User talk:Chipmunkdavis/ArchiveOther

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

The Queen[edit]

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

Still waiting for the Royal Revert.[edit]

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

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

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


Oh of-course BE is American for over 100 years. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions (Chinese)[edit]

The correction inserted the country name to maintain a complete description of a location [1]. Please inform otherwise. >g2g886 (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The convention is only meant to describe up to province level. CMD (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I am rather surprised to learn that. Would you be able to help me understand the reason behind? >g2g886 (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why they prefer to have province over country, but in general you wouldn't have titles so disambiguated. Once you have the name of the place, X, you could disambiguate it as "X, province" or "X, country", but having "X, province, country" is long and unnecessary. In regards to your edit specifically, that was a list to try and show that the description of what a place is, eg. a mountain, province, or city, goes after the name of that place, so including Republic of China didn't really make a point. CMD (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
When you say "they prefer to have province over country", do you mean Chinese speaking communities? If that's the case, I believe I would have a better understanding over it. The Chinese communities used to be extremely China center due to its history; however, today, province, which is very similar to "state", along is not sufficient to address a place within Chinese speaking countries (ie. Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia may have places in Mandarin Chinese language). As a result, "X, city, province, country" can be the full description of a location while for short, the "country" is still necessary for actual identification. "大雪山 (Dasyue Mountain)" for example, the name is used in describing Dasyue Mountain, Taichung city, Taiwan and Dasyue Mountain, Sichuan province, China (they are different mountains). Please refer to [2]. IMHO, country name is essential. >g2g886 (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
When I say "they" I mean the writers of that guideline page. There's no need to include the country and the province. Either one will provide disambiguation. Disambiguation is not meant for identification. CMD (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

File request[edit]

Hello Chipmunkdavis, I have recently discovered that File:Flag of Belarus.svg does not exist, but over 500 pages link to it, I do not have the capabilities to upload SVG from my computer and I was wondering if you could possibly upload one based on this PNG image. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This lack of a file is new. Hold off on changing links, another user has posted at the Commons noticeboard. Hopefully it's a temporary database fault or something. CMD (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Schengen Area Map Update[edit]

Hello, can you exclude Romania Bulgaria and Cyprus from the map File:Schengen_Area.svg please. (because I don't know how to edit svg files :) --Camoka4 (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Currently they're included as future members. I suggest you wait till you obtain consensus at Talk:Schengen Area, then I'd be happy to make the change. CMD (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I apologize for the inconvenience on earlier topic. I learned how to edit svg but I think I changed it too early without consensus. I posted a new discussion on take page, can you please state your opinion at Talk:Schengen Area, and if you do agree with, could you please clearly write that you agree that it should be changed? thanks a lot.--Camoka4 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have difficulty communicating in English?[edit]

Im going to pretend you are 12 years old and i will word this in extremely simple English since you clearly failed to understand my last message. First question:

Because you've decided for some strange reason to insist on doing it along with a bunch of other changes. In addition, you've never pointed out exactly which paragraphs they are. Why don't you take your own advice, and move them manually? CMD (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Second questions. Can you be specific about whats wrong with my version? (p.s. dont give me a vague answer as you did above by using euphemsims such as "other changes" etc.) Pass a Method talk 06:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Your writing implies there's a single ambassador for South Africa and Brazil, and that the OIC was the only party to object. You then changed the objective section into a long series of very short subsections, which inhibits prose and looks cluttered. CMD (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

International School Manila[edit]

It would seem that the negative content in this article should be sourced or immediately removed. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor (assuming IP and new user are the same due to the edits in question) also changed "considered to be one of the premier high schools in the Philippines" to "considered to be the premier high school in the Philippines", so they're not blanking due to source considerations. Did some googling, and found court case in regards to local salaries and a separate case which mentions the 2006 issue as evidence. The source that was already in the article ([3]), seems to be almost a primary source by some involved parties, but covers the second paragraph.
This isn't a BLP, so I don't see why 'negative' content should be excised for sourcelessness while 'positive' content remains. I also don't think we should let anyone edit with the purpose of whitewashing an article. The above sources aren't the best, but 1) there's not going to be professional sources for high school (although for some reason all high schools are notable), and 2) it's more sources than the rest of the article has. Thoughts? CMD (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed analysis! The IP is whitewashing again. I reverted it, but expect more. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage map[edit]

Hello, it seem Denmark, which was shown as having legalised same sex marriage, isn't anymore in the new map you edited. Denmark do recognise these marriage. --Aréat (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank goodness someone is on the ball. Should be fixed now. CMD (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2013 (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)