User talk:Chipmunkdavis

Please click here to leave me a new message.

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!)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		May your Holidays and the Year that follows shine as much as this coin still does beneath the tarnish of bygone weather and long use. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated Fowler&fowler. Best wishes to you too. I'm afraid I don't have any coins from before the 20th century myself! CMD (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Australia is an island country

Australia is an island country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldrin Orlanes Politico (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

United Ireland

I warn you against removing a united Ireland from the list of proposed state mergers, as long as the idea of a united Ireland is relevant to this day. Don't try to do it again. 197.60.41.31 (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Wales related

Howdy. I'm kinda confused here. Is Snowded responding to your 12:11 post of May 9, 2020 at Talk:National Assembly for Wales? or was he responding to my May 9, 2020 post? GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, it may be either, or a response to both of our messages at the same time. I think you may be right that "Welsh Parliament" will appear in both the lead and the infobox, whatever the final title ends up being. CMD (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Was quite confusing, so I 'struck out' my post, there. :) GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

User Chio Bu

I might don't like to Ask you this Sir but It didn't not work out well on Incident page That User Chio Bu is likely to keep Blaming Me about Dewan rakyat. Firstly, some user on Early March saying GPS is a Allied parties on Perikatan Nasional without a Sources. But Actually GPS is Under Perikatan Nasional by some Sources. Then On May 2020 A User Chio Bu is Trying to Repeat the Unregisted Users did. I trying to tell him about the truth but he still didn't trust me. Please sort it out ok. I love to help wikipedia but that user never let me to do it. Please... Mr. Samerkov (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Samerkov. What other editors will see when they review your conversation on the incident page is both of you accusing the other person of various things, and neither of you taking responsibility. What you said to me about sources is something that you should have put on Talk:Dewan Rakyat after my warning. Instead, you reverted again. To sort it out, my advice to you is the following: 1) Stop editing Dewan Rakyat, for the moment. It is not a critical issue if Wikipedia's counting of Malaysian politicians is slightly outdated. It will be fixed eventually. 2) Disengage from Chio Bu, on the incident page or elsewhere. Clearly your conversations are not productive, and bickering does not make either of you look good. 3) Read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Don't accuse other editors of being WP:NOTHERE repeatedly without very good evidence (which you have not provided), and do not accuse other editors of being liars. Quite frankly, if I were you I would edit my latest post on the incident page to remove all personal attacks before someone replies to it. If you do not adjust your behaviour so far, I suspect you will be sanctioned in some manner. Please take the time to read through the links in the Welcome message I left on your talkpage, they are very helpful for understanding how Wikipedia works. If you have any specific questions you can ask me, or see the other options under the Getting Help section. CMD (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, i was really don't want revnting on Dewan rakyat since Chio Bu using me into admistration. Otherwise i would be nailed by them. Also, I didn't accuse other editor but only user chiu bo. User Sisuva and User Quidtul save my edits. Personally for now i will be hiatus since i afied everyone is on me. Really thank you Sir CMD.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Chipmunkdavis, I am so grateful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pam Mulambo (talk • contribs) 19:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wildlife of Malaysia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giant rat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

Do not remove my legitimate posts. If the user who I left the message for wishes to remove it, they may do so. Do not misrepresent criticism as a personal attack. 82.132.220.25 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that you have twice misused the rollback tool to remove my legitimate message and criticism. I have noted that on Wikipedia talk:Rollback. 82.132.220.25 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The IP is an obvious sock of WP:LTA/BKFIP, now range-blocked. Favonian (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Abhkazia

Since you disagree with my edit, what do you think of the SO intro?

South Ossetia (/ɒˈsɛtjə/, less commonly /ɒˈsiːʃə/), officially the Republic of South Ossetia – the State of Alania, or the Tskhinvali Region, is a de facto sovereign state and disputed territory in the South Caucasus recognised by most countries as part of Georgia.

Nyttend backup (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As with Abkhazia, including disputed territory in the South Ossetia intro is redundant. It is incorrect to write that it is a de facto sovereign state and a disputed territory, as all de facto sovereign states are disputed territories. A separate issue with that intro is the "or the Tskhinvali Region". I suspect it's meant to try and put forward the Georgian POV, but it's misleading as it ambiguously reads like another official name of the de facto state, and under Georgian law the area doesn't exist anymore as they officially split it between different regions. CMD (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

About our edits to the Philippines article

Should we continue on condensing the article? I supplied some references and deleted some content from some citations needed tags, I'm working on condensing the article even further, once done, should we submit it for a Featured Article review? The article was a featured article before it lost it status, then we edited it and it regained good article status, I think it's high time that we should try to return its featured article status. Should I do a voice recording of the article before we submit it to featured status or after it? I'm in quarantine so I have the free time to voice record.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. CMD (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Philippine Barnstar

The Philippine Barnstar

For your help on jueteng! Let me know when the DYK nomination can be reopened. I also credited you on my userpage. I hope we can work together more, there are many articles about the Philippines I'd like to improve. (Sana okay lang kung ang maibigay ng Pilipins Barnstar ay isang foreigner.) PS: Do you happen to have a way to get access to a paper copy of the Philippine Law Dictionary? Even if you have to buy it from National Bookstore? I could send you some money. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 09:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Psiĥedelisto, this is very much appreciated. I suggest you inquire at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. It looks like it's available at a few university libraries, so someone may be able to find what you need. CMD (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2022 Chuukese independence referendum

Hello! Your submission of 2022 Chuukese independence referendum at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Map on the representative office of Somaliland

Dear Chipmunkdavis: Greetings.

I happened to notice that China has a representative office of Somaliland but it is not pointed out on the corresponding map. Is there a reason why this might happen? If not, could you correct it please? Thank you.

Your Sincerely A Wikipedia User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.200.176 (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, what article and map is this referring to? Is there a source for the Chinese office? Best, CMD (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Orangutan

Hi. I finished everything? Can you finish your review? LittleJerry (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the review as it was unfinished, it was a series of specific points that did go through much of the article. I'll have another look though. CMD (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

When you make your decision, could you sign off on source reliability too? You did look at a few sources in your review. LittleJerry (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you sign off on whether the texts accurately reflect the sources cited? You did read some sources in your review. LittleJerry (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. You don't have to do a spotcheck. They just want another source quality check. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Hong Kong Junta

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Corcerning your removal of a source in the Philippine History Article about the Manila Galleons

Corcerning your removal of a source in the Philippine History Article about the Manila Galleons...

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Philippines&type=revision&diff=967638415&oldid=967636414

You removed it saying that it's not supported in the source that the Manila Galleons are among the largest then in the world, I think it is supported in the source, I will show you a screenshot of the page and passage that said it is.

https://i.imgur.com/68VriZH.png

I don't know if, that's enough for you though. Please, enlighten me, thank you.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You wrote "the largest wooden ships of the era". The underlined phrase refers to a single ship, not the whole fleet throughout the existence of the galleon route, and the rest of the sentence clearly states that this claim was potentially an exaggeration. CMD (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks for the clarification. I guess I should rephrase it to just 'it is alleged that some Manila Galleons are "among" the largest ships constructed in the era." How about that? Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the source does not say that either. CMD (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

How about: One Manila Galleon is alleged to be among the largest ships in the world. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

That's putting a lot of weight on the claims of what is probably a Spanish official trying to boast about what they did a few hundred years ago. What would be the value of such a statement to the article? It's one of the least interesting aspects of that source. CMD (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, there has been other ships in the source that were in the 2000 range and that, at least they were twice larger than the ships used in Europe or the Spanish-Americas, that's according too the rest of the source.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see twice mentioned anywhere. The source supports that for maybe 20-30 years in the early 17th century there were 2000 ton ships that were larger than any others in the Atlantic. At least one or two, perhaps more, reached similar sized again in the mid-18th century. This is within the overall context of shifting regulations and competing interests that tell a much more interesting story of changing sizes. Again, I don't see the value of focusing on this singular point in the context of Philippine history. CMD (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm youre right, how about we focus on the reasons why the size changed and state that there was many contraband traded and royal size limits were violated and that Mexican and Manila merchants were in leaugue to defy Madrid's royal laws for the sake of profit. Maybe posting the background as to why the sizes were that way is more apt for the article. What doyou think? Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of very useful information that the source you found could add to our article on Manila galleon. However, as I mentioned in Talk:Manila galleon, the current article has a poor structure that makes it hard to slot it in. I feel there should for example be a section focused on the ships themselves, where information about the size of individual ships would work very well. CMD (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the Manila Galleon article needs to be restructured.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

About another edit in the Philippines article this time about demographics.

This is corncerning one edit, where you removed the approximate amount of people possesing Spanish admixture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Philippines&type=revision&diff=967979225&oldid=967961574

I however agree with you that most of it is original research, however there is one source there that categorically stated that 1/3rd of the population of Luzon Island, which now hold half the population of the Philippines had varying degrees of Spanish admixture.

Jagor, Fëdor, et al. (1870). The Former Philippines thru Foreign Eyes http://www.authorama.com/former-philippines-b-8.html

I feel as if removing mention of that in the Demographics section is unfair since the same section mention the 20% of Filipinos having partial Chinese descent yet, the 1/3rd of Luzon island which has Spanish admixture was erased. What do you think? --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that source is from 1870. CMD (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok lets just state that Spanish era news sources, said that then. Instead of letting original research exterpolate from that. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

That would be very wp:undue for such a high level article. You have expressed a desire for the article to be a featured article. The criteria for that include "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". That is completely incompatible with using sources from the 19th century, not to mention that the Demographics section should cover current demographics not demographics from two centuries prior. Note that there is a source for European DNA which I kept from that paragraph and put in the earlier paragraph. I am unsure whether the Xinhua article is due and high-quality for the topic (or whether genetic admixture is due for the article at all), however, all I have been doing so far is removing bad sources and editing or noting unsourced information. The Xinhua article meets that criteria, while an 1870 source doesn't. CMD (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

How about I place the 1870 Census Data to the main article about Demographics, and the Demographic history of the Philippines article? Since there are demographics of past centuries put there anyway and then we just shorten the mention that there is European, South Asian and Latin American admixture in the Philippines in addition to the Chinese as this source said:

https://i.imgur.com/sJ2efLQ.png

From National Geographic.

I'm just saying so because there haasn't been an official racial survey of the Philippines since the end of the Spanish period, the last racial survey was during the Spanish era.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The idea of racial surveys has somewhat gone out of fashion. At any rate, it would be very poor to conflate racial surveys with modern genetic studies. They have very different assumptions, deal with very different outcomes, and take place in very different contexts. This historical surveys might fit in the main demographics article or another more specific article, but please do indicate the context. It should not be presented as current knowledge, or perhaps even as a definitive fact at the time. CMD (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Noted, I'll transfer dated demographics information to the appropriate articles.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Arrest: Pat. Rizal Alih – Zamboanga Massacre

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Noted Yoninah. Is this mentioned somewhere that I've missed? CMD (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed at WT:DYK for a long time. Yoninah (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Is there a reason it has not then been added to the supplementary guidelines? CMD (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(Sigh.) Another rule? If you'd like you can open an RFC at WT:DYK. Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Wildlife of North Macedonia

On 21 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wildlife of North Macedonia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that carnivorous wildlife of North Macedonia as small as the Balkan lynx have been reported to attack not just livestock, but humans too? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of North Macedonia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wildlife of North Macedonia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 21:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC) 12:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Tell me when you finishined Copy-Editing the Philippine Article

Tell me when you finishined Copy-Editing the Philippine Article and when you finish putting the citations needed tags on it because once you are done, I will do some book crawling and furnish the needed citations, hopefully our library will be opened and I can furnish it, but if it's not I'll resort to online sources. Just tell me when you're done in my talk page, since I intend to supply the missing citations. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Replying on your talkpage. CMD (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

A Piece of Eden

Thanks for the review. It was hard to fix the plot section while in a house that was very loud because of a kid's birthday party, followed by a loud friend's apartment. I apologize if I sounded rude in my comments. SL93 (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem at all. Best, CMD (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Re Korean folklore

Alright. Thank you. I'll take a look at it. Herostratus (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Jueteng image

Sorry to push this more, I know it is disappointing for it to be delayed, but really I feel that our work will get barely any clicks at the very bottom of Queue 3, as opposed to being accompanied by an image; so I opened Wikipedia talk:Did you know § Jueteng. My own experience tells me this, as Deseret alphabet is my highest performing DYK clickwise, and had an image. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, seems like there won't be a delay, so....ignore this I guess.......😔😞 Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry, I don't think I've had any highly clicked DYKs! CMD (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Jueteng

On 31 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jueteng, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite being illegal, jueteng is played by one out of every seven Filipinos? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jueteng. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jueteng), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for African Medicines Agency

On 3 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article African Medicines Agency, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the proposed African Medicines Agency would regulate not just modern medicine and medical equipment, but also traditional medicine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/African Medicines Agency. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, African Medicines Agency), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for 2022 Chuukese independence referendum

On 5 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2022 Chuukese independence referendum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2022 Chuukese independence referendum has been delayed three times, including by the legislative body that approved it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Chuukese independence referendum. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2022 Chuukese independence referendum), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Korean folklore

On 8 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Korean folklore, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Korean folk story of Princess Bari (illustrated), a seventh daughter abandoned by her parents who nonetheless saves their lives, is seen as a subversion of Confucian patriarchy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Korean folklore. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Korean folklore), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Marcos Jewels - auction plans, forfeitures, and Malacanang collection affirmation.

Hi. Thanks for the catch on that reference in Marcos jewels. I've added the references from elsewhere in the article to cover the forfeiture of all three collections, and the dismissal of the petition over the Malacanang collection (which I also clarified in the text), plus proposals for auction in 2016. I also did a search and added two entirely new references that refer to auction plans in 2014, 2019, and 2020. I tried to address everything in your tag in six edits linked here. Again, thank you for the catch! Yours, Chieharumachi (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chieharumachi, no problem, more eyes on the article is one of the great benefits of the DYK process. It's always good to see useful Philippine material being developed. CMD (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's why I went for a DYK, actually. My colleague said it was a great way to make sure the article gets up to par more quickly. :D I didn't even realize I'd missed those references in that section; I was editing late at night. haha. - Chieharumachi (talk)

DYK for 2020 Puerto Rican status referendum

On 19 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2020 Puerto Rican status referendum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the upcoming sixth Puerto Rican status referendum will be the first to ask a single yes-or-no question? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 Puerto Rican status referendum. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2020 Puerto Rican status referendum), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

I suppose the irony that he posted after another of his countrymen asked for my help passed him by. WCM_email 16:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I certainly didn't get the impression the post included much textual analysis. CMD (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You deserve a Barnstar!

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		This is to thank your earnest and tireless efforts in improving the Philippines wikipedia article and also to congrats you on achieving the Second Highest amount of characters typed on the article via your author attribution. Let's continue on improving our article! https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Philippines Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rene, although I'm afraid my editing is not completely tireless. CMD (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Request on checking recent edits on Philippines

Hello, may I request you to please check on the recent edits by PCommission on Philippines. Please check if it violates undue weight, or if it needs rewriting. Also, can you please check on the sources he used? He used a source about Ferdinand Marcos written by Marcos' political rival Benigno Aquino Jr., as well as the not-so-reliable Rappler, which is known to have high bias. Thank you.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sanglahi86, sorry I haven't had much time to edit lately. Looking through those edits, I would agree some additions feel undue and there appears to be a slant in presentation in some areas. On sources, even biased sources can be used with care. That said, any fact important enough to appear in a high-level article like Philippines would likely be able to be found in multiple sources, so the source discussions should probably be secondary to discussions on the content itself. CMD (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response. In the meantime, I will lie low in finding reliable sources for the article as PCommission recently made several significant changes, especially in the History section. I fervently hope you could copyedit some of those additions if you have time. Thank you.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Chipmunkdavis. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/William Fraser (architect).
Message added 13:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Einer ist unser Leben

Chipmunkdavis, do you plan to return to your review here, or should I find someone else to finish it? Please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies BlueMoonset, I somehow didn't see that ping. CMD (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Help! New Users have garbled our formerly streamlined edits in the Philippines article beyond recognition!

Help! New Users have garbled our formerly streamlined edits in the Philippines article beyond recognition! I wanted to revert the article status to your streamlined editions but I cannot use the revert function because the Mods have placed me under probation (You can check my Userpage if you want), can you please talk some sense to our new users who are bloating our article again beyond recognition. If you send them to a discussion page I'll gladly inform them on what form for the article to follow, but since I am in probation I can't revert the article back to previous versions. Yours truly! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia

Hi, your edit summary says "headers consistent with others in the series". I assume List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia is in the series? There, the headers go:

1 Sovereign states

1.1 United Nations member states

1.2 United Nations observer states

1.3 States with limited recognition

and in the other they go

2 Sovereign states

2.1 United Nations member states

2.2 States with limited, but substantial, international recognition

2.3 De facto states with little or no international recognition

That doesn't seem consistent to me? Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

My edits were not made with the level 3 headers in mind, they were concerned with the recent shuffling of level 2 headers and other associated changes, for example the renaming of level 2 header "Special areas of internal sovereignty" to the lengthy "Special constituent parts of sovereign states". The level 3 headers you refer to will differ per article as per the needs of each individual list. CMD (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Singapore. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Telsho (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I would like to ask you why did you Erased Somaliland events. This events are true and you can read them. I put the current constitution of Somaliland in there and you erased it, what happened. What about Somaliland Declaration of Independence link? What is going on? How about the history of Somaliland and the establishment of Adal Sultanate. Also the establishment of Sultanate of Ifat in Zeila, Somaliland. Everything that was there was correct. Please revert it back Buufin (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buufin. I reverted the additions to the infobox as per the documentation at Template:Infobox country, the events are for the "First key event in history of country/territory's status or formation", not all of history in a particular geographic area. That sort of information is better suited for the History section. CMD (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

British Empire Feature Article Review

I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphan cite in Philippines article

Please see this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It was this Jstor paper. It's interesting, but I don't think it's needed there. Perhaps it can be included elsewhere though. CMD (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

You may find the case here. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

About a source you removed in the Philippines article.

In this edit of our article: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Philippines&type=revision&diff=986191530&oldid=986030800 You said that the source you removed is not related to the text, but it's only the name of the book which makes it not related to the text. Upon clicking the source, you would find the text in Wikipedia used in the book. Here's the quote: "These Peninsular officers were less committed to the people they were assigned to protect and were often predatory, enriching themselves before returning to Spain, putting the interests of the metropolis over the interest of the natives." Let me underline it for you in a picture. It's written in Wikipedia how the Peninsulares only sought to enrich themselves whereas the Google Book cited that these Peninsulares love to enrich themselves: https://i.imgur.com/uLjjCrO.png . Would you mind if I restore the reference and add a quote from the book and it's page number and ISBN? Thanks and Happy Halloween!--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The underlined text does not support the relevant quote. It says nothing about commitment to Spain, protection, being predatory, returning to Spain, or the interests of the metropolis and the natives. CMD (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 10:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Complaint at AN3

Hello Chipmunkdavis. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chipmunkdavis reported by User:Atelerixia (Result: ). The filer was recently warned per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Atelerixia reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Warned) due to your complaint about the same issue. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Best, CMD (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

QUESTION

excuse me, who gave you the right to erase my edit of putting falasteen and taiwan and israil and china in the same category?? are you the UN are you ban ki moon or something?? You just want to create more problem on wikipedia. Please grow a brain. Thank you and have nice day ;)

Samar al-hejazi (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

West Philippine Sea

Following on this revert, please see this related edit to a more topic-specific article. Please comment/discuss on that article talk page as may be appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

List of territorial disputes

Hi CMD,

I don't agree with your good faith edit here. I can't see a valid reason behind enforcing Taiwan as the country name in that article. Taiwan is only an informal name for the country, the formal/offical name of the country is the Republic of China. I don't mind people use Taiwan in a less serious article, say an article about a sports league or a cultural event, but in a serious political article like the List of territorial disputes, the formal name of the country should be used.

By the way, someone has raised an issue in your username page concerning the name of Wake Island. That is a pretty rude way to initiate a discussion. I will copy and paste that discussion into the talk page of Wake Island to properly start the discussion. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

My edit was a return to the status quo ante, not a good faith bold edit. List of territorial disputes uses informal names throughout, which is the most common practice in reliable sources and the most common practice on Wikipedia. Good spot on the user page post, likely a mistake rather than rudeness. CMD (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Taiwan is a special case. All other countries just have short or long names (both forms are formal), only Taiwan has an informal/common name. My point of view is that when Taiwan is listed in a serious article, especially a political article, it should be listed under its formal name (unfortunately for Taiwan, it doesn't have a short formal name since the name "China" has been taken by the PRC). 120.16.220.60 (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of countries whose common English name lacks formal status, Taiwan is not at all unique in this regard. It even has official use, which is not the case for some common English names. It is incongruous to treat it differently to all the other entities in this list. Taiwan is a well known name that is recognised and understood by far more English speakers than the formal name would be (similarly to most other countries). CMD (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

For sure, Taiwan is a far common name and has been used in official media releases. However, in official government documentation, the Taiwanese government still uses the Republic of China as its country name. That's why I prefer to use the Republic of China (Taiwan) in political articles and Taiwan for other general articles.

By the way, I just checked the article's history. A banned IP user changed the Republic of China to Taiwan without discussion in June 2019 (ironically, this article was the last article he edited before being banned). Since the table was created in March 2008, till June 2019, the Republic of China had always been used instead of Taiwan. If we want to maintain status quo, we better stick to the Republic of China since no one had disputed its usage over a period of 11 years. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)