recommendation. This was the last comment concerning this issue here on your talk page. I expect any serious argumentation to happen on the specific talk pages. Italiano111 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a proposal at the appropriate page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:36, 21 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)

Peer Review on Falkland Islands

Appreciate the enthusiasm but shouldn't we wait for the peer review to focus our efforts. No objection to the changes, its just a review requires a stable article. Wee Curry Monster talk

Well, I personally feel we could've done more before a PR, but no problem. I am always happy to avoid work! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis. I see that you moved the section about "boggy plains" out of flora and fauna into the main part of the section. I appear to have reversed your action - my rationale being that I want to replace that sentence with something more encyclopeadic - flora and fauna is not my forte, so I need to do some reading up (unless you are happy to do it). Martinvl (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. I'm happy to handle Flora and Fauna, and think I can build up a good section from information on sources that are already in the article. Perhaps you can do something better with that sentence, maybe somehow include it in a paragraph about the landscape? I'll do a test breaking of it now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:25, 24 March 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)

Asean Rail Express

Hello! I notice from the 'view history' that you can edit the page Malaysia. Can you change the mistake near the bottom: Asean Rail Express is not the name of the railway line, but rather of a the freighter service run along that line. The line itself, as far as I'm aware, has no name. Icarus^talk

I'm sure you could edit the page yourself if you wanted! In lieu of this, I changed it from "railway line" to "railway service", as really it's the connection provided by a single service that is the notable thing about it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I would've done it, but it's semi-protected and I'm not yet well-enough established on the English site. You might want to clarify that Asean Rail Exp. is a freighter service. The passenger service doesn't go all the way through, you have to change trains in Butterworth. From KL-Butterworth is operated by Malayan Railways (KTM), and then from Butterworth-Bangkok is by the State Railway of Thailand (SRT). I don't think the routes have names. The only one that does go through is the Eastern and Oriental Express, that's also a passenger service on that line. Icarus^talk 20:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Karpal Singh

Hi, I noticed you're a fairly active user who contributes to Malaysia-related articles so I thought I'd run this by you: I intend to take the Karpal Singh article to good article status, so any help and suggestions are welcome! I'm about to submit it for peer review. - Yk³ talk · contrib 04:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Religion in Malaysia

Hi Chipmunkdavis, sorry for the late reply. Yesterday I was quite busy and did not get a chance to go online in the evening, so I did not see your request. Congratulations on fixing that problem, and I am glad that Religion in Malaysia has been approved (it is now in Prep 4). Hopefully the DYK script will help you in the future. Keep up the good work! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Religion in Malaysia

Thanks from the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 14:27, 28 July 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)

Whitby

Many thanks for the very thorough peer review. As an editor, it is sometimes difficult to get a global perspective and your comments will help with future articles as well.--Harkey (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Bare links

Maintenance categories {{Barelinks}} is applied irrespective of how many bare links there are in an article because any of them leave the sources vulnerable to link rot. If you want to see a much longer explanation of why this is a problem, see here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol spam

Please see [1] and discuss on talk page. Flowanda | Talk 05:49, 15 August 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)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Dugong a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. Here is some tasty seagrass as a reward. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Response

Thankyou for your response, friend. I'm sorry I have not been able to get online for the past few days. I've responded to you on my talk page. Chao, Rennell435 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I responded to your message on my talk page. Rennell435 (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wayback machine

I just went to http://wayback.archive.org/web/ and entered "http://www.time.com/time/asia/2003/mahathir/mahathir961209.html" into the search box and clicked "latest". One thing: check you don't have "http://" twice; it is easy to do that since one is there already. Zero^talk 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Isle of Man - Council of Europe

(Further to "(Undid revision 445147142 by Arrivisto (talk) Mention of the CoE is extremely WP:UNDUE, it is barely mentioned even on the pages of its members) : I had not intended this entry to be biased, but rather a neutral statement that although the IoM was not a member of the CoE, nevertheless the CoE's European Convention of Human Rights can be made to apply via the "supervision" of the UK. I think this information should be on the IoM page, but I am content (pro tem) to be advised on a "less biased" way of doing it.

(Also: "it is barely mentioned even on the pages of its members" I don't understand this! Whose members? ) Arrivisto (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the message. Sorry to be unclear. I reverted the addition of the section not because of bias, but because I didn't think it deserved that much detail and its own level four subsection. The Council of Europe is not really mentioned on the pages of its members (which is what I meant by "its members", sorry), most just say it is a member, if nothing else. It seems strange then to mention it on the page of somewhere that is not a member. However, the information that the UK can intervene does seem relevant. Can you source the birching? If you include that it'd be far more relevant. I'd suggest not creating a new subsection though, the page is overloaded as it is. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Willamette River FAC

Hi Chipmunkdavis. I remember when you did the peer review of Willamette River. First of all, thank you for your feedback there, and I wanted to let you know that the article is now at FAC, in case you wanted to weigh in there. It can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Willamette River/archive1. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Welsh and ovelink

On reading the relevant policy, you were right to unlink Welsh but I think the policy is a bit heavy handed and have proposed a change. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Venetian Ionian Islands

Thank you so much for your response and the time you spent on it! I have some questions on Relations between Venice and Byzantium:

• What do you want to say about the Barbaric invasions?
• The sources do not provide such list. Should I remove "Such treaties include the Byzantine–Venetian Treaty of 1082." then?
• I included this section with the thought that before the Fourth Crusade the islands were part of the Byzantine Empire. You think I should put it under background as a distinct subsection then?
• I only found Ottoman names for two of the islands.
• Which information you mean?

And, generally, what do you think of the so far alterations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.107.250 (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, that was me. I'll continue in the Peer Review page. --Marcofran (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Somebody changed the name of the article without even put it under discussion! Can he do it? At least without suggesting it first? --Marcofran (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, in line with the WP:Be Bold guideline. Equally, you can revert it without discussion, in the spirit of WP:BRD. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway. This is over now. What do you think on the article now? Is it more complete? What do you have to say? --Marcofran (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Draft for RFC

Finally got that draft done today. It's at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Nightw 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

SADR rev

Honestly man, this revert is a bit uncalled for. I'll start a discussion for this trivial edit, but I will not bother to revert if anyone objects. Tachfin (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I do. Will respond there in a minute. Nightw 17:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

please help

HI, I found some Anonymous IP adress are Break this article : Kuomintang , please take ACTION to stop it, thanks.219.85.124.116 (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Okay, how can we reach a consensus to end this?

Collins432 (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You should open up a discussion on Talk:Kenya where you state your change and why you think it would be beneficial. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Kenya

I'm not really familiar with this user talk thing, but I just don't understand why you want to use the outdated orthographic map that only a fraction of the African country articles use. This map is pretty much shows whatever the other one does, and is more appealing to the eye.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins432 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You should really place this at Talk:Kenya, but basically the map is completely accurate and actually more up to date than the AU one, having South Sudan. Even without, a map showing Kenya's position in the world is much better than one showing it just in Africa. Showing it in the AU also gives the AU a relevance it simply doesn't have, making it seem as important as the EU. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Malaysia history chart

Hey, I just noticed the improvements you made to the Malaysia history, and am dropping this note to say good work. Colouring the columns and making a similar colour coded map was an extremely novel idea, and it works brilliantly. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Chipmunkdavis. Much appreciated! cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 17:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations

Why are you vandalizing the member states of the Commonwealth of Nations?  Buaidh  18:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not all members of the Commonwealth of Nations are Commonwealth realms. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but if you find an error, please don't revert all changes.  Buaidh  15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I try not to. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

List of states with limited recognition

why have you reverted here [2] when the source clearly states that NK didn't recognize anyone de jure? Why do you think "de facto recognition" or "de jure recognition" are "oxymoron"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such "nuances" matter. Please see this from Oxford University Professor Talmon, an international law expert: "Distinctions between “de facto recognition,” “diplomatic recognition” and “de jure recognition” may be traced back to the secession of the Spanish provinces in South America in early 19th century." [3] That much is obvious from a Wikipedia article on Diplomatic recognition. But wait, here's more:

• Professor of International Law at the University of Leicester Malcolm Shaw [4]
• Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor Boleslaw Adam Boczek [5]
• United States Naval War College and UC Berkeley Professor Hans Kelsen, who "is considered one of the preeminent jurists of the 20th century and has been highly influential among scholars of jurisprudence and public law" [6]
• Dr. Mohammed Bedjaoui [7]
• judge Nurullah Yamali [8]
• Indian jurist S. K. Verma [9]

As you can see, it's not an "oxymoron". Kindly revert back your edit or provide a better justification that would trump professors Talmon, Shaw, Boczek, Kelsen, Bedjaoui and all other international law experts. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It is one, even if it has come into use. I don't doubt that it exists as a phrase, just that it shouldn't be used without very good sourcing. But your source? Seriously? A thread on a forum? No. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

First off, there is no thread from any forum above - these are all reliable, verifiable articles from top experts. Secondly, the reference I gave in the article comment section [10] was of an article from Arminfo news agency [11], that was simply archived on a forum.[12] I did not use it in bibliography, only in the comment section to show that the information in the article was incorrect. If you'd checked, you would have found the original article on its news agency website. Thirdly, the incorrect information that I changed - and you've restored - relies on a article from a forum site [13] - why aren't you removing and reverting that? It would be better if you carefully study the sources provided, and then revert yourself as you've obviously been in haste when you made a revert. Thank you. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)