User talk:Chipmunkdavis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please click here to leave me a new message.


Good for Britain and good for Wikipedia

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!)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I noticed that you haven't edited in quite some time, so I just wanted to let you know that your efforts here were greatly appreciated and are missed! TDL (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. I hope everything is OK, and look forward to seeing you around for more excellent country related work in future!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you TDL and Amakuru for your messages; they are appreciated. Put simply, I was growing increasingly tired of Wikipedia editing and the conflicts that came with it, and so decided to leave for awhile. My life has since moved on, and having more time I hope to pop around more often from now on. Glad to see you both still editing. Regards, CMD (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Good to see you back! I'm still doing what I can, when I have the time, which is not as often as I'd like, sadly. All the best, and looking forward to seeing you here when you pop in.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back! Yes I know the feeling well. It's often hard to stay motivated around here. TDL (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll[edit]

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Small Potatoes ( grammar )[edit]

Pentecost falls on the tenth day after Ascension Thursday (40 days after Easter). The sentence above is formally confusing , on its face . This sentence is the last line of the introductory paragraph . I could delve into the formal reasons for this structure/meaning confusion ,but the obviousness of the problem , would argue against any such tiresome chore . The , all too apparent , shoddy syntax , could be easily remedied by the deletion of the parentheses and the addition of 2 words to render the phrase therein as a clausal construct . Well , " eezy-peezy " you might think - if your inner dialogue included late 90's idiom - but , as it turns out , not so . The last time I engaged in this sort of ad-hoc syntactical smoothing for the purpose of clarifying , not changing , a writer's meaning - I believe it was , as basic as, noun-verb number agreement - my virtual knuckles were smartly rapped with a threat to report and then brand me with some odious Acronym . Needless to say , I refrained from reverting , nor did I engage in disputation , for a number of reasons . At this point , I could go on , concerning the distinction between proof-reading and editorial concerns , but I won't -- And I won't alter the confused and confusing sentence that occasioned this overly prolix diatribe .Bjhodge8 (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjhodge8 (talkcontribs)

                                                                                                                                           I posted the above on the ,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecost  talk-page . I think I need some friendly guidance . B

Why are you doing this?!?[edit]

Hello. I've just wondered because of your reverts! You really don't have any convincing reasons for your reverts and I really don't know why are you doing this, but please stop. Those maps are exactly based on en:Köppen climate classification map. Also the new maps that I've uploaded are in vector format (their quality won't be lost by zooming). Many users have thanked me for those maps and I've just so wondered that why you are reverting! Please respond. Yours Sincerely Ali Zifan 03:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You're placing these maps in every single country article (very high level articles) regardless of considerations including existing text, existing images, and individual utility of each map. This is in addition to the wider question of how much the average reader is likely to take from the map, given its very specific classification system and the paucity of information in the short sentence fragment captions given with them. I have aesthetic questions too, such as the inclusion of the title in the image when we have captions and a file names. CMD (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
If you have any problems with the title or the caption, why don't you update it or upload a new one??! If you think it "sandwiches" the texts why you don't rearrange the preview size? As I said I didn't make up those maps from myself. Those are completely based on koppen climate classification. Ali Zifan 03:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
If there are pre-existing images there's only so much preview size can do, especially on wider monitors. This does not at any rate address the issues I noted. Nowhere though have I said anything about the maps being made up, so if you could explain that point I'd appreciate it. CMD (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh[edit]

This armenian oriented nagorno karabakh page continuously asserts that the land was always filled with armenians. I wonder why are my fucking edits being undone unreasonably when I have a solid proof of the facts that I have added. It is a fact that over 800,000 people have left the region as a result of united armenian-russian atrocities. Seeing the fucking sentences about the region consisting of always predominatly of armenians makes me mad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War. Here is ur fucking evidence. It is not fabricated we have tons of refugees living in Azerbaijan as a result of this Western-russia fuckery. An estimated 800,000 Azeris were displaced from the fighting including those from both Armenia and Karabakh — Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodPrison (talkcontribs) 17:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Specific edits should be backed up by WP:Reliable Sources. If you feel the NKR page is missing information, add it with a source, or discuss the matter on that article's talkpage and perhaps the editor who reverted you and others will participate in discussion there. CMD (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

deleted update[edit]

Why the updates are deleted. Why do you think that it is not appropriate.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferid Heziyev (talkcontribs) 13:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Revert previous edition of Kuala Lumpur[edit]

You had previous deleted my post in Kuala Lumpur which I had since reverted. You commented that there were "over-emphasis" without explaining further. However based on your input, I had cleaned up the introduction section and introduced a new sub-heading "Ranking As A Global City" to place the relevant articles under one headings.Escravoes (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

disputed territory[edit]

Hello, Chip! I jjst wanted to ask you to explain your logic to me. Disputed territory is not the same as self declared state. I will tell it in the easiest way. It is by far more neutral to say: "Something is disputed between that and that, while one think its this, and other think its that." Your proposition is like this: "Something is this. Someone thinks its that too, so its disputed what it is". As you can see, without this two words, we do not have NPOV, but POV with other opinions. All those "countries" are disputed between two entities, while both entities think is something else. Thats why i would revert your edits. --Axiomus (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Describing something as a "self-declared state" inherently notes a statement of dispute. Otherwise we'd describe them without the adjective "self-declared". Your assertion assumes that we use one view in the opening sentence, but we do not. All these entities consider themselves legitimate and proper states, and we do not say that they are for the reasons of balance you bring up. We are not saying "Something is this. Someone thinks its that too, so its disputed what it is", we are saying "Something is this", and then going on to describe what "this" is. CMD (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Philippines (1986–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted your persistents rollbacks of my inline citations to "Malaysia" and "Kuala Lumpur"[edit]

Your explanation that the data was "unsourced and undue. Military already covered in detail" was wrong as firstly, the sources are already provided (within Wiki itself! and the websites of the security forces) and secondly, "military" is NOT covered in the "Malaysia" webpage but in a separate webpage "Malaysian Armed Forces" and the "Royal Malaysian Police" while your explanation for your deletion of my post in the "2013 Lahad Datu standoff" was because that it was "not due to the Islamic insurgencies of Thailand or the Philippines" is irrelevant because nowhere was there any reference in my post that the incident was due to "to the Islamic insurgencies of Thailand or the Philippines."!Escravoes (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Escravoes, military is currently covered in the Foreign relations and Military subsection. As for sourcing, sources need to be on the page the text is on. Regarding the Lahad Datu standoff, you specifically put it in a sentence regarding Islamic insurgencies, writing "There are fears that extremist militants activities in the Muslim areas of the southern Philippines and southern Thailand would spill over into Malaysia, as it did in the 2013 Lahad Datu standoff when 235 seaborne Philippines militants attacked and killed 10 Malaysian soldiers and police officers and 6 civillians, with 56 fatalities on the militant's sides.." CMD (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, Regarding your frequent persistent rollbacks on Malaysia, you had had stated that I had specifically put it in a sentence regarding Islamic insurgencies, writing "There are fears that extremist militants activities in the Muslim areas of the southern Philippines and southern Thailand would spill over into Malaysia.. where you commented that The Lahud (sic) Datu standoff was not due to the Islamic insurgencies of Thailand or the Philippines.

The statement There are fears that extremist militants activities in the Muslim areas of the southern Philippines and southern Thailand would spill over into Malaysia is NOT my statement and I did not wrote that line. as you had wrongly accused me off, when you wrote that The Lahud (sic) Datu standoff was not due to the Islamic insurgencies of Thailand or the Philippines.

That line referred to the "extremist militants from the Muslim areas of Phillipinnes" which was from where all the 2013 Lahad Datu standoff attackers came from!

It was stated in several references in the 2013 Lahad Datu standoff that the armed militants were indeed extremist militants from the Muslim areas of Sulu Province of the southern Philippines. But nowhere did any reference to the Islamic insurgencies of Thailand or the Philippines was mentioned in my statement, but you wrongly and mistakenly inferred that it was and hence your rollbacks!

However after your persistent rollbacks I had reverted the incident as follows: The Philippines has a dormant claim to the eastern part of Sabah, which burst into global spotlight from February 11, 2013 to March 24, 2013 when 235 seaborne militants from the Philippines attacked Lahad Datu, Sabah, ended after more than a month of battle, with 6 civilians and 10 Malaysian security forces personnel killed and 56 militants dead, resulted from a long-simmering unresolved territorial claim by the heirs to the Philippines Sulu sultans to eastern Sabah (the former North Borneo), Malaysia. (with inline citations included to BBC)

There is again no reference "to the Islamic insurgencies of Thailand or the Philippines."

Again your persistent and disruptive rollbacks on Kuala Lumpur's "Global And Regional Rankings" reflected your partiality on NPOV issues. I had referred to the WP:ONUS and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to understand issues in recent Malaysia-related edits that you referred to and I am pleased that my comments fulfilled both criteria well. "Global And Regional Rankings" are directly relevant to the article and I cannot understand why you persisted and insisted that it is not. Escravoes (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Escravoes: If you are so obsessed to add those kind of spammy rankings [1]. Why don't you give a try to add similar rankings like that to other popular city articles of Manila, Jakarta, Portland and London etc? Let's see whether you get reverted from those countries editors for the same reason or not. As for the Malaysia article, you separate those single words of territorial dispute into many paragraph which is not necessary for GA articles as it have been included in one paragraph. Herman Jaka (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of "Spammy Rankings" of Kuala Lumpur by Reuters, Trip Advisor, Daily Mail, by Herman Jaka[edit]

Herman Jaka It is unfortunate that you consider rankings of Kuala Lumpur quoted on Reuters, Tripadvisor, Daily Mail, The Huffington Post, several major Malaysian newsmedia and even mentioned specifically in a major global tourism conference in Kuala Lumpur as spammy rankings

As for the Malaysia article, I separated "those single words of territorial dispute into many paragraphs" to provide inline citations, which helped to improve content and facilitate cross-referencing and verifiability.Escravoes (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Escravoes: The website are not a spammy things. But the way you put along all those gargantuan (huge) rankings is not necessary for every city articles in Wikipedia which would be considered as spamming. Moreover, you put it before the history part which is not necessary to have its own section. Again, for Malaysia article, there is no need to separate it like that even if you provide additional citation. Herman Jaka (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Herman Jaka of those gargantuan (huge) rankings for Kuala Lumpur[edit]

Herman Jaka, Thanks for now admitting that my paragraphs are NOT 'spammy rankings. Much appreciated.

Your earlier "warning" to me of vandalism under threat of "This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Kuala Lumpur, you may be blocked from editing without further notice" was uncalled for and premature.

I am at lost what you meant by "gargantuan (huge) rankings" as you put it, which you claimed I was so obsessed with. But if it is gargantuan because the rankings are "global and regional", then they are meant to be as such - both global and regional rankings and perhaps gigantic.

But in fact they are very reliable rankings from good reliable sources including the Financial Times, Reuters, Tripadvisor, which you should not have considered as Spam in the first place and kept reverting disruptively. If you had disagreed with me placing "rankings' before "history", then you or Chipmundavis could have constructively re-positioned the paragraph, rather than outright deletions, which you did several times. I had however re-positioned the "ranking" paragraph after "history"

Again, for Malaysia article, I separated "those single words of territorial dispute into many paragraphs" to provide inline citations, which helped to improve content and facilitate cross-referencing and verifiability. Escravoes (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference to Rollbacks on Kuala Lumpur and Malaysia[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escravoes (talkcontribs) 11:09, 22 May 2016Escravoes (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Voting to adopt new infobox[edit]

Please participate in a voting--g. balaxaZe 18:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you present your opinion?[edit]

Hi there, I did some digging, and I found out the notorious Georgian sockmaster Satt2, who had a frantic POV to try and push Georgia into Europe and break all its Asian bonds, really had a dislike for you. He created tons of socks over the span of many years all having the same insane obsession, namely "preaching" this Georgia is Europe agenda on Wikipedia. He often created socks with hate names referring to you ("Meurtrierdechipmunk", "Chipmunkmustdie", etc.) as well. Does this all ring some bells, perhaps? Well, he has returned on a new sock and has managed to dodge the bullet for a few months now. Glad I found the SPI case. Considering you had alot of interaction with previous socks, would you mind presenting your opinion here on the SPI case?. Bests and thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your report is very detailed and convincing User:LouisAragon. As you can imagine, the evidence you have posted rings quite a few bells, given the former unpleasantness of dealing with this user that you mention. I was on a long wikibreak until recently, which is likely why I didn't notice this user. I am disappointed that this is all still going on. I will keep an eye on the SPI and will make an official comment if I feel it would be helpful, but frankly you've tied up the case pretty well. If the SPI goes through and the thankless task of removing their edits per WP:EVADE needs to begin, feel free to inform me and I will do what I can to help. CMD (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I haven't really been online since the 11th, so I couldn't give you a response. It's all over now anyways. Thanks for having reverted there where needed. If you need my help, opinion, comment or whatever regarding anything in the future, please don't hesitate to let me know. Bests and take care for now - LouisAragon (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard notification[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. g. balaxaZe 14:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Citation Hunting[edit]

Hi, I've recently started to help out using the 'citation hunt' page. I need to know the etiquette regarding facially absurd, or, after considerable research, unsupported 'facts' that have been cite-tagged. Should I go ahead and cut the passage or post to talk-page first? Sorry to bother you with this. Thanks.Bjhodge8 (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Bjhodge8, a noble cause. The answer is to be WP:BOLD, while applying your judgement. If something has been cite tagged for awhile, and you can't find any sources about the point in question, there's no reason you shouldn't remove it. Add an edit summary explaining the removal of course. If it has only recently been tagged, or you feel there is merit to the statement even though you can't find a source, it may be worth leaving it for a bit. However, even then if you do choose to remove it (which you can), the worst that will happen is someone reverting it, so no harm done! CMD (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)