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)

List of sovereign states

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

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

August 2010

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

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

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

Apologies, thanks for the message.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflist

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

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

Isla Perejil

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madrid says the island is Spanish[4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually the UN makes the difference...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Sockpuppets

Hi Chipmunk, not sure if you know but your name was mentioned in a recent SPI investigation here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Corticopia LevenBoy (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't, but I guess nothing came of it anyway. Thanks for informing me. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations#Factual_accuracy_tag_dispute

I've responded to your comments at Talk:Defamation_of_religions_and_the_United_Nations#Factual_accuracy_tag_dispute. It'd be nice to have a good faith discussion with someone in that article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's time to act. We've managed to fill an entire section with me asking what's wrong and him saying nothing. This isn't going anywhere until a second editor has the balls to actually edit the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

East Timor article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A request

I ask that you cease your blatant and evidenced stalking of me on East Timor, and now your apparent trolling re Indonesia and West Papua articles (topics which my contribs show I was working on this morning and in which your contribs show you've never shown an interest.) I've tried to pay it little attention and can forget about it from now on, but on the other hand if it doesn't cease, I will have no hesitation in seeking administrator advice on your grudge editing on articles that I have a long interest in. Your contribs document this very well. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I will contribute on articles which I feel interested in. It has nothing to do with you at all. I'm sure my contributions document nothing of the sort. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course you may edit articles you are interested in, but from where I sit, in the last week or so following the grudge you kind of allude to on a two admins' pages, your "interests" seem to be include reverting me on articles I have a long history with and have just edited - then "ta-dah" you're there. (eg, your first edit at East Timor was to revert me after your apparent gripes with me on other articles). Now you're editing Indonesia and Papua issues which is exactly what my contribs show i was working on this morning. Of course, I don't know what you are thinking, but I do know what your contribs show (and I'm glad we can agree that I don't have to dig them up to display). But, as I said above, I'm happy to forgive and forget if no longer a problem. happy editing and ciao for now. --Merbabu (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

PS - my suspicion is going to go from orange to bright red if you start editing U2 related articles. ;-) lol --Merbabu (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you work on and what you've been working on and what you plan on working on. I also know what my contributions show, so no need to dig them up. I have no "grudge" with you, my comment on the admin pages was simply to allude to the fact it might seem like that, and apparently it does seem like that. Please continue with your work, but let me edit what I want to edit. Thanks. As for U2, I'm fairly sure I won't be editing them anytime soon, if ever! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you getting into the Malaysia articles today. They don't seem to get much attention lately. --Merbabu (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

HighKing constructive?

Hi Chipmunk, I just can't let that pass. Have a look at BISE in detail and you'll see time after time HighKing simply won't take no for an answer. He really is not constructive at all, unless the argument is moving his way. LevenBoy (talk) 16:53, 6 September 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)

Thanks

Thank you For putting The Great Frost link into Ireland. A new template(?) for you - {{Thank you}} . See also User:Davtra/Cheatsheet
- 220.101 talk^\Contribs 14:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you anon ip for that exciting cheatsheet. One day, when you make an account, maybe I'll watch your highly humourous talk page. Or I could do that now, in the hopes your IP doesn't change ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Latest economic statistics of Malaysia

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=548&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=53&pr.y=13

Latest 2010 statistics stated here. Didn't reply, i aren't familiar with Wiki processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fookjian95 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. Confused me at first too. Point 1: After every talk page edit, place ~~~~ after your entry, and your name and the time will automatically be assigned. I will give the link to Begoon for now, he's better at this formatting source stuff. Don't worry, sooner or later someone will post a Welcome to wikipedia entry on your talk page with links to all the relevant guidelines. But for now, welcome on board! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I would need your support though on my previous amendments cause that i previously tussled with Begoon. Fookjian95 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)fookjian95

It's very rare you'll "tussle" with anyone on wikipedia, one always has to assume the other person is acting in good faith. Also, on wikipedia the standard english isn't British English, but whichever english is the most appropriate for the article in question (Don't know the link to that policy, sorry). Happy editing! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:22, 13 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)

List of countries and territories in North America

Aves island is one of the Leeward islands and is one of the Federal Dependecies of Venezuala, as for the others there location is as debatable as Aruba is, but Aves is definately in North AmericaXavierGreen (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read up the talkpage, you'll notice I did mention that Isla Aves was in North America. My concern is with the other ones, I've never heard of anyone of them being considered part of North America, unlike Aruba etc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Re your edits, I felt that the different group of claimants was covered in the note I had edited. A difference had been made between the claimants of the two islands, covering your edit summary "Serranilla is occupied by Columbians and is claimed by a slighty different group", so is there another reason you reverted? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jamaica does not claim Serranilla but claims Bajo Nuevo. Serranilla's beacon cay is occupied by a small Columbian garrison. Bajo Nuevo however is not occupied by anyone. The columbians came and constructed a beacon there in 2008 (some sources allude that there was an earlier beacon that fell into disrepair, most likely built by the US) but then left. Bajo Nuevo is currently unoccupied by any of the claimants though several of them occasionally occupy it for short periods of time (American yachters, Jamacan fisherman, various radio expeditions). Thus the situation on Bajo Nuevo (no claimant controls) is very different from that on Serranilla (Columbia controls).XavierGreen (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My note didn't say Jamaica claimed Serranilla, but no matter. If you have this information, you should add it into the notes, as none of this came through in your reverts. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine of Brunei

Hello Chipmunkdavis. For your information: there's an existing article called Bruneian cuisine. I think the best solution (to prevent confusion) is redirecting/merging the Cuisine of Brunei and improving the content of Bruneian cuisine. Regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, didn't know. Articles merged, redirect now created! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rwanda

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

Thanks for the copyedit to Rwanda. The history section looks nicer now. I will look into the comments you've raised in the text later on.

Incidentally, I've had a very quick look at the etymology of the name and it appears that it is basically completely unknown - the name originates from the precolonial days and no written record of its origin exists. The only marginally interesting thing to say about it is that it is used with varying prefixes to describe different aspects of the country, namely the people - banyarwanda (singular munyarwanda), the language - kinyarwanda and the country itself - Rwanda or sometimes U Rwanda. I don't know if this really warrants a whole section in the absence of origin information though.

Thanks again  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no point placing in a section with barely any information. I'll try run a copyedit through some other sections when I have time, may I commend the fact you raised what was previously a C-class article to the current state. When you first mentioned it your effort to raise it to FA, I went over to the page and thought "that is a very deluded person", but I'm glad to see I was wrong! Be good if this goes through to FA, it would provide a new point to judge other articles from. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, it just goes to show I guess - no article is beyond redemption... (and it helped that there's usually little serious activity on this article which meant I could approach each section as almost a blank slate, just using those existing elements that I chose). If you do get a chance to copyedit the remaining sections that would be very helpful. Also, if you need any assistance from me on any of your projects, just drop me a line - I see that you have spent a lot of time on Malaysia, so I look forward to a GA or FA push on that one! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Malaysia

The article Malaysia you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Malaysia for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, I missed that little bit! Nightw 14:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, articles looking much neater now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: File:Japanese troops mopping up in Kuala Lumpur.jpg

Well, without an author, the photograph's origin (and hence whether it is covered owned by the Crown) might come into doubt. One thing going for it as a Crown property is that the IWM page states it to be "official photograph", but in what sense? The point of view would imply that the photographer was more likely a Japanese or local, unless it was a UK personnel hiding behind these "Japanese troops mopping up", which seems unlikely. The collection states it to belong to Mr Desmond Wettern, a renowned naval correspondent but I doubt he is the photographer since it is very unlikely for him to be in Malaysia in 1942 to cover this story personally. It is more likely he obtained the photograph somehow, whether at that time (smuggled) or later (bought, found, or given by the government from wartime loot). Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed out "What would the correct course of action be here?" If the author and copyright cannot be determined, then a wise course of action would be to not use the image. If you wish to use it, then the best thing to do would be to contact the IWM and ask if they are able to supply any further information on the image (what they put out on their website tends to be the basic skimpy data). Alternatively, old UK or Japanese newspapers might have published the photograph with information on authorship. Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

One good turn deserves another, so I will hopefully be able to have a look over Malaysia over the next few days (assuming time permits...). Like you I am not a professional copyeditor but I'll see what I can do! Good work.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Kuala Lumpur population

In the previous revision, you've mistakenly duplicated the Subang Jaya and Kuala Lumpur population (1,553,589). I'm just correcting the figures for you. I took the figures from the same source as you are [6]. Cheers. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 09:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(: Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 10:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

TQ

Hey, thanks for reverting that vandalism on my talk page. That user has been socking and vandalizing my pages under a variety of usernames (long story there). I have reported him to the handling checkuser. Bejinhan talks 07:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors. I have started on your request, but I am only online on and off for the next few days. I will complete the entire article by the end of the week, or weekend. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, plenty of time. Thanks very much. I'll try sort out the politics issue before you're done! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, great. Thanks. - SMasters (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks again for your helpful peer review of Petrified Forest National Park, which was promoted to featured article today. Finetooth (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Transnistria

Is there an ongoing discussion somewhere? "practically" is an interesting suggestion. Please reply on my talk page. Outback the koala (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

re: History of Malaysia

Ask Adam Carr. He rewrote the latest edition, discounting all those minor edits. __earth ^(Talk) 06:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

BISE

Wowsers, I wish LevenBoy & LemonMonday would stick around a little longer then 2 hrs a day & the stick around at roughly the same time. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion they get around to quite a bit in the short time they are online! I think I'll refer to them as the LM's from now on, a nice happy coincidence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey mate! Thanks heaps for your comments over at peer review. I responded with a follow-up question if you're interested in providing one more suggestion...? Thanks again, Nightw 10:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratz!

Congratulations on helping promote Malaysia to GA status! You've done an amazing work on it. Thanks so much! Bejinhan talks 06:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's definitely not done yet, but I'm off to work on something else for awhile. Have a good christmas! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Falkland Islands. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Above template added by MFIreland here Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in the SPI case I have lodged here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vintagekits‎. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:41, 22 December 2010 (Uut TC)

The motivation for the name change was wikipedia spilling over into personal life, when I began to get obscene calls at home. Hence, I'm more than a little sensitive about it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty bad. I didn't know you were the same actually, but I agree that you definitely deserve the closure. Ask for a few revdels if you have to. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Public holidays in Malaysia

There were a lot of wrong information in this page, all altered by an IP and it is very strange that nobody revert them after more than two months. If you see no red link in that version because they linked most of them to "Malaysia" ! Monphi (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You have my apologies Monphi (sorry, can't type in non-latin scripts!). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

welcome friend.Monphi (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy new year!

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

I hope 2011 proves to be a good one for you and yours.

And congratulations on getting GA status on Malaysia. Onwards and upwards... hopefully this is the year I can finally make some progress with Rwanda. As so often happens, "real life" events have ended the surge I had on the article up to October, but I hope to resume again soon. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hi there, I noticed the discussion on Talk:Georgia (country) and thought you might be interested in these reports:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satt 2
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#IP_POV_campaign.

My Regards. EmirKaraman (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats (very belated)

I know it was almost a month ago, but I've only just noticed that Malaysia was promoted to GA. Congratulations, and great work! Keep it up! Nightw 12:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol

[7] made me laugh :) Dont know why, but it was funny to me Outback the koala (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit-war?

Just a friendly suggestion that you might want to be careful you don't accidentally break the WP:3RR rule - if you see a serial edit warrior, it's probably better to report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring rather than get involved in the edit war yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, how'd you find me out? It's a new user, not a serial edit warrior. I've placed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Georgia .28country.29 location, and don't intend to revert again. I assume that was the correct course of action? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, that looks like a better approach than the edit-war noticeboard, as it will hopefully address the bigger issue - I only noticed it because I happened to be checking recent changes at the time. Regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious POV editing? regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I had a closer look and thought it would benefit from wider attention -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

My love, the only "bigger issue" here is that Georgia is being excluded unfairly from where it should be included, even with overwhelming evidence. If you go through the archives you will realize that this outrage with the established status did not begin with me, and will not end with me. This makes me think that your understanding of "the bigger issue" is not well-placed. How many users are going to be chastised or blocked for the duration of years for doing this, 10, 100, 200? As long as Georgians from respectable families and origins know their history and sacrifice and see this disgraceful page, the edit warring will be never-ending. That is the bigger issue. --Ludovica91 (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the issue here isn't about Georgia - I have no opinion either way on that. The issue is how we go about making changes here at Wikipedia. We discuss them on the appropriate Talk page, and if we can gain a consensus then we can make our changes - and if the consensus is against us, then we either accept that or pursue dispute resolution (see WP:DR). We do not engage in edit war to force our changes into articles against consensus - even if we are right. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunk's fate

A reward for biased editing. Love, Georgia