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!)


Re: Source Change[edit]

This is in reply to the message that you have left on my talk page.

I have read through both articles and found out that the first article did not mention anything about Jimmy Wong relying on the fact that his grandmother is a Kadazan, i.e. a native in order to obtain his native certificate. Unfortunately, both his parents were classified as Chinese and therefore he is deemed by the Sabah state assembly as 'not having a single drop of blood' of the natives, which in my opinion, is not entirely correct as if his grandmother is a Kadazan, then Jimmy Wong would at least have 1/8 of his blood being native blood. The second article expressly stated the above fact. I am unsure as to the mistake that I have committed in the article, but feel free to make any amendments you think is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristalyamaki (talkcontribs) 00:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks - MAP[edit]

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

I saw you created the map for the Sharks MOU wiki page. Meanwhile the UK alongside with its overseas territories signed the treaty as well. May I ask you to add them to the map? Furthermore, I'd like to suggest to paint all EU member states which are not Signatories themselves in light red (rosé) as the EU signed sperately on behalf of the 27 member states.

Many thanks in advance. Cheers, Andrea

I was in the middle of editing this, adding circles for South Georgia and the BIOT etc., when I found out that earlier versions of the base map included more areas already. If the base map gets fixed, I'll remake the map from the base including the UK etc. I think a softer green may be more appropriate for the other EU states, so as not to give too much contrast, but I'll play around to see what works. Regards, CMD (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


Hello, would you mind to help me with something because I really need assistance? --Gironauni (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll help if I can. What is the cause of concern? CMD (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind to re-write and correct what I added to the article Europe? I hoped to make it more universal and objective. I would be really grateful. --Gironauni (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with your edit was that you made it without a source. It is called the western world yes, but you'd need a source that says 1) That the "western world" is a civilisation, and 2) that it was named as such due to its being in west Eurasia. Sources are needed due to out WP:V policy. I've reinserted your directions bit, as after checking it turns out it was in Britannica. CMD (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Chip! you're amazing! --Gironauni (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the phrase Eastern Europe offensive nowadays? I heard it is --Gironauni (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not particularly, although almost anything can be offensive to someone. Eastern Europe is in any case a widespread and understood term, especially for times where the iron curtain was up and history relating to that. CMD (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw all over the Internet that there are issues about it. I mean... I agree with you in one way but actually even I don't know what Eastern Europe is exactly... European Russia alone is 40% of all Europe's landmass, so there is not much room for any other European regions percentage-wise. The midpoint of the continent is actually somewhere in Lithuania. I don't know... I know that to you it is all very clear but for others it might me not. I think we should avoid this kind of phrasing, especially if it offends people and impacts Wikipedia's objectivity... --Gironauni (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
English terms are quite often not created with mathematical precision, English geographical terms even more so. They're determined by convention. This goes not only for smaller areas like Eastern Europe, but even Europe and the rest of the continents themselves. The boundaries they have are merely the ones that have been given to them. English speakers are probably much more likely to understand "Eastern Europe" vs "Western Europe" than any other conventions, as they were well established in world politics for decades. Using Eastern Europe has no detriment to Wikipedia's objectivity, and if some people choose to be offended then that's their problem, rather than Wikipedia's. Similarly, we haven't renamed Americas to America based on those who feel offended that the USA uses "America" as a synonym, we don't change Persian Gulf to Arab Gulf based on Arab's feeling offended, and we don't call the Armenian Genocide something else, despite the fact that government's choose to use or not to use the term. CMD (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you are right, CMD - a lot of things are the matter of convention. Not only in English but also in Catalan. However, conventions change and we may like to follow them to stay up to date. Please, don't get me wrong. I know that Eastern Europe is in use but so is the Balkans, or Central Europe, or Russia, today. Eastern Europe is at least a little bit prejudiced, isn't it? We don't say 'gypsies'. This is very difficult to understand without the identity theory. If people change their identity, we should respect it. In Kosovo, they say that they are not Eastern Europe but the Balkans. In Spain, people prefer Southern Europe, or in Sweden - Northern Europe, to Western Europe. We respect Spain, Sweden's identity... I think we should treat Kosovo or any other EE country equally. And, to be fair, Western/Eastern Europe are now becoming rare. --Gironauni (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I never once heard of Eastern Europe being pejorative before I encountered it on wikipedia. It means different things to different people. Your example of Balkans shows how much it's a matter of identity. You suggest using Balkans instead of Eastern Europe, but I have many times encountered users who want to say thisorthat country is not in the Balkans, or that the Balkans should be replaced by Southeast Europe or some similar formulation. Western/Eastern Europe have definitely become less well defined and the other terms more common, but in my experience, none of the new terms have the sort of consistency Western/Eastern Europe seemed to have. In addition, many uses seem to be situational. Using Spain as an example, when discussing the Euro crisis, it's often referred to as part of Southern Europe. However, when discussing NATO, it's often referred to as part of Western Europe. One way in which Eastern Europe is still often used is when discussing communism, its fall, and its lasting effects. CMD (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Then I will be the first one: It looks like most comments do support it. Communism didn't last forever. It was just a few decades and in many countries it was lite (Yugoslavia with opened borders, private farming in Poland...). I don't think we stick to ideas that seem to be outdated. I don't know... maybe the language has to change... but it is changing already. We should follow it. --Gironauni (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it has indeed come up ever more often. As I said before, new terms have come up. That doesn't mean the term is replaced everywhere by new terminology. When discussing the fall of communism, you don't discuss the fall of communism in central Europe. What that video you provided does is provide a bunch of new non-arbitrary divisions, which are definitely interesting, if not common parlance. It doesn't however replace it with new arbitrary terms, such as central Europe. Some sources have, but this is mostly in modern contexts. CMD (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
In Spain we say that the communism fell in Central Europe, actually - you know - Germany, Poland, Hungary... Few years later it was the Soviet Union. I agree that we should put always specific terms if we can, like names of the countries or supernational organisations. I hope this is where we could finally agree. --Gironauni (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
If those in Spain say it in Spanish, it's irrelevant to usage on the English Wikipedia. Anyway, I don't deny that it may have been used in quite a few instances in English. What I doubt is that it has come anywhere close to the usage of Eastern Europe. Specific terms should be used when appropriate. CMD (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
English Wikipedia is more than Wikipedia for English speaking nations. English is the most widely spoken languages. It is a lingua franca. Are my edits going to be reverted even without looking at them properly? --Gironauni (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a wikipedia for the English language, other languages have their own wikipedias. CMD (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
True. Still, English is the world language, isn't it?--Gironauni (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
That's what they say, which is the reason we have pages such as wp:engvar and wp:commonality. So for terms we'll examine worldwide usage, and take what is most common. On the other hand, if a term is used differently in a few areas but worldwide retains another usage, we're likely to use the majority usage. CMD (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't know that. It seems interesting. What I need to do in order to discuss something? Would you mind to tell? I am new :( --Gironauni (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Depends on what you want to discuss. For article content, mostly the article talk page. Policy and guidelines are discussed on policy and guideline talk pages. There are various other places to discuss different parts of wikipedia, discussion and noticeboards and the like. CMD (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Malaysian Language[edit]

I think this is very sensitive issue regarding the Malaysian language, malaysian language is clearly a language spoken by malaysian, if you wanna refer it to Standard language of malaysia you can invent the new term in Wikipedia called Malaysian standard malay or what ever you want, but when you talk about Malaysian language, this consist of 28 Million population of Malaysia. Malaysian itself are the language and the culture. i think i agree that each of us as malaysian speak diversify language, Malaysian language does not inclusive of just Malay only. because if you think that way, it is very sensitive to other races. i hope you take note on this, and thank you for your time. and hope fully my issue will be addressed soon by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Malaysian language" is singular. It refers to just one language, and is not about a people. The other languages of Malaysia are described at Languages of Malaysia, where "languages" is plural. CMD (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the Indigenous language of Malaysia? are that clearly been ignored? for example, Chinese language , consist of many dialects. There are many Malaysian who does not even know how to speak Malay as well, therefore i would like to address this, there is no such thing called Malaysian as a language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As CMD has said, all the langauges spoken in Malaysia can be described in Languages of Malaysia, but, Malaysian language (Bahasa Malaysia) is a separate topic with its own article. This is a perfectly reasonable distinction and adequately catered for on Wikipedia. I don't think this is too difficult to understand. Please do not keep reverting to your preferred version, or you will be blocked. Instead, use the article/s talk page/s to try to reach an agreement first. --Merbabu (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

as an Indigenous people of Malaysia, i disagree that "Malay" language are to be called as "Malaysian language". I do not care if you are threatening me with such statement. All i care about is to get the right information not by the facts you see. if you like the term so much, u can create a new pages called " Malaysia national language" but not "Malaysian Language" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from baselessly applying general stereotypes to specific editors on my talkpage (and for that matter, on all of wikipedia). No article belongs to Malaysians, or anyone at all. CMD (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of useful map NOT[edit]


Can you Understand??? Oceania WARNING: Article could not be rendered - ouputting plain text. Potential causes of the problem are: (a) a bug in the pdf-writer software (b) problematic Mediawiki markup (c) table is too wide An orthographic projection of the Pacific Ocean showing much of Oceania.Map of OceaniaOceania ( /ˌəʊʃɪˈɑːnɪə/ or /ˌəʊsɪˈɑːnɪə/)Pronunciation: The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) ISBN 0-19-861263-X - p.1282 "Oceania /ˌəʊsɪˈɑːnɪə, -ʃɪ-/". is a region centered on the islands of the tropical Pacific Ocean.For a history of the term, see Douglas & Ballard (2008) Foreign bodies: Oceania and the science of race 1750–1940 Opinions of what constitutesAustralia had ruled International cricket as the number one team for more than a decade, and have won four Cricket World Cups and have been runner-up for two times, making them the most successful cricket team. New Zealand is also considered a strong competitor in the sport, with the New Zealand Cricket Team, also called the Black Caps, enjoying success in many competitions. Both Australia and New Zealand are List of International Cricket Council members#Full MembersFull members of the International Cricket CouncilICC. Fiji, Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea are some of the List of International Cricket Council membersAssociate/Affiliate members of the ICC from Oceania that are governed by ICC East Asia-Pacific. Beach Cricket, a greatly simplified variant of cricket played on a sand beach, is also a popular recreational sport in Australia. Cricket is culturally a significant sport for summer in

australian biota[edit]

hello there! would you happen to know who i could go to to participate in this project? many members seem to be inactive, and i wanted to join and perhaps do some needed work. please let me know. Thank you! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The project is, as you noted, not very active. If you want to work on Australian biota, you should go work on Australian biota! No agreement should be needed, and there's always work that can be done. CMD (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Abkhazia karabakh[edit]

Ur resent edites in "Caucasus" is vandalism, nothing more. Abkhazia and Karabakh are official territories of Georgia and Azerbaijan recognized by 99% of World governments. I sent a letter to Administrator about ur vandal actions, i hope u will get a permanent BAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Why did you delete my contribution?[edit]

Hi, could you please tell me why you deleted my contributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmbarrow (talkcontribs) 12:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. Your contributions were unfortunately made without sources, which is against the wikipedia policy of WP:Verification. Contributions should be backed up with WP:Reliable sources. Also, keep in mind that each page is focused on a topic. Sabah should be just about Sabah. Comparisons belong on other pages, such as States and federal territories of Malaysia. Good luck, CMD (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


An anonymous editor has nominated your name for Wikipedia gifts here --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Malaysia biodiversity[edit]

Following your kind suggestion of adding a fungal component to the Malaysian wildlife page, this is a quick note to let you know that I've finally started to address this. I began by revising the biodiversity section on the Malaysia page. There is a new checklist of Malaysian fungi recently published, and I am hoping to use the information there to fill the gap in the Malaysian wildlife page.Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Revising the Malaysia page, or any country page, is not a good way to start address wide coverage problems. You've made a section that was already quite long even longer, and given every paragraph its own header, which is quite overdoing it. As for the added Fungi information, aside from the first paragraph, the only useful information about Malaysian fungi is that they haven't been very extensively studied, something that could be said in just a few words. If you create a paragraph from one source that is as long, or even slightly longer, than similar paragraphs, there's clear balance issues. The detail there is far too undue for an article summarising all of Malaysia.
I support adding information to various wildlife pages, but if you're forcing information into places it shouldn't be just to try and reach a certain amount of information, that's a sign the information shouldn't be there. Keep it concise and clear. This is far more helpful to the reader than a slew of tangential information. The reader of the article Malaysia doesn't need to know for example, that Fungi are found in different habitats and that they carry out ecological services for the planet (we don't mention anything like that for other groups of biota). Such information belongs on the Fungi page. Fungi are less studied than animals and plants, and as wikipedia is based off other sources, that is something that is likely to be reflected in its pages. This needs to be changed in the real world, not wikipedia. Cheers, CMD (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind and helpful comments. After reflexion I will try to improve the Biodiversity entry for the Malaysia page. You have mentioned balance issues. Balance depends on point of view. Devoting most of a webpage to the cultural and other activities of humans (who are, after all, just one species) and cramming the whole of the rest of life with all its myriad species (on which we humans depend) into one small section entitled Biodiversity doesn't seem very balanced to me. Biodiversity is much more than just vertebrates and flowering plants. Virtually all of the animal text is about vertebrates (a small group), with no mention of molluscs, nematodes, sponges, arthropods other than insects or a whole raft of other huge invertebrate groups. That isn't balanced. Fungi are a whole biological kingdom. It is unbalanced to omit them. The section on fungi deals with only the two most speciose groups of fungi - the fungal equivalent of arthropods and nematodes - that surely gives it some internal balance. It is unbalanced to omit the other biological kingdoms too - bacteria, chromistans and protozoans. Unfortunately writing about them is above my pay scale. It is relevant to discuss which fungal groups have been explored in Malaysia - work on Malaysian freshwater and marine fungi, for example, has been exemplary with the discovery of wonderful organisms, some apparently endemic. It is also relevant discuss the unknown where that can be done meaningfully. In Malaysia it can be done meaningfully, because the recent checklist of Malaysian fungi specifically identified unexplored habitats. You are surely right about good places to begin. Unfortunately, when there are very few people interested in editing Wikipedia for a particular topic with so much to do, there is no good place to begin. The ethos of Wikipedia, to be an encyclopaedia which is neutral and balanced is admirable. At present, its presentation of fungi, which really are important, has the neutrality and imbalance which come from absence. In the country where I live, it is common for people to dismiss Wikipedia as inaccurate, but it's also common knowledge that everyone uses it as a first call for information. If you want to change the real world and resources are limited, Wikipedia is not such a bad place to begin. I mean that as a compliment to Wikipedia!Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Your point of view, unfortunately, is different from the way country articles have been set up. Wikipedia is written for a human audience, based off the way other sources write. Sources dealing with countries talk much more about human activities than to wildlife. Countries are after all a human creation. Wildlife don't particular care about political borders. The animal text, and other text in that section, is based off the sources used. As wikipedia is a tertiary source, it reflects the real world, rather than seeking to change it. Malaysia is one <50kB article. While Fungi deserve mention, an exploration on how they could be studied does not belong on it. Why not ask around at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi, they may know areas that could be used as good starting points. CMD (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Malaysian Africans[edit]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, I think you need to check out this. Is Malaysian Africans been considered as one of Malaysian ethnics?. I didn't found any sources for this. I think this article should be deleted as the article with the same title has been previously deleted but the user create it again. — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 06:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not an ethnic grouping I've ever seen, at least under that title, and as you noted not one google is throwing up any immediate results for. I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, but it doesn't meet our notability criteria, and the one purported source looks terrible. Any sourced information that comes up post-deletion should be added to Demographics of Malaysia, which currently doesn't mention Africans at all. CMD (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 07:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Van cat[edit]

Hi, if you find out anything wrong with the sources used at Van cat, discuss at talk for the first. You're just reverting (editwarring) with an unclear editsummary [1]. If you really have reliable sources supporting Turkish/Kurdish view (I think this is just your fantasy) why to not use them? (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Other users are well within wiki spirit to revert your edits, per WP:BRD. Also per BRD, it is your WP:Burden as the user wishing to make the change to establish a WP:CONSENSUS to make this change on the talkpage, before you continue to edit war your change in. CMD (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

re United States[edit]

You're probably right; on the other hand I'm reasonably sure I have made statements to that effect on Azer/Arm pages. I don't comport myself well when frustrated with rambling people. :P --Golbez (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please contact me :)[edit]

A Tshirt!

Someone thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
They nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!
It you can contact me via email that would be great ( and I can get it out to you. Jalexander--WMF 09:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Asia (orthographic projection).svg[edit]

Please, could you provide a clear explanation for the speedy delete motion on this file at its talkpage? I don't see how the map constitutes "Patent nonsense" (is the projection description wrong?).

In any case, I suggest you elaborate such delete requests a bit more at the talk page, in order to save time and make these processes quicker.

Take care, Mariano(t/c) 12:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The map isn't patent nonsense, but the map is just a projection of commons. Maybe it's different for administrators, but when I go to edit the page, all I can see is the random text added by the only edit aside from mine in the edit history. CMD (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
OK I understand now. I was seeing the deletion request, but not that text. Mariano(t/c) 13:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wildlife of Antarctica[edit]

I rather hit lucky in picking your article for my first DYK review.[2] I'll have to look for a poor article next time! Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it certainly looks like your DYK review was very very thorough. If that was your first review, project DYK could make good use your time. Sorry about the unusually long article, I hope your searches for easier work are fruitful! Cheers, CMD (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Graphic Designer Barnstar Hires.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thank you very much for the graphics listing at Falkland Islands.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 23:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Wildlife of Antarctica[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wildlife of Antarctica ref[edit]

On that subject, you wrote: With regards to the ref you added to Wildlife of Antarctica, how much of the preceding text did it cover? Previously the paragraph was all covered by the cybertuffle reference, and as I can't access your source and there's no quote I can't tell if it covers all the text preceding in the paragraph or just the one sentence. Regards, CMD (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. The sentence I had in mind for that new ref was the one right before the note. I wasn't sure about the text before that sentence. Thank you for pointing that out; I'll 'jump' the footnote now.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! CMD (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Associated state‎[edit]

Excellent work on the rewrite! It has desperately needed it for some time now, but I've avoided doing it myself due to the inevitable WP:IDHT debates that Ci/Niue issues tend to descend into. TDL (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't even a matter of removing bad sources. I just went with what was actually in sources that were already being used. It could still use more curation I'm sure; the last sentence seems fairly pointless. Dependent territories often have their own nationality and immigration procedures, and even some country subdivisions. CMD (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


Dear Chipmunkdavis,

The Commonwealth of Nations is an "intergovernmental organisation of 54 independent member states", therefore not a state, consequently it has no relevance to the article about state leaders. Furthermore the link which I keep deleting and you keep re-adding is about the list of members of this organization (only 16 of which have the head of the organization as their head of state). And Elizabeth II is correctly listed under each Commonwealth realm as head of state in the List of current heads of state and government article, therefore a link to the membership of the Commonwealth adds no relevant information.

Could you please explain how you see this question?

ZBukov (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It verifies which 16 states have Elizabeth II as their heads of government. It's not a link, it's a reference, in line with our WP:V policy. CMD (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want it to be included as verification for who the head of state of all those countries are, than the consistent solution would be to add the websites of the presidential offices of every country. Without that it's just an arbitrary exception to include this source and not others. Furthermore if you want to verify the head of state of those 15 countries than a link to the government webpage of the affected countries would be more relevant. But all the heads of state and government are listed the UN protocol list ( anyway, which makes the inclusion of this particular reference unnecessary. ZBukov (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It'd be great if more sources were added! In the meantime, simply removing a source won't add to the article. At least at the moment a reader can comfort their suspicion that Elizabeth II is the head of state of Antigua and Barbuda by checking a reference. CMD (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Adding the UN protocol list to the article as reference makes more sense as it includes all the states. And you don't seem to react to the argument that the reference you want added is about an organization, not a state. ZBukov (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The reference has information about all the states that are part of the organisation, that it has information about an organisation as well doesn't change that. There's no reason for the UN list to replace other references, although it could also be added. CMD (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The UN source is comprehensive unlike the Commonwealth source, which then renders the latter completely superfluous as there is no relevant piece of information in it which is not included in the UN list. ZBukov (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The Commonwealth source also provided the background information for the footnote next to it. While we could base the majority of the article just off the one source, that should at least be discussed on the talkpage first. Would you mind reverting the source deletion you insist on edit-warring in? CMD (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

State of Palestine[edit]

You can see on or on, in the sections about history of the Palestine, it is a State of Palestine, proclaimed in 15 Nov 1988 by Palestine Liberation Organization which remains ineffective but receives diplomatic recognition from some states) which has a own organization of the state and which has in common with Palestinian National Authority only the person of the president. Te Parliament is Palestinian National Council and the government of that is Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization. For PNA the Parliament is Palestinian Legislative Council and it is a government lead by a prime minister. On 29 Nov 201 2 Palestine represented by PNA obtained the status of non-member observer state status in the United Nations and in 6 Jan 2013 Palestinian Authority renamed itself State of Palestine (move not recognized by Israel). So, at this moment it is a big difference between the state of Palestine proclaimed By OEP, which has nor a prime minister nor an elected Parliament and State of Palestine which is the new name of PNA. Maybe in the future will be an unification between the two entities, but in present they are totally different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Uleia (talkcontribs) 10:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Palestine was represented in the UN by the PLO, who declared the State of Palestine, not the PNA. You should post this, with sources perhaps, on the article talk page. CMD (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

NK, France and Estonia[edit]

Regarding this; it could be because of France–North Korea relations page. It states, "France is one of the only two European Union members not to recognise North Korea, the other being Estonia." Source I believe only talks about d-relations, but have you heard anything that this could be the case? Outback the koala (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a claim I've heard somewhere before, but I haven't seen any sources supporting it. They don't have diplomatic relations, but France didn't object to the North entering the UN, if that means anything. The relations page should probably be changed. CMD (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


STOP your pro-abkhazian edits ! Folow NPOV !!!--Balakhadze Flag of Georgia.svgႫႨႼႤႰႠ 10:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I could say the same, replacing abkhazian with Georgian. Note that one aspect of NPOV is to "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". A government in exile does not hold the same prominence as a government in control. CMD (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You could say, but you would lie, I'm not removing separatist Abkhazia's signs meanwhile as you are removing Georgian signs.--Balakhadze Flag of Georgia.svgႫႨႼႤႰႠ 10:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Displaying them both with equal prominence is not neutrality, as it doesn't reflect reality. CMD (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Read these articles and then you'll understand what is or not reality: Battle of Gagra, Kamani massacre, Siege of Tkvarcheli, Sukhumi massacre.--Balakhadze Flag of Georgia.svgႫႨႼႤႰႠ 14:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the 1992 war, its individual events aren't important for determining which CoA is currently in use on those territories. CMD (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
CMD, maybe it's better to be balanced.Recent info (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
...yes? CMD (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Holy See and the Vatican City[edit]

Hello, Chipmunkdavis! Answer please, why does the Holy See not a member of the UN? Has it a plan to become its member? User02062000 (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's never applied. CMD (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)\

Why does the Vatican City is often considered a state, but the Holy See is an observer state in the UN? User02062000 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Holy See is the sovereign entity, and is legally separate from the Vatican. It is the Vatican however that is the territory required to qualify for statehood. By not making themselves identical to the territory they hold the Holy See portrays itself as an international entity for all Catholics, and creates continuity with the period before the Lateran Treaty of 1929. CMD (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

But then why the Holy See is in a category 'Non-member states in the UN list? On all pages in Wikipedia the Vatican is considered a state, not the Holy See! Even on the website of the Vatican City it is considered a state, not the Holy See! Why the Holy See holds a STATE section in the UN, not international organization? Please explain! User02062000 (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Because they applied to the UN under the name "Holy See". CMD (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain or show sources where mentioned that Holy See applies to the UN under its name, not Vatican City State! All sources say that Vatican City is a state, Holy See is only a sovereign entity controlling a state of Vatican! That is not logic if Holy See appears to the UN under name of international sovereign organization, not under the name of state they controlling? Please help! User02062000 (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There are legal distinctions, but the Holy See and the Vatican City are entwined with each other. The Holy See is the entity that predominantly engages in foreign affairs, including diplomatic relations and membership in international organisations. CMD (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand it, my question is 'Why the Holy See is considered a state in the UN? It can be considered an international organization, such as the SMOM! Please answer, why the Vatican City is internationally recognised and considered a state, but in the UN the state is Holy See, that is considered just a government of the Vatican? User02062000 (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Because as noted above, the two are entwined, and it is the Holy See that conducts foreign affairs. The Vatican is not considered a sovereign state separately from the Holy See. CMD (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Then, why the Vatican City is considered a sovereign state on the List of sovereign states and the page about Vatican? There are so many pages where Vatican is the entity which is considered sovereign state, without any mention about the Holy See as a state! It is so unclear situation: all encyclopedias say that Vatican City State is a sovereign, while in the UN the Holy See is considered a state! You can see website of the Vatican, where mentioned that Vatican is an independent state, and there is no mention that Vatican City and the Holy See are entwined! Even the website of Vatican proves that Vatican is a state, but you say that Holy See is a state too, isn't it? I think the website of the Vatican City is the main source where the right information can be found! Then, Vatican is a state, not Holy See! And the Holy See holds observer state status. It is not logic, if Vatican website proves that Vatican is a state, while Holy See don't mention about that they are the state, and holds observer state status!!! Don't you think so? Please clear this unclear situation! User02062000 (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Where are you getting this impression that it is the Vatican city that is internationally recognised and considered a state separately from the Holy See? I'm not saying that the "Holy See is a state too", I'm saying they're different aspects of the same state (hence entwined). The sovereign of the Vatican City is the Holy See. When conducting diplomacy, the Holy See does so as the Holy See, hence UN associate status. CMD (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. You say that "they are different aspects of the same state". What is this state? I just want to know what name (Holy See or Vatican City) is an official name of the state? User02062000 (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Both are official names. The Vatican is more closely associated with the territory, the Holy See with the diplomatic presence. Asking which one better represents the state is a complicated question with no correct answer. CMD (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have one question: if you say that Holy See is more closely associated with diplomatic presence of state (but is used as one official name of the state, can you explain why in the article about Vatican City State I've found this: "The two entities have distinct passports: the Holy See, not being a country,..."??? How can you explain this words? They say that Holy see is not a country (or state)!!! But you ask me, "Where are you getting this impression that it is the Vatican city that is internationally recognised and considered a state separately from the Holy See?" We must either delete the proposition I've found, or you explain me your point of view! How you can explain it? User02062000 (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In isolation, neither has all the hallmarks of statehood. However, they aren't isolated. That statement makes some sense as it is drawing a distinction between the two, a distinction that is often glossed over. CMD (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have a conclusion for the end of discussion: The Vatican City is traditionally considered a state, while the Holy See is considered its government, but represent a traditional state in international organizations as a sovereign entity. If it is right (say me), the discussion would have a happy end! User02062000 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


Gibraltar and the UK may claim whatever they want, but what they cannot do is to change the Treaty of Utrech. The history cannot be rewritten according to what you would like it to be. So please read the Treaty of Utrech and inform yourself before introducing misleading information. Whether you like it or not, there are no maritime borders between any British Overseas Territory and Spain. Have a little bit of respect for History and for international treaties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flmtnez (talkcontribs) 13:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

. . .[edit]

User Chipmunkdavis my disfavour to you! You like "paranoid" reverting all my edits. -_-. --Balakhadze Flag of Georgia.svg 18:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't nearly reverted "all [your] edits". Perhaps you should try editing through discussion and consensus, rather than your current technique of edit warring changes in. CMD (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Democratic Republic of Georgia (en).svg[edit]

User Chipmunkdavis do you realy can't see neighbour countries on this map? This map actually gives same information as this file:Democratic Republic of Georgia map.jpg, the only difference is in borders. Also this map is more correct.--Balakhadze Flag of Georgia.svg 21:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No-one could see the neighbouring countries on the map. There's an amorphous white mass with a few names scattered around. The former one is nowhere near perfect, but at least there's a couple of dates and a difference between Russia and the southern countries. The legend in yours is also strange in that it uses present tense for a past entity. As for accuracy, neither presents a source, but the former doesn't claim as a source an international body that never accepted it as a member. CMD (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Re : Malaysia map[edit]

Yes check.svg Done + I do some improvements based on the old discussion. :) — иz нίpнόp ʜᴇʟᴘ! 16:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Georgian–Armenian War[edit]

Hi Chipmunk, just a note to say that the reverting at these articles has reached inappropriate levels. If someone makes an edit against consensus and continues to revert, the best thing is to get others involved, including through article RfCs, or to request admin assistance. In any event you should be careful not to violate 3RR. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Slim. I haven't touched the article in 6 days though, and in the time I did edit it I don't think I violated 3RR. Do your dates show differently? Also, since Alæxis went as far as to file a 3RR report on a user whose standard approach is to edit war in their edits, and it was ignored, what am I supposed to ask admins? CMD (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Your dates are correct, but you did violate 3RR: the four reverts were 18:43, 18:48, 19:05 on 18 June and 17:02 on 19 June; then another one at 20:36 on 19 June. Also bear in mind that the spirit of 3RR matters too: reverting for a fourth time just outside the 24 hours would count toward it. I understand that this can happen, but it's not only at this article, and any uninvolved admin is likely to see only the reverts, rather than delving into why. So you would be safer to get others involved rather than reverting yourself. Article RfCs (for example) are slow, but they can be very effective.
It's unfortunate that the 3RR report went stale, but consider posting on an admin's talk page in future if you can't get help from the noticeboards. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't usually insert myself into other people's business like this, but I do feel I should make some comment here. CMD, in the course of the very valuable work he does, often finds himself pretty much alone defending good articles against POV warriors and/or vandals. Many of our "Country" and Geography articles owe a significant part of their quality and stability to his efforts. It's a very tricky position to be in. I know, because I find myself in it from time to time, as I know you have too, SlimVirgin. Whilst it is true that the policies and guidelines need to be enforced evenly, sometimes it's also important to consider the effect on the morale of good editors.
I, for instance, have just spent nearly 3 weeks trying to get a steaming pile of POV, copy/pasted unintelligible nonsense masquerading as an article deleted, necessitating long discussions with ARS type editors, and other well meaning, but basically poorly-informed !voters who would seem to default to keep just about anything without really considering the situation and understanding it. It's very draining, and takes up an enormous amount of time which could otherwise be devoted to improving the encyclopedia. Now I just await the next round when the POV editor returns from his block, or creates a new sock. Rinse and repeat.
We need to avoid biting newbies, sure - but we also need to avoid making our good editors feel like they are banging their heads on a very hard wall. This is in no way a criticism of any actions taken here - it's just an observation from someone who has often himself been very tempted to say "stuff it", in the face of the sheer Herculean effort involved in doing the right thing. Perhaps this is a big part of the problem: any uninvolved admin is likely to see only the reverts, rather than delving into why. My 2 cents. Begoontalk 02:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Begoon, I agree completely. Another editor has explained that Chipmunkdavis does great work at these articles. But that last sentence that you highlighted is unfortunately what most admins will see – the behaviour rather than the reason for it. I agree that it's a major problem when good editors are left isolated, trying to maintain standards and being judged according to "blind" policy application. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, one day we'll change the world, eh? For now I guess we have to live with it and share our little 'rants' occasionally. There are so many people doing good work, unappreciated, and this medium can be very impersonal at times. I'm as guilty as anyone else on occasion. Cheers. Begoontalk 17:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

State of Palestine[edit]

Many pages say that Palestinian territories are under Israeli occupation. Then there is a conclusion that Palestine is not an independent country (even a lot of websites which try to answer how many independent countries are there in the world say that there are 193 UN members, Vatican and Taiwan). I don't argue that Palestine is not recognized by the UN, but it is not independent! User02062000 (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That's the opinion of a few European countries as well. Another conflict of de jure and de facto. CMD (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you hell bent?[edit]

Do read the article Hindu Nationalism and Akhanda Bharata. Hope u r not a pov pusher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those articles mention, let alone source, that there's a proposed state merger between all the countries you mention. Per WP:V, wikipedia needs WP:Reliable sources. CMD (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

International community[edit]

Hello, Chipmunkdavis! I have a question about international community: is it the same as the UN? User02062000 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The international community just means all states, it's a loose term. As the UN has grown to include basically all the worlds well-recognised states covering the entire human population, opinions decided there can easily be argued as the consensus among all states. CMD (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! But don't forget to answer me in the Vatican Section above, I have a new question there! User02062000 (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted information on Abkhazia[edit]

why did you delete the information about Laz presence in Abkhazia ? This information was already there, and i just added new information. This represents a violation — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMistAnchorite1 (talkcontribs) 16:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I deleted no information. If you actually look at the edit, I merely shifted the location of the source, and reworded it, in the process actually adding information. What you added was a WP:Copyright violation. WP:Copy-pasteing text is explicitly prohibited by wikipedia policy, due to possible real-life legal issues. CMD (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


i already re-wrote that information, thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMistAnchorite1 (talkcontribs) 21:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


Hello. It would be greatly appreciated if you approach other editors' improvements in a respectful way. At least provide a helpful summery for your reverts. Indicate what makes you unhappy and open a discussion rather than stalling the evolution of the article by reverting to worse state. For example, the version that you seem to be happy with has a lengthy paragraph about the NKR. Why would an article about Azerbaijan contain so much info about NKR? I insist on my improvement and welcome any constructive discussion. But please don't just go around and null my labor in such an inconsiderate way. Thank you. Gulmammad | talk 05:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not disrespectful to revert an edit, it's actually quite common practice. In my edit summary I noted 3 things, 1) the lack of discussion, which isn't an issue by itself but becomes so when you start reverting your edit in, 2) puffery, of which there seemed to be a bit in your lead, although there is some in the previous one and this wasn't major, and 3) expansion, your lead was 6 paragraphs, when a lead should be around 4. The process to follow here is WP:BRD, where you, having been reverted, note what changes you'd like to make in the talkpage. Regards, CMD (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have a concern about this statement: "'The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic emerged in Nagorno-Karabakh after the ceasefire of 1994 and is not diplomatically recognized by any nation. As such, the region, de facto independent since the end of the war, is a de jure part of Azerbaijan.'" I find it odd that you think this statement is fine while I feel it is completely irrelevant for this article although the fact by itself is correct. I'd not be so puzzled had you manually reverted the parts that you felt werent okay. Instead you simply reverted the entire improvement. This move of yours is completely inconsiderate with a potential to provoke edit-war. Thus I request from you in a most respectful way to go back and improve the article with removing or changing what you feel is not okay. As for the second thing you noted above, can you please be more specific? What you tell is quite vague and if I understand you correct, I will make appropriate changes. Lastly, I wasn't aware of the 4 paragraphs rule although I knew the lead should be short and concise and induce interest in the reader to read the relevant parts... Gulmammad | talk 06:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Every edit has the potential to provoke edit war, and nothing inconsiderate has happened. Whether or not it will happen relies on the editors involved. Will you, as the bold editor, decide to engage in discussion or try and edit war your changes in? If you're decided on discussion, then this shouldn't be a problem.
Changes would be better proposed at Talk:Azerbaijan than here. With regards to the Nagorno-Karabakh statement, it's two sentences that seem very relevant to the article, given a bit of Azerbaijan hasn't been controlled by Azerbaijan since independence. There may be more concise ways to write it, but removing all mention of NKR is not an improvement. Something that read as quite puffery was the UN paragraph. It's not remotely unusual for a country to be part of the UN, and it's not particularly special to be elected to the UNSC. The four paragraphs 'rule' is a guide to try and create a concise lead. Again, I recommend you open on the talkpage a discussion along the lines of "The current text X should be changed to Z because of Y." Regards, CMD (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I am going to open the discussion as you suggested and I am determined to take into account all your concerns in a version that I am going to propose. I'll make sure to include NKR part in a more relevant way as well. What's your suggestion for UN and UNSC parts? Should I remove that entirely? I spent hours of my time trying to improve the prose while keeping the facts intact and this was one of the most annoying parts. If it was for me, I'd remove it but feared objections. So I need an input from editors like you. Please let me know how we can improve the lead. Its original version was in a terrible shape, composed of loosely connect collection of fact containing sentences! Gulmammad | talk 06:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think they belong in the lead. A sentence or two in foreign relations, if anything, but definitely not the lead. The reader doesn't learn anything about Azerbaijan from this. If it was a permanent member, that'd be different, as that shows a prominent position in international politics. However, just being a temporary member by itself is quite inconsequential. I look forward to your discussion. CMD (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you again for your suggestion. I've come up with a proposal at the talk page of the article[3]. Your further suggestions and help to make it more concise will be appreciated. Warmly, Gulmammad | talk 14:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

de jure and de facto states[edit]

Hello Chipmunkdavis! I want to ask you about de jure and de facto states. Here are my questions (answer in this order): 1) Is de jure recognized means "recognised by the UN"? 2) Why in Vatican City article mentioned that "VAtican is smallest internationally recognised sovereign state"? Holy See is internationally recognised - it is a subject of international law, isn't it? User02062000 (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Hey Chipmunkdavis! Where are you? Answer please! User02062000 (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Why don't you answer me for a long time? Please be faster if you can! User02062000 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been away, my time on this talk page is volunteered, not owed. You should take questions on specific articles to those articles, and de jure means "by law", not recognised by the UN. CMD (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


See Talk:Georgia (country)#Anthem. GeorgianJorjadze 08:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait if I revert your edits this is edit war and when you revert my changes back this is normal? Yes, as I promised I don't edit war but you seem to not care at all my arguments given in the talk page. All countries have anthems and you still remove it and then blame me in edit war? I am not doing anything wrong here. georgianJORJADZE 14:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:BRD. Talkpage discussions should reach WP:CONSENSUS, it's not enough to just state your point and then ignore the subsequent conversation. CMD (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
What discussion? You are not telling me the answer. Why did you remove the anthem from the article? Simple question. All countries have it and why would you remove it from the Georgian one? georgianJORJADZE 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I did answer. If you didn't understand the answer, you should ask for clarification. CMD (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sport in Malaysia[edit]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, Can you explain why you revert my edits, please? Sharing is caring :) (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You're rearranging the entire page, removing a few sections and a large amount of text in the process. Could you elucidate more on what you are doing? CMD (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to check these sources because some are dead links and some don't even show the information related about the statement. The book source cannot be found at Google Book Search online database. I don't think that these sources should be included in the article. Thank you for co-operation. Alexey88 (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If a link is dead, place {{dead link}} after it, leaving [dead link]. This allows other users to see they are dead in the article, and try and improve them. Regards, CMD (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me know which section that you think should not be removed. Alexey88 (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Have independently engaged"[edit]

There is a reason for that wording in the states and dependencies of Oceania page. One thing is to say: "the Cook Islands have engaged with other states in diplomatic relations", which is a proven fact and describes a precedent. Another thing entirely is saying "they engage in diplomatic relations". We know they do, but since they have only engaged in such relations with a minority of states, this wording may suggest a larger degree of independence in their foreign affairs than they really have. In other words, it would lead to giving CI and Niue undue weight. Ladril (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see such implications in changing the tense of words. Even if these implications did exist, whether the Cook Islands are as diplomatically sparse as Bhutan or as engaged as the United States, it's the fact they can engage which is important. Still, it's a minor grammar point, so if you feel such implications exist than I'm happy to leave it as is. CMD (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, Bhutan is "more established" as a sovereign state than the CI and Niue. Moreover, NZ still retains some responsibility for the international representation of these two, so their engagement in separate diplomatic relations is still in a nascent state. This is why the tense matters. Ladril (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award[edit]

Million award logo.svg The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Malaysia (estimated annual readership: 3,387,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

Million award logo.svg This user won the Million Award for bringing Malaysia to Good Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Malaysia too[edit]

The MNLF claims Mindanao, Sabah, and Sarawak to be part of their country "Bangsamoro" which again is still is not recognized. I hope they stop because their the only one that will be happy, not the citizens. Please don't revert my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

CI/Niue, again.[edit]

Hello Chipmunkdavis!

My question for you is: Why do we consider CI/Niue as UN-recognized, but put them into such sections as "other states" etc.? And why does the Un general assembly haven't yet recognized CI/Niue as observers, if they are 'recognized'? User02062000 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Both the CI and Niue have been noted by the UN secretariat to have full treaty signing powers, which is something reserved for states. To become an observer in the UNGA, they would have to apply, and a resolution would have to pass according them such status. This has not happened. CMD (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do we consider "internationally recognized states" only those states which hve already become UN members or observers? For those 9 states which sre not recognized, I agree with, but I think CI/Niue then mustn't be in section "other states" they must be among recognized! for example, in List of Sovereign states they are in other states section, and in countries of oceania list they have an unique section, while Palestine and Vatican have no separate section in such as List of sovereign states of Eurasia or Asia, or Europe. User02062000 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

We use UN members+observers as it's clearcut and easily sourced. You haven't provided any reasons for why you think CI/Niue are somehow more internationally recognised than Kosovo or the SADR, on par with Vatican and Palestine. Please read the archives at Talk:List of sovereign states. Chances are you'll find most ideas discussed there. It's imperfect in any situation, but the one we have is easy to source. CMD (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are CI/Niue have right for signing treaties and self-determination, but they have not use it yet? I think CI/Niue can't be described as sovereign countries because they have not used right for self-determination and there are only few states recognizing them (without their declaration or some other treaty). What do you think about? And also, my main question: does UN recognize CI/Niue independence? For example, I saw an article in French Wikipedia, and they consider CI/Niue to be sovereign states... and you can see that in lists of s.s. and dependencies by continent the sections named "recognized states" but in list of Oceanian countries sections named "member states of the UN" and "states not members..." which include CI and Niue respectively. i think we must either rename section "member staets" to "recognized states" and include or not CI/Niue, or we must create section "states with limited recognition" for CI/Niue as German Wikipedia does. Where are you? Answer please! User02062000 (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi User02062000. I don't know why the governments of the CI/Niue have decided to maintain their current status, you'd have to ask them. As for the UN, the secretariat recognised their independent treaty-signing capability, but I an unaware of any UN votes on the mater. CMD (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chupmunkdavis. What do you think about current status of CI/Niue 'self-governing in free association': is it mean they're independent from New Zealand, or they say that they don't want to be fully independent, but don't want to be dependent from NZ? And then, why don't they had to ask UN to be its member or observer? Or why don't they ask NZ to be independent from then, and would it be, what's your opinion? What NZ thinks about their current status and wish they to change it? Please answer! User02062000 (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think they're very happy with their status as New Zealand citizens, and don't want to risk that link. NZ is clearly happy to keep it, perhaps from good will, perhaps it doesn't greatly affect them, or perhaps they feel bound by legal and/or moral obligations to support their former colonies (or a mixture). CMD (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, but I'll rename sections I've said above. User02062000 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A question about this article "Brunei"[edit]

Is "Recognised" suitable to describe English on the info-box in regards to this Section 2 of Article 82 on the Country's Constitution?

Article 82

Section 2 - An official version in the English language shall be provided of anything which, by this Constitution or by any written law or by the Standing Orders, is required to be printed or in writing, and such version shall, in addition to the official Malay version, be accepted as an authentic text. Alevero987 (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's better than 3 question marks, which someone was trying to use. Such a discussion should really be held on the article talk page. CMD (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Falkland Islands award[edit]

Million award logo.svg This user won the Half Million Award for bringing Falkland Islands to Good Article status.

Hi CMD. I am sharing this with the top ten contributors of the Falkland Islands article. Congratulations.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an agreement? -Manila: Disasters and Recovery[edit]

Do you agree to my concession over this subsection?

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


I'm curious why you believe you are the resident expert on Serama. Several things you have removed have been removed inappropriately. Recently you removed 2 pictures by John Benoot. I know for a fact that those pictures are not "photoshoppped". You removed them simply because you have not seen this type for yourself I'm guessing? That doesn't mean they don't exist. Also, you've removed several factual statements and important historical events about importation to America. I have copies of original documentation from Jerry Schexnayder that documents his importation in 2001. You or others keep removing this information that is important to their history here in America. Why do you insist on doing this? Is it a personal agenda?

I would love to carry on a conversation with you on a forum or possibly in email so that we can resolve these differences and make "Serama" more complete without the constant fight like we've been doing.

Thank you, Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the two pictures literally has a person's neck disappearing into a tree. As for a forum, Talk:Serama is the appropriate location. CMD (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi. I got a talk page message from Jaqeli a couple of hours ago, asking me to intervene in a dispute between you and him involving the articles Georgia (country) and History of Georgia (country). I haven't looked at the recent histories of these articles in detail, and I probably won't be able to do so until at least 6 - 12 hours from now. I understand Jaqeli feels he's in the right and you're in the wrong — but what, in your view, is going on here? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Richwales, they posted an identical post on User talk:Elockid. Basically Jaqeli made some bold edits, I thought some of them to be not an improvement, and reverted them. See article history for Georgia (country) and article history for History of Georgia (country). A couple of back and forths both ways, then I posted on User talk:Elockid about it (due to their previous administrative involvement with Jaqeli), they posted a separate message in response (the one identical to your talkpage), I referred them to WP:BRD ([9]), they referred me to WP:EW ([10]), which in my opinion is somewhat WP:POT. That's all that's happened.
In my view (besides the POT issue), with regards to History of Georgia, the replacement of a photo with a painting is not an improvement, as a photo depicts the world more clearly (if you get my meaning), and the other picture they inserted was of a poorer quality than the original. With regards to Georgia (country), I thought their edits (such as adding "the great" and "the builder" to monarch names) were puffery in nature, and their replacement with the name of the kingdom of "Kartli and Kakheti" with "Georgia" to be unhelpful and confusing to the average reader at best, but reinforcing a nationalist POV (standard European nationalism with regards to connecting modern states to ancient ones) being more likely. (As a PS, 6-12 hours is quite fast, in my opinion.) CMD (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
As best I can tell right now, I'm inclined to agree with your (Chipmunkdavis's) versions of these two articles, with one exception. The point where I disagree with you (and agree with Jaqeli) is that David IV of Georgia definitely ought to be referred to as "David the Builder" — this title is historically very well established and is (AFAIK) how he is most commonly known. Read the "Sobriquet and regnal ordinal" section in the article.
There may also be valid grounds for calling Tamar of Georgia "Tamar the Great" — though I don't believe the case is as strong here, since (AFAIK) there was only one Georgian queen named Tamar, hence no need for disambiguation. Note, FWIW, that Tamar is also widely known as "King Tamar" (თამარ მეფე), in recognition of her position as the first queen regnant of the united Kingdom of Georgia.
In any case, the edit warring on these two articles has absolutely got to stop now. This is an especially crucial matter for Jaqeli, given his history of lengthy bans for edit warring, but I'll say it to you as well. I would strongly advise both of you to voluntarily adopt a 1RR policy, and if you cannot agree on some point, take it to the article's talk page (and/or to other dispute resolution fora) and get a consensus of editors to agree on a given version. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced referring to a King as "David the Builder" as opposed to "David IV" is useful for the average reader, as David IV seems to place the chronological context better, but the point here is not the content. You make a reasoned point for "the Builder", but I've not seen any reasoning because despite Jaqeli's history of so much edit warring that they were indeffed and came back on the standard offer, they still seem to fail to understand 1) what an edit war is 2) how to use the talkpage and 3) how to try and garner a consensus. I've never liked 1RR and 3RR, they're easily gamed, I've always preferred some version of BRD (although in my experience reverting an intial revert with a more explanatory edit summary seems accepted and often works if an initial revert is due to a misunderstanding), as it promotes proper consensus building, rather than a situation where editors are counting down till when they can revert next. Perhaps some of Jaqeli's edits have very good reasoning behind them. Perhaps there's a good reason the photo Jaqeli uploaded with the white spots everywhere is actually better than the former one. The problem is, there's no way to tell if Jaqeli doesn't bother to explain their edits on talkpages. I'm sure if they just did this, that would go a long way to solving the problems here (and on the other pages Jaqeli has gotten into disputes with others). CMD (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For all-round great work over the years. Green Giant (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! CMD (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

RfPP request[edit]

Hi there. I've actioned all of them, except Independence of Singapore as that was a redirect and the target looked OK. Was this the one you meant, or another article? GedUK  13:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I must've put that in meaning another article, but I can't remember what it was. I'm sure if the article I missed becomes a new target it'll be reported separately. Thanks, CMD (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hope we aren't quarrelling[edit]

Hello Chipmunk. Thanks for not reverting my revision again (some people do things like that). If you happen to be interested in why the articles were incorrect in this particular instance I'll be happy to attempt an explanation. If not, then never mind of course. All the best, Tdls

Hey Tdls, you raised a good point about the inconsistency in your edit summary. I can see reasons for both options, with the "the" in front and without, but having some with and some without makes no sense. Thanks for contacting me, that was unexpected and appreciated. CMD (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Palestine status on's pages[edit]

Hello again. As I've seen, a lot of other Wikipedias include State of Palestine in "states with limited recognition". Yes, as you've said Israel or PRC have LR too. But in those wikis there is a note that Palestinian state is not fully exists yet. I've seen a lot of atlases, and all of them prefer "Palestinian territories", not "State of Palestine". Not only English atlases, but foreign too, including atlases published in countries which recognize Palestinian state. I think it is a propose to change Palestine status in wikipedia to "state with limited recognition" and then change it back to "recognized state" when it will be formed and established as a state like Israel, which occupies Palestine. Let me know what you think. User02062000 (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The difference between a recognised state and one with limited recognition is the recognition. It makes no sense to argue that as something has not formed as a state, it is a state with limited recognition, because formation is also relevant to states of limited recognition. Palestine was moved based on the consensus as List of sovereign states to use UN Membership and Observer state status, positions obtained through the voting of a majority of states, as indicators of wide recognition. Palestine has obtained a position in the UN as an observer state. Arguing it is "not formed or established" is a tricky argument, as you have to think of other cases, like Somalia, which are perhaps even worse than Palestine (although Somalia has improved greatly recently). CMD (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But what about atlases? They all prefer name "Palestinian territories" instead of "State of Palestine". And all the map I've seen have a note that Palestinian territories are occupied since 1967 and state is now forming there. User02062000 (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That atlases are using a particular designation says nothing about the status of Palestine as a state other than that it's not fully accepted, which we already know. The Palestinian state has been hanging around for two and a half decades now, and in that time its acceptance and control has only increased.CMD (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Recently I visited Russia and I'm interested in its politics. I know that Russia recognizes 197 states: UN members, Varican City, Abkhazia and S. Ossetia and State of Palestine. Also I bought some political world maps. I've seen thay're all show that: 1) Abkhasia and Ossetia are marked as sovereign states (Russia recognizes them, and it's sure); 2) Palestine is marked as "Palestinian territories", not the State of Palestine (and this is data of the latest maps, March or August 2013, when Palestine had already became observer) 3) All the maps have 6 notes including this (translation): "Palestinian territories (West Bank and Gaza Strip) were occupied by Israel in 1967. Nowadays palestinian self-governing process is going on". As you see, Palestine is recognized by Russia, meanwhile on the map it is showed as occupied territories. also you can see one russian document ("Общероссийский классификатор стран мира" in russian). The same article is on russian Wikipedia. Read it and you'll see a list of countries with its codes based on ISO 3166. However, in ISO standard Palestine have name "State of Palestine" while in russian document it has name "Palestinian territories, occupied". What can you say? User02062000 (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the Russian wikipedia. Here, on this Wikipedia, we have decided that the line we have chosen to separate the two types of state is a UN vote. This makes the decision not ours, giving some objectivity. CMD (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

And what about maps and the document I've talked about? User02062000 (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

They're one viewpoint among many. CMD (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. But can you explain why on the newest official russian (not matter) maps Palestine is considered occupied, while Russian government had recognized Palestine's independence few years ago? Why don't they use designation "State of Palestine" instead of "(occupied) Palestinian territories"? If the map is official it must satisfy the point of the government, which considers Palestine independent! Can you explain? User02062000 (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not the Russian government. I don't speak Russian. I don't know how terminology translates. I'm unaware atlases are necessarily official publications in Russia. An independent area can be occupied at any rate. I can't explain each and every source; likely no-one can. I can explain maps I make, and explain the consensus we reached on CMD (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not matter is it Russian publication or not - I want to know why on the political maps of countries which recognize the Palestine it is showed as non-sovereign nation? How can it be - state recognizes another state as sovereign, and in the meantime the state is showed as not independent on the maps? Again, it is not matter, is it Russia or not. User02062000 (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Many potential reasons. Perhaps mapmakers have their own opinion, separate to that of their government. Perhaps they have to actually put things in maps rather than look at recognition, as we do, and find this understandably complicated. At any rate, they don't say Palestine has limited recognition. CMD (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they don't. But they also don't say that Palestine is a state: they say that Palestinian state is now forming (I think it is why Palestine is showed as separate occupied territories and not showed as an independent, sovereign nation). Do you agree with map data? User02062000 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A state forming is not the same as a state with limited recognition. It all depends on what you consider a state. Palestine has limited, but growing, control on the ground (give or take full control on Gaza depending on your view), yet it has a fully developed international presence. CMD (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Forget about limited recognition, I don't argue on the topic. I just want to know why Palestine is showed as forming, occupied and non-sovereign territories. I want to know exactly this point: why Palestine is showed as "occupied Palestinian territories " on every map and is considered a forming nation, not an independent State of Palestine, recognized by the country's government which regulates the standards for cartographers? For example, if country recognizes Abkhazia (for example) it is showed on every that country map as sovereign state without any note, while Kosovo, which isn't recognized (example again) is not showed as independent. Palestine is named "occupied Palestinian territories" with note on every map. Explain if you can. User02062000 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I can only theorise, but it may be that they want to make the point that Israel is occupying land that they don't think Israel should be occupying. Occupied for has negative connotations, and in some cases in English, the phrase "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is used in a pointed manner to make Israel the 'bad guy', so to speak. Such connotations probably translate across into Russian as well as English, although I can't be certain on that note. CMD (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think they make the point that Israel now has a great control, especially military in Palestine, and independent Palestinian state is not marked as a state because it doesn't fully exists and it continues its forming process. Can it be? User02062000 (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's possible. That raises the issues of when a state becomes a state of course, which is in all cases down to opinion. CMD (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Then, Palestine could be presented as a non-state entity on maps because it is not fully exists as a state now and considered territories under Israeli-occupation, in which the future, independent and sovereign Palestinian state will exist. Is it a right consensus? User02062000 (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That depends completely on what you mean by exists as a state. Palestine has a government, has areas under its direct control, and has a large international presence. Was Iraq not a state under US occupation? CMD (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but Iraq was always marked as a state on the map because it was already formed state, while Palestine is considered there not only occupied, but also not fully created yet. Then it is marked as two separate territories (West Bank and Gaza) and the note says that Palestine is not fully created now and it will be established in international community when Arab-Israeli conflict will be finished. Again, every map shows Palestine as such. Or you've seen any map where you can see Palestine called "State of Palestine", but not "Palestinian territories? User02062000 (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not fully created yet"? That's entirely a matter of opinion. As for it being shown as two separate territories, of course it is. They are two separated territories. Most maps similarly mark Alaska and French Guiana. I very much doubt that note is on "every" map. I haven't seen a map with "State of Palestine" (rarely do longform names every appear), but I have seen maps with "Palestine". CMD (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

But most maps marks them as "Palestinian territories", and again, they note that state creating process goes on, i.e. that state hasn't its own military forces (only paramilitary) and some other aspects of being a state. I don't argue that Palestine is shown as 2 territories (US or France are shown as such too), I argue that these territories are shown as only territories, but not sovereign state. User02062000 (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Palestinian territories are a generally well-defined and agreed geographical area. The borders of the Palestinian state are widely acknowledged to be under debate. It's simpler for a mapmaker to show the former. There's also no reason territories can't be part of a state. CMD (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but then why mapmakers define the geographical area, not a sovereign state located in it? User02062000 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I really can't read their minds, but they're mapmakers, they map geographical areas. CMD (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if the map is physical. But on political world maps they must map boundaries of states or their dependencies. Palestine is a state now. Then, why do mapmakers show the boundaries of areas on which the state is situated? It seems to be not correct. But mapmakers have a cartographic base and they surely know the topic better than us. But can you assume, why do they show areas where the state is situated, but not the name of that state itself (i.e. State of Palestine)? User02062000 (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Here you are a phrase from page Palestinian territories: "The international community regards the West Bank as territories occupied by Israel." User02062000 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Because as I said before, the borders of the Palestinian state are very complicated. Palestine directly controls very little area, but claims a lot more. Israel seems to nominally agree, but disagrees with the claimed borders. I'm well aware the area is noted as occupied territory, but that is because it's seen as the territory of the Palestinian state. CMD (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. But when Palestine will become fully recognized UN member state, do you think that mapmakers will continue showing Palestine as territories, but not a state? I don't think so. Also, please show me or give any web link to map where you saw Palestine marked as "State of Palestine", if you can... User02062000 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what mapmakers will do. Given the current position of the USA, the border situation will be resolved before Palestine membership makes it past the UNSC, so it will be much easier to map. As I said, I've never seen the label "State of Palestine", as that's a rare formal name. I have seen Palestine, but don't have an example on hand. It's definitely far more common to see it labelled as the Palestinian territories, but the word choice during mapping isn't directly congruent with a list of states. CMD (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Then, you want to say that in near future Palestine will be labelled as Palestine on the maps, not Palestinian territories? If yes, explain when and why. User02062000 (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what will happen to maps. Each map company is different, and every mapper will have a different opinion. Possibly if Israel recognises it with borders, it will become more common, but aside from that, I don't know. CMD (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

But why do mapmakers label the Palestinian territories without a notification that there is situated State of Palestine? They only write that these territories are occupied and there is an ongoing process of Palestinian self-governing formation. You say the state is already formed, then why it is even on the newest (2014) maps? I've seen a lot of 2013 and some 2014 maps in different countries and languages, but is still so... User02062000 (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I said that whether the state has formed is down to opinion. Again, I do not know the thoughts of these mapmakers. It's probably easier to be cautious in updates. CMD (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Do mapmakers consider Palestine a sovereign state while mapping it as Palestinian territories? What do you think? User02062000 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't dare to fathom the minds of professional mapmakers. CMD (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


Didn't you receive a notification for being mentioned at Template talk:Europe topic last week or did you just not reply? (Not mad or anything, just wondering.) SiBr4 (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy. I saw it, made a note to comment later, and forgot. I'll respond there, thanks for the reminder. CMD (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Persian Gulf[edit]

Greetings, Chip; I see you have reverted an edit of mine (correcting the name of the Persian Gulf on Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, citing the reason as "per article title". Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. The title just refers to the Gulf (which is wrong in itself, but that's a whole other discussion), so I cannot see why you have reverted my correction of a geographic name. May I preempt by saying that just because the article's focus is on Arab states, doesn't mean the legal name of a geographical feature is to be changed. Out of respect, I will not just go ahead and revert it back ... but will leave it to you to explain/convince me, or change it back, please. Yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


FYI. And this much of a change in an article by one user, without consensus, is acceptable? Best regards. -- (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


Judging from your recent edit in article Malaysia, where you have deliberately removed Ethnic Malays link with "Malay" as well as the historical term Tanah Melayu from the etymology section, I may conclude that you have a serious Malayphobia or anti of anything "Malay". You should learn to accept that Malaysia evolved from a Malay polity known as Tanah Melayu which in turn took its name from an ethnic group called "Melayu". Its pretty simple. Why make it so difficult? Why pushing up for the Tamil origin theory of the word, when there is clear description of the origin of the word in native sources? (i.e Malay Annals). Ø:G (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Re : Malaysian subdivisions[edit]

Some sources for the administration I could only get are mostly on PDF format. ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]).

I hope this little information can helps. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 04:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


There is a reason why historically it is called the annexation of Texas. I have never heard of the annexation of East Germany, nor the annexation of one part of Yemen by the other. Those were state mergers. At the same time you never hear of the merger of countries to form the Soviet Union, but of annexation such as of theBaltic republics. But, this page is in the hands of a bunch of people with fanciful ideas, as you yourself have made clear in edit summaries. You have also previous rejected other inclusions on the basis of their being annexations and not merders. But guess what - this page survives only for the simple reason that no serious editors ever take an interest in it. I come around once in a while and delete half of the pending mergers between Portugal and Spain and the like. So, without any input from any serious editors (if anyone else joins in it will be the nuts that see mergers around every corner) I see no reason for wasting my time here. For your information, even from the US side it NOT a merger, not even a proper legal annexation, as the whole thing was shrouded in lies and cover-ups with congress knowing very little of what was going on. But I am sure that differences aside, we can work together on comabting the nuttier proposals. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, As you seem to show keen interest in this page, why not create an additional column for the mergers that fell apart? There is plenty of white space in the "Notes" column that would easily allow for an additoinal column. The eye is a strange animal - it will glance down the page looking at the pink/ green outcomes and very few people will read the note alongside. Just an idea. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up that page numerous times, and agree it tends to fill with crap, but I don't think Texas is a case of that. Even with the lies and coverups and various political wranglings in the USA, it was in the end something agreed to by both parties, and in addition, supported by the populace of the smaller party. There were two states that became one without military intervention. There's a fuzzy line between merger's and diplomatic annexations, and in language it seems down to the relative sizes of the countries. In many cases there's little difference. Take Germany for example, no new reformed political structure was formed; East Germany was simply absorbed into West Germany, taking on West German laws etc. This has come up recently with the Nazi murder laws still in place in Germany, due to West German law. This is very different than say, the union of England and Scotland, which maintained separate systems for many government functions, or the proposed Cypriot union, which envisions a new federal structure. (As an aside, I have heard of South Yemen being annexed, as I think this is wording promoted by those supporting South Yemen secession.)
It's an interesting suggestion, although it seems potentially undue. Only a limited number of proposals actually go through, and the new column would only be relevant to those. I think on balance I like your idea, although I'd be unsure of what to do with Malaysia in that column! CMD (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Jammu is not at all demanded by Pakistan. Unnecessary repeat of Azad Kashmir. Unnecessary two same claims in single table. Undid revision 595869614 by Chipmunkdavis (talk)[edit]

Azad Kashmir Claim is already present. Claim of Jammu is not based on facts and not supported by any fact/actual happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The entirely former Kingdom is disputed. CMD (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic[edit]

Hi there- I see you reverted my edit on the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic article. I saw and understand your reasoning but I urge you to take a look at all other countries articles and you will see that they have a file of their national anthem. So , with your permission, could I put the file back in? Tomh903 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Tomh903, thanks for the message. Many articles do have such anthems, and this is because of the common reasoning that other articles have something, therefore this must have it. Anthems in the infobox have been a self-perpetuating item for awhile, but there has not been a community agreement for them. This issue was raised quite awhile ago now at Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 8#Can we add a small button to play the anthem.3F. What are your thoughts on that conversation? CMD (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the people in the conversation who support putting a file on the main article. It's a lot more convenient for someone wanting to research the country to be able to come onto the article and access the national anthem without having to click on links and move to a whole new article just to listen to a song that can so easily be put on the countries article. Tomh903 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
How does hearing a soundtrack help with research for a topic? What understanding does it add? It perhaps gives a qualitative taste of the language, and if the anthem is English may potentially allow for a little glimpse at patriotic spin, but besides that there's not much. We have absolutely massive layers of information under all of our country articles, through the various main articles that must be ever-summarised for ever-more general articles. The anthem sound without lyrics, and if applicable a translation, doesn't assist understanding. If readers are on the anthem article's, they'll actually understand what they're listening to. CMD (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
A countries anthem is part of its culture and heritage. If I go on to Frances or the UK's article then I will be able to listen to the anthem and recognize it in future. People who are not experienced on Wikipedia might not know how or want to open a new article to listen to the anthem that we can so easily put on the countries article. It makes the anthem more accessible and the article more interactive. Tomh903 (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It's very simple to open an article. They would've had to have done so to access the country page, which is just as accessible. As for culture and heritage, there are many things which make up the culture and heritage of various countries, but we don't include them all on the country page. That's because we have links to each topic. I disagree having an audio file (which doesn't seem to even work on the mobile app) makes the anthem more accessible, anthems are accessible when you have access to the lyrics and access to the translation, so you know what on earth it's about. CMD (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed states[edit]

Hello Chipmunkdavis, I just want to clarify the proposed state mergers. So, you said Canada and Australia couldn't qualify as they were not independent. These territories did become independent after the mergers, but they weren't before that. If Canada and Australia can't be on here I would like you to clarify why the West Indies Federation is included, even though it wasn't previously independent. Thank you. Viller the Great (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point User:Viller the Great. Does combining colonies count as a state merger? I don't really think it does. State mergers are notable for the union of two independent entities into one, subsuming them both. Colonies already have a sovereign power above them. After that, the weird case of Greece and the Ionian islands. One of those is a state and one isn't. Not really a merger. CMD (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It does make sense that colonies are not independent states and therefore they don't voluntarily merge on their own, but if they become independent, I guess it all depends. Like Greece and the Ionian Islands, wouldn't that be more of an annexation? I guess we are all going to have to agree what a "state merger" is. Many of them could qualify as annexations I suppose as well. Viller the Great (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Greece and the Ionian islands was one country, the UK, ceding land to another. State merger to my mind brings forth the idea of sovereign states merging. If there is more scope, I'd still argue the lists should at least be separated. I think I'll bring this up on the main talkpage. CMD (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea, that example you gave was indeed a cessation, well we could say annexation, by Greece, but it was given by the British. This is something that should be debated with other fellow editors. Viller the Great (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


Please include reliable reference (based on credible research) that states Malay later moved there, and if this is true, please state when did the Malays moved to the area of present day of this country-Malaysia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfindest (talkcontribs) 14:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You want a source about Austronesian migrations? I don't think there's evidence for specific dates, but this paper notes a consensus towards an Austronesian arrival into Southeast Asia around 4000-3000BC, and this paper estimates they settled the Malay Peninsula itself anytime between 2000BC and 500BC. CMD (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Classical states[edit]

  1. ^ Zhang Xie. (1618) (in Chinese). Dong Xi Yang Kao [A Study of the Eastern and Western Oceans] Volume 5 (Chinese: 東西洋考). ISBN 7532515931. MID 00024687. Retrieved 2009-12-18.
  2. ^ International Dictionary of Historic Places: Asia and Oceania. 1957. p. 42. Retrieved 2010-01-07. 
  3. ^ "Timeline of history". Retrieved 2009-10-09. 
  4. ^ "Filipino epic comes to life". 
  5. ^ 100 Events That Shaped The Philippines (Adarna Book Services Inc. 1999 Published by National Centennial Commission) Page 72 "The Founding of the Sulu Sultanate"
  6. ^ Bascar, C.M. (n.d.). Sultanate of Sulu, "The Unconquered Kingdom". Retrieved 2009-12-19 from The Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sulu & Sabah Official Website.
  7. ^ "The Maguindanao Sultanate", Moro National Liberation Front web site. "The Political and Religious History of the Bangsamoro People, condensed from the book Muslims in the Philippines by Dr. C. A. Majul." Retrieved January 9, 2008.
  8. ^ Pusat Sejarah Brunei. Retrieved February 7, 2009.
  9. ^ McAmis, Robert Day (2002). Malay Muslims: The History and Challenge of Resurgent Islam in Southeast Asia. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 18–24, 53–61. ISBN 0-8028-4945-8. Retrieved 2010-01-07. 
  10. ^ Munoz, Paul Michel (2006). Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsula. Singapore: Editions Didier Millet. p. 171. ISBN 981-4155-67-5. 
  11. ^ U.S. Department of State. Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. (June 2009). Background Note: Brunei. Retrieved 2009-12-18.
  12. ^ Agoncillo, Teodoro A. (1990). History of the Filipino People (8th ed.). Garotech Publishing. p. 22. ISBN 971-8711-06-6. 

I need feedback on this edit. I am planning to add it within the next 24 hours.-- 10:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Chipmunkdavis. I think, it would be nice idea to put the sub-headings to "Northern Cyprus-History" part.Alexyflemming (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, I replied on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


complication is exactly why there needs to be a link to that other page. Change the text if you want but leave the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talkcontribs) 18:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That was one event in a short two-year period of Malaysian history. I would disagree that it belongs in the main history section, and it definitely doesn't belong in the lead. CMD (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea independent?[edit]

I started a discussion at Talk:Republic_of_Crimea_(country)#Independent_or_Russian. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, please see Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Crimea. Regards, CMD (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus and ISO 3166[edit]

Greetings! I added the following to Northern Cyprus:

Because of lack of international recognition for Northern Cyprus as a distinct entity, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code "CY" is used for the whole of the territory controlled by both the Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus.

which you reverted with the edit summary:

Rv ISO, don't see how that information is particularly notable with regards to this article.

The ISO 3166 codes are used in a lot of commercial applications. For example, right now I'm mapping country codes to default currencies for the entire world. In general, any entity that uses Template:Infobox Country shows the ISO 3166 code in that box. I think I would be reverted if I just put "iso3166code=CY" in the infobox, because that applies to more than Northern Cyprus. The situation with Northern Cyprus is confusing, so I think it is quite helpful to people who care about ISO codes (mostly because they have to use them) to have an explanatory note on this article. I'm happy to move it to the infobox, but the syntax for iso3166code right now doesn't really allow that. That's why I put the note in the article text. -- Beland (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

While ISO codes are of course useful where they exist, I don't think their absence needs to be noted in areas they are absent in. If Northern Cyprus isn't a defined ISO area, they won't have the code. I think you're right that CY is wrong, as CY applies to a much wider area. It'd be odd to say CY was the code for any particular subarea of Cyprus. Surely anyone curious about ISO codes can find all this information out at ISO 3166-1 alpha-2?
Currency sidetopic sounds interesting, but surely as currencies already have their own ISO codes there's little added utility to mixing and matching country codes? CMD (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, Northern Cyprus is not listed at ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, but it's politically not part of Cyprus (which is listed), so Northern Cyprus seems like a logical place to go to get the code (since it's always in the infobox). In fact, that's where I was looking for it.
With regard to currency, the problem I'm solving is: given any address anywhere on the planet, which currencies will be accepted there? It's definitely not a 1:1 mapping. In most cases, all you have to do is map the ISO 3166 country code to one or more ISO 4217 currency codes. In Cyprus, there are two currency zones, one for the Republic and one for Northern Cyprus. So, I needed to know the country code for both parts in order to make my system work (and realize I can't rely on country code alone). -- Beland (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The ISO lists we have are probably very complete, so if there is a country code that isn't on ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 I'd be surprised. With regards to currency, you're going to have large issues with most unrecognised states, as they aren't accounted for in the ISO system. There's a special Taiwan one at least. CMD (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, that's why I was trying to add a note about the ISO country code in articles on unrecognized states. -- Beland (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen any external source discussing breakaway states to mention ISO codes one way or another. In the grand scheme of things, they're probably of little importance to all involved in those disputes. CMD (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia - Malay[edit]

Regarding your deletion of my changes to the Malay=Muslim sentence in the Malaysia page, I have had to rely on the primary source i.e. the Malaysia Constitution's article 160, as the sentence I replaced was plainly wrong and was causing confusion amongst the public, as many rely on Wiki for their research. If you dislike what I did so much just delete the original sentence so that it at least does no harm. Relying on a secondary source is well and good but if it is wrong, then as a responsible editor, one has a duty to correct and not blindly follow the rules, which in any event I have read and saw that it allows for exceptions to be made. Have a nice day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbl2020 (talkcontribs)

We are not allowed to interpret primary sources ourselves, this is not excepted per WP:V. CMD (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I like what you have done. It's a lot better and appropriate for a general page on Malaysia and more importantly it is not wrong. Wrong information on such an important matter is not going to do wikipedia or the country that the page is about any good. So thanks for your time in making the changes and digging up the new secondary source.

On a side note, not to be splitting hairs but if one is citing the ingredients of a definition from a reliable primary source that can be verified by any educated person (which is allowed), is that considered interpretation? I have extracted the relevant bits of the policy below for your easy reference and the edification of future readers of this post.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbl2020 (talkcontribs) 03:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it is not straightforward and descriptive however to list a bunch of ethnicities which aren't mentioned in that part of the constitution. CMD (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I got another one for you - from Religion in Malaysia, which relies on the primary source and is wrong. The constitution doesn't say that all ethnic Malays are considered Muslims.

All ethnic Malays are considered Muslim by Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia.[28] . Jump up ^ Constitution of Malaysia:Article 160 (2)-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbl2020 (talkcontribs) 12:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It sort of does. If one has to be Muslim to be Malay, then if you're a Malay you must be Muslim. I've reworded it to make it clearer. CMD (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Aside from that you could have easily searched for it yourself, here you go.

Iberia. "Iberia became a tributary of the Sasanian state during the reign of Shapur I (241-272)." "However, after the emperor Julian was slain during his failed campaign in Persia in 363, Rome ceded control of Iberia to Persia, and King Varaz-Bakur I (Asphagur) (363-365) became a Persian vassal, an outcome confirmed by the Peace of Acilisene in 387" "Thereafter, the king of Iberia had only nominal power, while the country was effectively ruled by the Persians. In 580, Hormizd IV (578-590) abolished the monarchy after the death of King Bakur III, and Iberia became a Persian province ruled by a marzpan (governor)." "but in 591 Byzantium and Persia agreed to divide Iberia between them, with Tbilisi to be in Persian hands "

Lazica. "Throughout much of its existence, it was mainly a Byzantine strategic vassal kingdom occasionally coming under Sassanid Persian rule"

Now perhaps you can tell me why it's not a fallacy to write that the "Georgian kingdoms had been under Byzantine/Roman rule for nearly 400 years?

Also I don't see why you reverted the change from Sassanid Persia back to Persia, as it was under Sassanjd Persia when these wars took place in those regions of the Caucasus.

So, I will undo your reversion.

LouisAragon (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Furthermore, statements such as "it was mainly a Byzantine strategic vassal kingdom" seem to support the idea it had Roman connotations. If you have wp:reliable sources, please bring them up on the article talk page. CMD (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


I see you are keeping a close eye on "Serama" and keep modifying and editing just as I am. I think instead of continuing the fight, we should resolve the differences. Much of what you keep undoing and claims you make are simply not true or are not accurate. We should stick to facts and try to remove feeling from this topic/conversation. I don't know who you are, but I'm most certain you know who I am. Would you like to meet on a forum other than here to discuss and iron out differences? possibly on the SCNA forum or elsewhere? I am close friends with Jerry Schexnayder whom is the largest importer of Serama to the United States. I have access directly to him as well ask Kimberly Theodore. I also have access to other top breeders knowledge such as Dianne Brewer. So, its quite possible that my knowledge of history and current events are greater than yours or can simply be more accurate. I'm willing to work with you and anyone that wants to make this wiki better, but you must stop with the reverts of things that are not true or accurate or indicate direct knowledge when I know some of what you post is simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteagall (talkcontribs) 18:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I have not edited Serama since 2013, when I got tired of editors unashamedly claiming blatantly photoshopped photos were not photoshopped.
  • Discussions about wikipedia articles off-wiki are considered wp:canvassing and are thus not in line with wikipedia regulations.
  • Personal knowledge is not important on wikipedia, as it is wp:original research. If you know so many people, then maybe you can all collectively put your heads together and find a wp:reliable source on the matter.
  • I don't know where you're seeing this emotional attachment I apparently have, but I assure you it's nonexistent. If you want to make the wiki better, read the links I've posted here and try to actually apply them. CMD (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sunnis Muslims in Indonesia[edit]

I have added a reliable source i.e.,pew research center and I states that 99% are Sunni Muslims. Read it before making any reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talkcontribs) 16:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Read the whole article.

Proposed Deletion for Venetian Republic (2014)[edit]

Hi. I proposed the deletion for the article Venetian Republic (2014), because actually the referendum was an online survey without official data about the participation. There are not valid reasons to consider it as an unrecognized state. Could you confirm the proposal? Thank you in advance.--Ghepa90 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Ghepa90. If you want to propose it for deletion, read through WP:AFD and follow the steps there. That will create a dedicated page to discuss the deletion. Regards, CMD (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.--Ghepa90 (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Australia[edit]

Aside from the fact it is your personal opinion of preference and not a consensus not to use Sodacan's new SVG, calling another user's work "ugly" (especially a work by one of our most prolific contributers) is really out of line and I'm sure you know it. Please have the decency not to say that again. Fry1989 eh? 17:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to your belief, the svg/png issue has been discussed before (it's in Talk:Australia/Archive_16 now), and the png was preferred. I have no dislike of the svg, it's simply that the svg is quite obviously greatly simplified compared to the png. Furthermore, if someone is upset at a side by side comparison of images, they shouldn't be making them. I hope Sodacan is not as easily offended by plain language as you seem to be. CMD (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Not contrary at all, that conversation took place in 2010, that was years before Sodacan created their image which they only uploaded yesterday, and dealt with an inferior file which was renamed to use lower case, and the redirect was deleted by Sodacan using the old name with the upper case "Arms". And no, I'm not offended, I'm bothered that you would refer to anyone's work as "ugly" as an argument not to use it. You know better. Fry1989 eh? 20:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the general idea of a higher quality png being preferred to an svg, which that discussion established. I'm aware of both the old svg and the superior new one. The new one is infinitely better, but still not as good as the png. I said "uglier" rather than "ugly"; it was a relative comparison rather than absolute. You may say that's semantics, but all the word was was a concise way of saying "the quality of the detail of the svg is not as good as the quality of detail of the png". Picture quality is an argument for usage. CMD (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
So you believe that a discussion can apply to images that don't even exist until 4 years later, perpetually? That's ridiculous, a new consensus would be required to lock out this new image. Fry1989 eh? 00:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Well no, it doesn't work that way. As the change to the new image has been reverted (twice now) the WP:BURDEN is on the editor seeking to add the new image. Please see WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO.
@Chipmunkdavis: - Just an FYI, Sodacan has been changing all instances of File:Australian Coat of Arms.png, including use on archived talk pages in posts made by other editors, which is a violation of WP:TPG. I found 17 cases dating back to July 2013. I'm mentioning it here because one of the changes was to Talk:Australia/Archive 16, which you've mentioned above. I've now fixed that so it reflects the original discussion, and warned the editor. Please also note that there is a discussion about this on my talk page as well. --AussieLegend () 06:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
@Fry1989: Consensus works both ways and you seem to have been ignoring the other part of it. You can't argue that there's no consensus for keeping the old image as an argument for inserting the new image. There's just as little consensus for replacing the old image.
@AussieLegend: Ah, that explains the odd situation with two svgs on the Australia archive. I assume Sodacan is just mass replacing both the png and the old svg. CMD (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm more than a little concerned about use of Global Replace. It seems to me that because of its power it should be like AWB in that you should have to be authorised to use it. I had to revert 6 posts in addition to the 4 you did today. --AussieLegend () 15:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Much like twinkle. CMD (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
As a test I downloaded Global Replace and set it to replace the SVG with the PNG version. The tool is fully automated. Unlike other tools it starts and goes on its merry way. The only input that you have to supply is the old filename, the new filename and an optional edit summary followed by pressing the Start/Stop button. I managed to stop after one file but in the hands of a vandal I shudder to think what could happen. --AussieLegend () 16:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism is usually fixable. Far more complicated would be an attempt to push one of two disputed images, say maps. If both are used separately in various places, you couldn't globalreplace back. That would be a massive headache (I've actually seen it be done manually before, by some who are very dedicated to single issues). I think I'll bring this up in a bit if you don't. Unfortunately it's a commons tool and I'm less familiar with where it would be raised there. Presumably that talkpage, and they probably have a village pump of some sort. CMD (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I can easily see a vandal replacing the image of a public figure with something detrimental, something made much easire with Global Replace. While it's a commons tool, all Wikipedias can make their own rules and banning its use here if it causes problems would be an issue for this Wikipedia. I too am not sure of the procedure on commons. I did discover commons:Commons:Transition to SVG which says "PNGs should not just be replaced en masse the instant an SVG replacement becomes available. It is often sufficient to label the image description page with a {{vector version available}} tag, and it will be migrated over to the SVG version by editors where appropriate." Despite this, en masse changes seem to be exactly what these editors have done. I'm tempted to use Global Replace to restore all uses of the PNG with "Inappropriate en masse change per Commons:Transition to SVG" as the edit summary. --AussieLegend () 16:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Commons has an administrators' noticeboard at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. It turns out that it's not just the COA that has been changed. File:Australian Coat of Arms shield.PNG has been replaced by File:Shield of arms of Australia.svg and the now unused PNG has been nominated for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Australian Coat of Arms shield.PNG. --AussieLegend () 20:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Coat of arms[edit]

I just saw a user put the two more version of the Malaysian coat of arms from 1965–1988 in the Malaysian coa article and just realise this user was right. If we calculate back, there will be three times modification to the coa on 1965, 1982 and the last one on 1988 due to the separation of Singapore on 1965 and twice changing of the coa of Sabah and Sarawak in 1982 and 1988. So, if we calculate from 1988, that means the copyright would be free for another 24 years. What your opinion now? Should we just use the coa from its original publish date on 1963? :( — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 11:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This is something I hadn't thought about (and they shouldn't be used on talkpages in the meantime, to be safe). We would need to ask on commons. It may be worth using an older one on the Malaysia article, and using the current up to date copyrighted one (if that is what commons decides) on Coat of arms of Malaysia, with a non-free-use rationale. Actually, if commons decides the current one is copyrighted it may have to be reuploaded onto, as I don't think that's allowed to be hosted on commons. At any rate, we should fix the Malacca tree, whose shape in the 1963 and 1988 ones is wrong [18]. CMD (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I've just invite someone from commons to see what their opinion. Yeah, the 1963 and 1988 version will be fixed and upload in the svg version later while waiting for them to give some suggestion. — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 12:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Were the changes to the CoA completely new, or were they taken from other existing flags and emblems? Our versions aren't traced any more, they use disparate elements from other files and some are original, so there's no issue of it being a direct derivative work.
Given that the argument put at the village pump says that so long as the individual elements on the arms were pre-existing (as is true for the 1965 version, supposedly), there's no problem. If they were brand new when they were added to the CoA, then we might have a problem, but I'm not enough of an expert. If in doubt, take it to the village pump as they have people with a lot more knowledge in the area than me! NikNaks talk - gallery 16:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Nik. For the 1963 and 1988, it was taken from some existing emblem like this (1963) and this (1982), while the Sarawak coa was taken from the Sarawak flag (1963) and the one in 1982 coa was not been uploaded yet but it might be taken from here. The 1965 modification only made a few change by changing the Singapore coa to a hibiscus flower. I'm also thinks that the 1965 coa still not using the Penang bridge because the bridge was only opened in 1985. As Chip has stated at the first, the three coa from 1965, 1982 and 1988 might still in the copyright, but I don't know if the commons can approved it. Should we ask to the village pump again Chip? — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 00:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Then maybe it right, we should just use the copyright license at the moment. — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 12:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

List of leaders of Malaysian states[edit]

Do you have the List of leaders of Malaysian states under your watch list? That page was neglected until recently. Some entries were up to 2 years or even more outdated. (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I added it after I saw your post on Talk:Malaysia. CMD (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


given the discussion at Talk:Kosovo the guideline may be out of date, but it does say "For the purposes of this section of the guideline icons refers to flags and similar images unless otherwise stated" - the rationale would of course make no sense if it referred to only 'flag icons' and not flags. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

MOS now changed to remove these examples. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note User:Dougweller. I always thought that the purpose of the section was to avoid inline flags in places where they'd be confusing. For example for Kosovan football/soccer players who play for the Albanian national team. It's not clear which flagicon to use there. CMD (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I understand where we shouldn't use flag icons. Eg, Phoenicia - are they ok there? Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
That's a good question. If you are talking about the before and after bit of the infobox, a small symbol is useful due to size constraints. It may as well be flags, and as it is for a specific point in time, it's going to be easier to determine what's appropriate. As for the "Today part of" section, it's at least usually uncontentious as to what a country's flag is. However, they don't add much, and so would seem to fit removal criteria as they lack a reason to be there. Personally, I find the use less problematic in geography articles/lists than those discussing people. Unless the person is specifically representing their nationality, say as a diplomat or sportsperson, then a flag overemphasises what is just one of many biographical details. CMD (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes sense. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sealand supporter-‎Benuminister[edit]

Apparently User:‎Benuminister believes that the Principality of Sealand should be on the List of sovereign states in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Apparently what I'm saying is not getting to him, and I need some source of reason to back me up. —SPESH531Other 03:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Just don't forget 2010s. It's controversial to claim it as a sovereign state I know but by the definitions of a sovereign state held here on wikipedia. This is based on the declarative theory so it has to meet the following. 1) a defined territory (their platform out in the English Channel) ; 2) a permanent population (last recorded population put it at 22 members); 3) a government (it has a king and queen as well as other members who contribute to its daily functions) and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states (this can be done by even local governments). I agree it is only however a defacto independance though since, as of 1987, it falls in British territorial waters. due to a court local court ruling it enjoys a legal loophole however which has yet to be challenged by the British authorities.Benuminister (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Where is the centralised discussion being held on these issues? Talk:List of sovereign states is the main article for these, it'd be a good place. Also, what are 22 people doing with their lives on a concrete pillar in the ocean? CMD (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I moved this conversation to Talk:List of sovereign states#Sealand again, really?SPESH531Other 15:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nazi-Germany flag (Antarctic Territory Claims)[edit]

The date is given next to the flag. Unless written Nazi-Germany, a source should be given next to the icon for the reader's understanding of why it was used to avoid any... insinuations and/or ambiguity. :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the country should have the flag and name the country had at that point in time. The insinuation that Germany was ruled by the Nazis in the late 1930s and early 1940s is entirely correct, and unambiguous. CMD (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

cook islands and niue as microstates[edit]

I am sorry for undoing your changes, but I believe that adding the word "microstate" to both articles may help some readers to get a better picture of the Cook Islands' and Niue's political status. In other words, while micro-statehood suggests a tiny size (and you are right that readers may want to decide that for themselves), there are many arguments in the literature that "microstates" are not only small, but quite distinct from other types of political units. It is often argued that their distinctiveness lies in the peculiar politico-economic challenges and opportunities created by tiny size. But, if you feel that this justification is insufficient, then I wouldn't want to stir any new heated debates on the Cooks'/Niue's status and can agree to leave it out from the main description (perhaps I could then add an info that many academics view both of these countries as "microstates" somewhere in the politics sub-section?). Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehlirian (talkcontribs) 01:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Tehlirian, for future reference, it's always better to bring up these discussions on the article talkpage rather than user talk pages, as it means other interested users can more easily contribute.
On topic, I don't think adding the word will help readers, as there's no reason to expect they'll read in all the implications you read in. Per WP:Lead, all information in the lead needs to be in the body anyway. If you have sources discussing Ci/Niue being affected, bring up the sources on the talkpage or wp:boldly add them in the Economics subsection with a "X's small size has resulted in Y and Z" sort of informational structure. CMD (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis Ok, I understand. feel free to undo my change then. I will perhaps try to include the info on micro-statehood/implications of small size into the politics/economics sections (with an explanaition on talkpage) at some point. Thanks for your replies and sorry for any mistakes - I am still learning how to use wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehlirian (talkcontribs) 03:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Tehlirian don't worry about any mistakes. The links I posted on your talkpage should help, and if you have more questions check out the Wikipedia:Teahouse. CMD (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your post on the Drinking Age Talk Page[edit]

//The laws are to prevent children committing criminal offenses, but most countries with these laws put heavy penalties on anyone giving the alcohol to children, so there's no theoretical way for them to drink it.//

Without intending any insult or condescension, someone old enough to vote, sign contracts on one's own, and join the Army is not a child, and even though I'm now 25 myself, I still don't appreciate the implication that children can vote or join the Army because alcohol law makes it seem that way. Just because voting age and military age (and indeed draft age in the case of males) adults are forbidden from alcohol by an outdated series of laws, this does not make them minors. (For indeed they are not minors.)

Someday the powers that be will grow a pair, and the Amethyst Initiative and Choose Responsibility will finally succeed in changing the law, but until then this is something to consider when commenting. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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]

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)