User talk:Chipmunkdavis

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome! 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!), but please feel free to ping me if I appear to have missed something.

Protectorate

Dear @Chipmunkdavis: You left the rv comment: Rv, this is a random collection of sources that doesn't have a cohesive point. Unless the sources explain what they mean by protectorate, it's not a helpful designation. The situation doesn't match the article Protectorate. Your rv comment actually does not oppose the reverted text. Your revert comment actually mirrors the text you reverted. The reverted text was The Multiple international scientific papers as well as international news outlets term NKR as a de facto Armenian protectorate.Multiple international scientific papers as well as international news outlets term NKR as a de facto Armenian protectorate. Among the scientific sources using the term protectorate, there is a paper by an Armenian scholar Yulia Antonyan as well as there is a paper by an Aserbaijani scholar Shahla Sultanova. Among the scientific sources using the term protectorate, there is a paper by an Armenian scholar Yulia Antonyan as well as there is a paper by an Aserbaijani scholar Shahla Sultanova. The text, you have reverted does not say that the sources have a cohesive point. It only says that they are multiple and they exist. Unless the sources explain what they mean by protectorate - No, the reverted text does not state that the sources explain the term protectorate. Instead of reverting you could add these sources use but do not explain the term protectorate! The situation doesn't match the article Protectorate. - well, there is a little adjective de facto added to protectorate, which makes it possible to some sources to just call the situation to be a protectorate even without a legal base.Geysirhead (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

At least half of these sources aren't even about the topic at hand. If there's no point to the addition, it shouldn't be added. CMD (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it. The topic in the subsection is literally Political ties with Armenia. Please, tell me, which sources do not match this title! One of the sources says for example The hilly, landlocked stretch of land has been ruled as an Armenian protectorate since an early 1990s war, which left some 30,000 dead, even though it is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan. [1] Geysirhead (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You're using the Independent as a source of scholarly analysis? CMD (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does neither only cite scientific sources nor is the subsection named Scholarly analysis of political ties with Armenia. For a scholarly analysis (whatever you mean?), which is a common (sub)section in multiple Wikipedia articles, a duck test would totally suffice in the case of a de facto protectorate. There is no deficit at scholarly papers calling it this term. Example: President Ilham Aliyev and military officials openly link the arms buildup to the unresolved dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which nominally belongs to Azerbaijan but has been an Armenian protectorate in all but name since its ethnic Armenian population fought to ... [2] So, please, revert your revert! Geysirhead (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A useful source would be one that explains why a particular term is used. There's no value to the reader in throwing a grab-bag of whatever adjectives and nouns are found. As you may remember this was previously discussed and rejected. Please refer back to that discussion for further reasoning from multiple users on the matter. CMD (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I will not copy the all text passages from the sources into this talk to order to compensate your missing endeavour to read and research them. The reasoning you mention comes from a heated debate of non-neutral Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts. Even if a scholarly source uses a certain term without explanation, it does not mean that it is unjustified. Nobody needs to explain all obvious "adjectives and nouns" in a text. Your actual "why" could be answered by "The public movement, started in 1988, aimed to restore the Armenian protectorate over the autonomous republic of Nagornyi Karabakh, which was made a part of the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan ..." [3] Because the public movement wanted it that way. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning Will you just keep asking why?? Enough of that futile dialogue, I am transferring it to the talk page of the subject.--Geysirhead (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait, not me again. Please, be nice, do you me a favour, and transfer it there yourself. Since 2020 war international media started to call it a Russian protectorate anyway.[4] As you know it is too early to scholarly articles for answering "why?" in that case of a duck test.--Geysirhead (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

That Atlantic Council source calls Armenia a protectorate. I hope that is a useful example as to why simply repeating words found on a certain source is a bad idea for encyclopaedia articles.(As for an OR duck test, per protectorate, the area is not a dependent territory, has no formal suzerainty arrangement, has mixed local autonomy, and did have immigration from Armenia.) CMD (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

References

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for the copyedit at Wildlife of Canada Moxy 🍁 16:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Moxy, happy new year! CMD (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that you need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi S Philbrick, I have an awareness of the guideline, but did not know that the specific phraseology is needed. I was unaware of the existence of a Copy Patrol. I have dummy edited to fix this instance, but could you explain why the particular wording crosses a t that my edit summary did not in terms of preserving article history? CMD (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I think we ping now instead of using talkback templates. CMD (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The copy patrol tool identified a 72% match to this site. I recognize the site is a blog and the odds are high that the blog copied from Wikipedia as opposed to vice versa, but that's what triggered the review. then I noticed your edit summary which indicated that you picked up some of the text from another article, which of course is permitted but our guideline strongly encourages specific wording. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep the specific wording in mind to ease your patrolling. CMD (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Dividing line between Europe and Asia

Back in 2011, you and User:Dbachmann discussed borders between Europe and Asia. See User talk:Dbachmann/Archive 39#European countries. The thread cites File:Possible definitions of the boundary between Europe and Asia.png. There is now an open 3RR case — edit warring on whether Turkey is in Europe. I would like to find a linkable consensus somewhere on where Wikipedia thinks the boundary of Europe is. Do you perchance know of a discussion? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, I'm afraid so far as I'm aware there is zero consensus on Wikipedia about this topic (the same issue that led to edit warring on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe which you intervened with not long ago). If I could restate your concern, the issue at hand is not what the precise "boundary of Europe" is (the broad contour of the line is not in too much dispute), but the "categorisation" of various countries as "Asian" or "European". Other disputes occasionally flair up over continental or sub-continental categorisation, but Asia/Europe is the big one. Countries are flipped between these all the time on articles and templates. For foreign relations templates the best solution would probably be to find some other form of categorisation (likely tailored per country) relevant to foreign relations, or remove continental categorisation completely in favour of a simple alphabetical list, as continents have only an oblique relevance to the matter. CMD (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

At List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, Turkey is included, perhaps on the rationale that it has *some* territory in Europe. So each transcontinental state could wind up on more than one list. That avoids a decision on whether it is primarily in one of the two continents. I suppose such a plan would not work for the diplomacy templates, where a clear all-or-nothing assignment to continents is expected. So an alphabetic solution for the templates might be the best. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You've summed it up nicely, the longstanding solution at the continent lists was to include boundary information but be broadly inclusive, and countries do appear on multiple of those lists. CMD (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What's the deal?

What's the rationale behind your revert on here? The article seems to have some history with vandalism and socks but not every user or IP is one, Christ. The material that was previously removed (by you as well) seemed good enough, which is why I added some of it back (with some changes on my own) as well as my own edit. That doesn't make me another block evader or a vandal. If one is going to assume every single user who made additions to some article as a suspected vandal or a sock just based on hearsay, the article will never be improved. 209.216.92.228 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The rationale is in the edit summary, with the material in question being added by a sockpuppet. CMD (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledged. If that's the case, it would be much appreciated if you could restore the material that was added by me (without the other users' material), as I had lumped it together the first time thinking it was useful. 209.216.92.228 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

That was the case from the first edit summary. My engagement in that page has been purely related to the disruption, and the relevant content (in addition to sourcing concerns) is "the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context", and as such I am disinclined to examine and restore it further. CMD (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Judiciary of the Philippines

On 10 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Judiciary of the Philippines, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the judiciary of the Philippines has recognized the legal standing of dolphins? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Judiciary of the Philippines. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Judiciary of the Philippines), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Unlinked names in hooks

Hi, per your comment at WT:DYK, can you propose a rule change so we can get consensus? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Resemblance?...

Resembles Satt 2 to a degree, don't you think?[5] Needs to make more edits. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have that much familiarity with recent cases, but I will keep this in mind when looking at my watchlist. CMD (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I just pinged you on Ymblanter's talk page. He's a mutual "friend" of LTA Satt 2 like us. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Northern masked owl

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Climate change in Kenya

On 28 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Climate change in Kenya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that malaria is expected to become more prevalent due to the impacts of climate change in Kenya? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Kenya. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Climate change in Kenya), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Mayotte Marine Natural Park

On 31 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mayotte Marine Natural Park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that both the Mayotte Marine Natural Park and the Glorioso Islands Marine Natural Park entirely cover the exclusive economic zones of the islands within them? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mayotte Marine Natural Park), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Glorioso Islands Marine Natural Park

On 31 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Glorioso Islands Marine Natural Park, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that both the Mayotte Marine Natural Park and the Glorioso Islands Marine Natural Park entirely cover the exclusive economic zones of the islands within them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glorioso Islands Marine Natural Park. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Glorioso Islands Marine Natural Park), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious

glorious natural parks

Thank you for quality articles around nature conservation such as Dugong, Glorioso Islands Marine Natural Park, Climate change in Kenya, Wildlife of North Macedonia and Wildlife of Malaysia, for welcoming users, fighting vandalism, reviewing and copy-editing, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2524 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda! What a surprise. I will be sure to work on more. CMD (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Cyprus

Hi, so you refused to remove the turkish form the Republic of Cyprus wiki however I explained why it needs to be removed, im not going to argue with you because you dont seem as someone who particularly cares but if youre not going to be productive when it gets to Cyprus, stay away from the page, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonidas Markou (talk • contribs) 11:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Chipmunkdavis

Sincerely apologize to you for the conflict (^^), I hope we work together to build Wikipedia, hope you forgive me, I just joined Wikipedia, if something is wrong, please tell me, let's be best friends ^^. Luân777 (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Luân777, that's not a problem, it's always a learning curve to join Wikipedia. CMD (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

CMD, thank you so much, my good friend ^^. Luân777 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK Constance Isherwood

Many thanks CMD for advancing Constance Isherwood to prep 6. I was hoping to go for ALT1 instead of the original hook. Please can I request you to use that one to promote to Prep6 rather than the original hook. Hope that is alright. Thanks again for your efforts in prepbuilding. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ktin, absolutely. I took the liberty of adding a couple of commas. Best, CMD (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, super! Thanks much. Looks good. Have a nice day. Ktin (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Bogart hook

Should that one be where it is (buried in prep 3)? I'm willing to de-picture hooks, but that one's a prominent enough topic I was planning to hold onto it for a lead hook in a later prep. Also, you retained the (pictured) and I think forgot the question mark. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I've pulled it. (I think.) CMD (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

All good! Will set up a new prep. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Formation removal in the article Ethiopia

I don't know your reason of your removal of historical formation chronology of Ethiopia. Can you explain it? 196.188.241.215 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The added items were points in history rather than points of establishment for the Ethiopian state. The section is not means to be a chronology, it is meant to be the date that sovereignty was "established", usually when it became independent. Of course with Ethiopia there's not really a date of independence because it's so old (except for 1941), so Formation serves as a substitute word. See also Japan, which is a Featured Article with even fewer fields. CMD (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A heads up to the situation with Kanto7

@Chipmunkdavis:, Kanto7 is currently framing me for sockpuppetry of his own IP edits, I am just warning you to stay alert of any actions taken by the user against you since we both argued with them on the talk page on the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, he is now canvassing other administrators against Wikipedia policy to take action against me and might take action against you too. I have started a sockpuppet investigation against the user since he is now using IP addresses to frame me for allegedly vandalizing, you may contribute to the investigation as you may at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kanto7, their user contributions recently has since been accusing me of sockpuppetry even though he is the one doing so. Stay alert and best regards, PyroFloe (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi PyroFloe, a checkuser will never connect an IP address to a user account for privacy reasons, so if you think those IPs are Kanto7 it needs to be shown behaviourally. Don't worry too much about theoretical action that might be taken against you, if something happens you will be notified somehow, and I very much doubt anything serious will happen. Best, CMD (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I have provided behavioral reasons as well since Kanto7 has really been aggressive towards us recently, so thank you for the advice, PyroFloe (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Image below hatnotes

Why?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&type=revision&diff=1006823508&oldid=1006803244) BushelCandle (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:IMAGELOCATION.....basically it's a accessibility concern and formate preference. Best to avoid sandwiching the Hat note on small screens. ...and in mobile view the "Main" article links should seen first as there may be many and we don't want the image out of context.--Moxy 🍁 03:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick explanation, Moxy; I can't see anything relevant at the particular section that MOS:IMAGELOCATION leads me to but I will accept your opinion that this is an accessibility issue. Sandwiching is almost never an issue with hat notes though unless 2 images appear opposite each other... In this case the image is not out of context and there are not many "Main" article links. BushelCandle (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A bit more info at MOS:ACCIM see #8. Been a rule of thumb ever since mobile version came out.--Moxy 🍁 03:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, which seems to settle it:

"Images should be inside the section to which they are related (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not in the heading itself nor at the end of the previous section. This ensures that screen readers will read, and the mobile site will display, the image (and its textual alternative) in the correct section." (my emphasis added). However, I hope you will concede that the rationale for this advice [ensures that screen readers will read, and the mobile site will display, the image (and its textual alternative) in the correct section] is not appropriate to what I did since the image and any alt text will still display in the correct section... BushelCandle (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

On mobile all elements are presented in a vertical line, so the wikitext order is important to keep the hatnotes near the title on mobile as opposed to below images where their visually distinct background separates the images from the text. For screen readers I think it is also important that Main article notes are near the headers, for ease of comprehension, but I am less familiar with their workings. CMD (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for sparing the time to educate me. I'll try and remember your advice in future... BushelCandle (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't tag socks please

Hi Chipmunkdavis. Could you do me a favor and please don't tag socks that I block. If I want to tag them I will do it myself; if I don't tag, it's intentional. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, the tagging wasn't targeted at you in particular. Thanks for fixing the tag. I will keep your message in mind in the future. CMD (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

GAN instructions update

Hey there. Thought I let you know that I updated Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions and incorporated your suggestion as well per Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 24#Suggestion to add additional rules to the instructions. Thanks for leaving comments there! :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MrLinkinPark333, my next hope is that one day someone picks up my suggestion to put the GAN toolbox on GARs too! CMD (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: You can always suggest it at the GAN talk page. You might have more luck with getting opinions and/or support if you haven't already tried there :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 I did! Archived without comment unfortunately, but maybe one day. CMD (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Aww that's too bad :/ --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for making wrong GAN

I should have read the instructions more carefully. Although it's been some time I've been on wikipedia I wasn't a hyper active user. I thought it would be okay to nominate South Korea as a GA but after seeing the instructions I realized I wasn't a large enough contributor to the article. I thought it was okay because it said anyone can nominate it;;; sorry for causing the inconvenience. Guess I should start improving it. Have a good day! :) Takipoint123 (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Takipoint123, while anyone could nominate an article, it's better if the nominator has familiarity with the article in question and so can deal with any reviewer comments. As it is the South Korea article does not yet meet the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Not much inconvenience though, don't worry about that. Best, CMD (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. Thank you for the response. Glad to hear that I didn't cause a big inconvenience. Let's try to build a wikipedia community together! 2001:569:7BB2:6F00:54F9:60F9:F811:EBC2 (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops. I wasn't logged in! Takipoint123 (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Turkey Establishment

Hi Chipmunkdavis, thanks for you edits on the Turkey article. you said 'Turkey didn't really "Form" over a period of time it is quite clearly dated' I was wondering if you could send me some sources regarding that. I want to expand my knowledge and it would be great if you could help me out. thanks! happy editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SherKhaan (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi SherKhaan, the Formation wording in Wikipedia infoboxes was to my knowledge developed for states which have a long history that doesn't provide a clear point of statehood that fits within modern understandings of sovereignty. Turkey is an interesting case, but history books tend to treat it as quite a different state to the Ottoman Empire, as reflected by the fact it had what is called a "War of Independence". A state is a specific political entity and not the same as a culture or a people. The difference is mentioned in books, for example [6], "An investigation of modern Turkey's roots, of its political traditions, socio-economic transformations, and cultural heritage, can reasonably start in the early centuries of the Ottoman Empire. The emergence of Turkey as sovereign nation-state, though, occurred late, when its new boundaries were determined with international recognition in 1923, and the community inhabiting its current space reimagined itself through the Republican state's programmatic effort to inculcate a novel understanding of nationhood." CMD (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Double standarts

I think we have to remove similar things like on Russia's page and others. What do you think? Is there any rule about this? Beshogur (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Beshogur, the guidance given by Template:Infobox country is "|sovereignty_type = <!--Brief description of country/territory's status ("Independence [from...]", "Autonomous province [of...]", etc)-->", and "|established_event1 = <!--First key event in history of country/territory's status or formation-->". There is in general a need of a cleanup of infoboxes in this regard, and they aren't well maintained. However, while cleanup is easy for countries that gained independence in the modern era, it is trickier for older entities like Russia. From a glance Russia does need trimming, but I haven't looked into sources to see what they say. For Turkey, sources seem to generally agree it is a modern state established by Attaturk. CMD (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

In every aspect Turkey is indeed a successor state of the Ottoman Empire. There are even historians considering Rum Seljuk another predecessor, however I think other ones have to removed as well. Beshogur (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

As I noted, best to refer to the sources in such cases. CMD (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Species nomenclature.

Please stop reverting my nomenclature changes. My taxonomic updates are consistent with recent derpetological studies. 2600:100F:B06E:BA34:FE0:380B:6BF8:11EB (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop reverting edit on ‘Culture of Malaysia’ page. Im adding pictures for informations

dear chipmunkdavis, stop reverting photos and edits on ‘Culture of Malaysia’ page.

Karemwikieditor (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Karemwikieditor, as I mentioned in the edit summaries, the new pictures are causing WP:Sandwiching and you are removing a WP:Featured picture. Pictures should also not be the main source of information, as the text should be able to stand by itself. CMD (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to evaluate edits for automatically detecting issues in statements

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

I am reaching out to you because of your experience with Wikipedia editing. We are building an automated system that can suggest specific improvements on Wikipedia statements (like removing bias, clarifying, adding citations) based on editing guidelines.

For this, we need the opinion of experienced editors on the semantic intentions (e.g., point-of-view edits, clarifications, adding citations) of a small number of Wikipedia edits. I will conduct the evaluations remotely, online over Google Meet. You only have to fill out the assessments of Wikipedia edits on our study page. No personally identifiable information will be recorded as part of this.

The study will take approximately 1 hour to complete and we will compensate 30 USD per hour for your valuable time. You can also donate the same back to Wikipedia.

Please reach out to me on my email through Wikipedia if you are willing to participate in our study. I look forward to incorporating your experience into the research aimed at helping editors reduce the enormous maintenance backlog on Wikipedia.

For more information, see the research page. Sumit (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Malay indonesia

do you want to cover the history of Malay in Indonesia, the Malay tribe is native to Indonesia K mm aoak (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We should cover such things, so if you wp:reliable sources on the matter that would be welcome. CMD (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Request in Philippines article expansion.

Hello, the Philippines page (under Culture section) is missing information about the introduction of comedia (komedya), zarzuela, and vaudeville (bodabil) in the country. As I am not very adept at constructing sentences from scratch, may I respectfully request you to kindly expand the article to include these information? I have found the following sources that may be of help:

• https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=H1iFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA372
• https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=qLQOd-PFxe4C&pg=PA69
• https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=Bl0OAAAAYAAJ

Thank you, and regards. -Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I will see what I can do from the first two sources. The Culture section needs quite a bit more attention. CMD (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Singapore

I cited a source. Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia, through action in the Malaysian government. So it was against their will. Do you own the article? I thought people didn't own articles on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 747pilot (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The source did not match your claim in the text. Further, as mentioned the article already covers that information, so it is redundant. CMD (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Season articles

Which specific TC season articles were you mentioning? Noah^Talk 13:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Noah, referring to most if not all at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020, especially the late 20th century ones. CMD (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Merged and rewrote the culture section in the 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf' to 'Eastern Arabia'

Good evening CMD (or morning, well... it's evening here :p). I just wanted to inform you that I have moved the culture section we discussed earlier, it had multiple issues from poor sources, to soapbox sentences...etc. So I rewrote it in this format. Just wanted to inform you and get your opinion on it. Cheers A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. CMD (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Will open a negotiation on article merge in the talk page

Hey there @CMD, just wanted to let you know that I think our edit dispute is based on misunderstanding. The discussion in the 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf' article was too broad and it got confusing, which is understandable since we've discussed multiple issues and it got tangled. I want to resolve the issue so that we both reach a consensus. To that end, I will open a new section in the talk point to negotiate a merger between that article and 'GCC states' and 'Eastern Arabia'. I will present the problem, sources, and proposed solutions and I would love to hear from you. It will take me some time (or days) however before posting the new section since I intend to study the problem (the article and sources). Hopefully our effort can make wikipedia a better place one controversial article at a time! Cheers, A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out for the new discussion. I don't see why the Member state article is it's own article looking at it, it should probably be upmerged to the main GCC article. CMD (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Same reason why we have Member states of the Arab League andMember states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation while not a rule, it’s has become the usual WP standard you can find such listing to most economic and political unions. And in fact, it’s more notable than the ASoPG article (it’s not ambiguous for starter...) but the ‘Member states of the GCC’ article needed to be cleaned up and add content to the organization structure, history on membership (Jordan, and Yemen ascension talks)...etc. A Contemporary Nomad (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

New discussion in the 'Arab states of the Persian gulf'. Part 1 - On the inclusion of Iraq.

Good morning @CMD I hope you're doing well! For the last three days I've been studying the sources that refer to the Gulf states and organizing the discussion board in the talk page. I have created a new section in a multi-part series to clean up the article (in the post I've explained why it's a multi-part discussion). Last time you and I were confused in the discussion and it's clear to me now why that happened, simply, the article definition was unclear. I like to think of myself as a rational person^{(humble brag/s)}, so instead of talking to void I have identified the problem and saw that the best course of action to take is to take on the issues one by one to reach a consensus between us and anyone who would like to join in the discussion. By isolating the problems and identifying them we can rationally agree on the best course of action to take. Cheers! — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 02:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Being an editor here.

Hey being an editor of Wikipedia sounds so cool. Could you please tell me the best ways and what could be the benefits of becoming an editor and also can we earn from this and do you earn doing this? Lets discuss all the possibilities. Bittu355 (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, will post the detailed welcome template on your talkpage. CMD (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Tibesti thanks

Hey, just wanted to leave a quick note of thanks re the Tibesti Mountains FAC. Although it's a bit of a bummer the article was archived, I've seen you around the Africa articles before, and I think we have at least have another decent Africa article sitting out there now. I'm not sure the paucity of sources on the Tibesti nor my writing style would ever meet the standards of FAC, yet I'm also not sure that matters in the larger scheme of things. I really appreciated your feedback though, and if you ever need a hand with anything on here later, let me know. Brycehughes (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Brycehughes, what a disappointment, it's a great article. FAC is tough, and your chosen topic is clearly not an easy one to find information for. Who knows, perhaps current events will lead to more information turning up? If you are looking for something to do in the Africa sphere, I might ask that you consider looking over/keeping an eye on the Chad article itself. It's an old FA, and is going to be hit by Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 at some point, and, well, it's not as good as your Tibesti article. Perhaps you have some sources you can easily transfer across to bolster Geography for example. In any case, I do hope you'll return to Tibesti if new sources come up. Best, CMD (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot... To be honest with you, I'm not looking for more work. In fact, my activity here over the next several months (years?) will probably wane a bit. I was in a unique position (pandemic) where I had the time to devote to FAC. However, I enjoy being given a mission. I have been looking forward to gnoming it again, without the obligations of FAC. So what I think I'll do instead is devote this relaxing gnome time to the Chad article.

Re Tibesti, are you referring to the killing of Chad's president in the Tibesti a couple days ago? (At some point I need to add that to the article!) Brycehughes (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow I just gave Chad a look. Jeeezus. I see what you mean. Brycehughes (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I do agree that there is something about happily gnoming about that is often far more enjoyable than more focused work. I am referring above to the recent presidential death, the immediate impacts of which include a tenfold jump in views for the Tibesti Mountains article. Funny how things time together sometimes. CMD (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I was literally just putting the finishing touches on Tibesti, and then in boredom happened to switch to BBC News, and I was like... fucking hell. Of all the times when you'd want a stable history. I don't think this will lead to more sources. I mean, it will give us more AFP, Reuters, etc., but in terms of actual scientific or even anthropologic studies, this just shows that it'll be that much harder. It's an incredibly unstable region. Anyway you've got my attention with Chad. Brycehughes (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 GAN Backlog drive

		The Multiple Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
		Thank you for completing 20 reviews in the March 2021 backlog drive. Your work helped us reduce the backlog by over 52%. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Magellan Cross in Philippines

Please, discuss on talk page about your great discontent ([7], [8]), is a key part in the history of Philippines, please, explain your removal claims. --Pedro158 (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I left edit summaries with explanations each time, please read them and the links provided. CMD (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please, justify your reasons; not just label edits. --Pedro158 (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Tenompok Forest Reserve

On 2 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tenompok Forest Reserve, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Class 1 protected forests in Sabah, such as Tenompok Forest Reserve, Tawai Forest Reserve, Binsuluk Forest Reserve, and Ulu Telupid Forest Reserve, are threatened by encroaching agriculture, illegal logging, and man-made fires? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tenompok Forest Reserve. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tenompok Forest Reserve), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Tawai Forest Reserve

On 2 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tawai Forest Reserve, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Class 1 protected forests in Sabah, such as Tenompok Forest Reserve, Tawai Forest Reserve, Binsuluk Forest Reserve, and Ulu Telupid Forest Reserve, are threatened by encroaching agriculture, illegal logging, and man-made fires? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tenompok Forest Reserve. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Tawai Forest Reserve), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Binsuluk Forest Reserve

On 2 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Binsuluk Forest Reserve, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Class 1 protected forests in Sabah, such as Tenompok Forest Reserve, Tawai Forest Reserve, Binsuluk Forest Reserve, and Ulu Telupid Forest Reserve, are threatened by encroaching agriculture, illegal logging, and man-made fires? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tenompok Forest Reserve. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Binsuluk Forest Reserve), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ulu Telupid Forest Reserve

On 2 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ulu Telupid Forest Reserve, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Class 1 protected forests in Sabah, such as Tenompok Forest Reserve, Tawai Forest Reserve, Binsuluk Forest Reserve, and Ulu Telupid Forest Reserve, are threatened by encroaching agriculture, illegal logging, and man-made fires? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tenompok Forest Reserve. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ulu Telupid Forest Reserve), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong! New Zealand is not a Unitary State

New Zealand Unitary State = Hoax

New Zealand Federal State = True Cyberllamamusic (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

link=User talk:<Chipmunkdavis>

Hello, Chipmunkdavis. You have new messages at [[User talk:<Chipmunkdavis>|User talk:<Chipmunkdavis>]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Apology

I'm Chipmunk Davis I am the wrong editor for the new Zealand article. Cyberllamamusic (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's okay, we are all on Wikipedia to learn. CMD (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Somaliland

Somaliland is a independent country please edit it and make it like it was before — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:A500:2282:6097:BD80:5F02:B7A7 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

LTA

Have you opened an SPI or put up a report at AIV for Mitchen Mackvid? I'm not exactly aware which LTA this might be but their edits (including the addition of "supposed" when referring to the Xinjiang genocide) are certainly fishy. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi RandomCanadian, this is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ineedtostopforgetting, who was mentioned on AN by Horse Eye's Back's as being prominent in the China space. They regularly create a number of socks and sleepers using various proxies, so if you see anything that looks similar please do add to the SPI. Best, CMD (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Hello Chipmunkdavis, I wanted to let you know that I semi-protected your talk page for a day due to vandalism/sockpuppetry. Please let me know if you want me to remove the page protection. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I admire your optimism. CMD (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

HamsterLewis

Did you notice this loon randomly reverting your edits? (and now edit-warring over it) I reported them to AIV, might want to keep pushing if it isn't dealt with quickly. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Elmidae, this is a long-term problematic user. I am not the first editor they've targeted. There's already an open SPI case linked at AN, but sometimes the wheels of Wikipedia turn quite slowly. CMD (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Improvements to the "Ethiopia" article and trimming the lead section

'Greetings Chimpmunkdavis,

The reason I am writing this message is because I would like to discuss adding new improvements to the Ethiopia article, specifically the lead section. Upon first visiting the page, users are greeted by the "This article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article" tag. The lead section should be no longer than four paragraphs and provide a short but useful summary of the topic. In order to condense the article, I believe we should remove information about Ethiopia's geography (fourth paragraph of the lead section) to the "Geography" section of the Ethiopia article. Additionally, I suggest removing information about Ethiopia's religious demographics from the lead section of the article, because that information is already provided in the religion section of the article.

I believe the fourth paragraph of Ethiopia is in need of trimming but would like to have your approval before making any changes. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia so please keep me informed if there's anything else I am missing.

To summarize my points:

1) Move information about Ethiopia's geography in the lead section of the article to the geography section

2) Remove information about Ethiopia's religious demographics in the lead section of the article because it is already provided in the religion section.

There are still other improvements that can be made, but I believe we should tackle the main issue of the lead section being too long first.

--DarkEnergyMan (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello DarkEnergyMan, any information in the lead not present in the body should be added/moved, as the lead should contain a summary of the article body only. Certainly, I would agree the detail on religion is currently excessive. (It's not as excessive as History however, which takes up two paragraphs on its own.) If you would like further opinions, the best place to open a discussion would be at Talk:Ethiopia rather than any particular user talkpage. Best, CMD (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to the Arab states of the Persian Gulf article feel free to do so with WP:V sources

The article in question is being cleaned per the previous Afd discussion. It was poorly written, a collection of countries summaries synth, tagged for cleanup since 2018. In the Afd discussion the issue of the title term multiple historical subjects have been discussed, which is why we're pointing it out in the article. If you do want to add to it feel free to help, as long as you're not resurrecting irrelevant content (WP:Synth) and provide verifiable sources on the article subject.— ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 04:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have started a section-by-section discussion in the talk page. If you believe certain parts of the article has to be resurrected from the clean up please discuss it there. Thanks, and take care — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 07:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The focus on the title term is misplaced. As I have mentioned before, titles are based on article content, not the other way around. Please see Wikipedia:Article titles. If you think there are other topics that people searching the title may want the solution it to add a WP:HATNOTE. CMD (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@User:Chipmunkdavis The multiple (and historical) definitions of the article title is relevant to the article since the cited sources use different historical terms that don't overlap (for example the British Empire 'Arab Gulf states' didn't include Saudi Arabia) this has to be pointed out clearly in the article introduction and body. Fuck, dude, it's even more relevant than the previous article content. And in my sincere opinion we have to expand on the template that I have started, I might be biased toward my opinion but I strongly believe that this is the correct method to use to fix the article. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 11:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has objected to the addition of content. CMD (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@CMD instead of reving to last 'stable version' can you please explain why this WP:BOLD action (removing the Peace section) is unwarranted? that's per the arguments in the talk page. And I'm not specifically talking about synth but the NPOV issues as well — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 14:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear Chipmunkdavis,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Troll sockpuppets

Hi, Chipmunk. I have blocked three sockpuppet accounts which were clearly here for the sole purpose of harassing you, by reverting your editing and other means. (Those accounts are Lidgro Steak, TomentoSues, and CaptainHapa.) It seems safe to assume that it's someone with a grudge against you because of something you have done recently that they didn't like. If you have any idea who it is I would be interested to know. JBW (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, when I posted the message above I had seen only today's editing, but I have now seen that it goes back further. I propose to semi-protect this page for longer than has been done before, and all pages in your user space indefinitely. Please let me know if you disagree with that decision, and I'll revert it. JBW (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this talk page for three weeks. That is a compromise between the need for a much longer protection to stand a chance of stopping the troll and the fact that I really prefer to avoid protecting user talk pages. You may like to set up an alternative talk page for editors who aren't confirmed and so can't edit here. I have done that several times over the years when my main talk page has been protected against vandals, and it usually works remarkably well. Obviously the vandal could just vandalise your alternative talk page instead of this one, but for some reason they almost never do. Presumably it takes the fun out of vandalism if they think most people won't see it. Anyway, if you do decide to use a second talk page it would be possible to protect this one for longer. JBW (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi JBW, thanks for your work. This is related to this SPI. It's habitual, and I am not the first targeted editor. I see no reason why my user subpages shouldn't be protected, but agree with you on user talk hesitation. I'll consider trialling a secondary talkpage. Best, CMD (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you are being harassed by this user. Is there any better way to handle INTSF per other LTA cases? At this rate, 99% of your editing is taken up by combating them. Listing numerous accounts on the SPI page is no longer always a clearcut case due to their use of proxies or editing as an IP and simply results in a cascade of cases nobody really wants to deal with. I hate to see you waste your time doing this when you could be doing more productive things, and it's obvious the LTA seeks to tire you of this cat and mouse pursuit. Even I am getting fed up with them as it results in a huge history mess in the relevant pages. Seloloving (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah it's not 99%, although certainly it's been good for my edit count. Best method remains WP:RBI, possibly with revision deletions. I think the SPI is quite clear cut, it just suffers as SPI is perennially backlogged. CMD (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you

Mohamed Taqi (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the goat. CMD (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Kalabakan District

On 24 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kalabakan District, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the name of Malaysia's Kalabakan District comes from the words "can eat" in a local language? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kalabakan District. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kalabakan District), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Great Pagoda, Kew Gardens

On 2 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Great Pagoda, Kew Gardens, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 18th-century Great Pagoda in London is considered the most important surviving example of Chinoiserie: Chinese-inspired design in Europe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Great Pagoda, Kew Gardens. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Great Pagoda, Kew Gardens), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Animalworlds314

Thanks for cleaning up, I asked the originally blocking admin (Bbb23) to extend it to the IP. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem Elmidae, I see you've found the Tahrzan2105 sock as well. CMD (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh. I was still AGF for that one - hadn't looked at the contribs list chronology, and then the latest ones... yeah. Thanks. I feel this guy will be a recurring pleasure. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you see that s/he opened up an ANI for both of us, Elmidae? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Sinophile

You might want to watch the Sinophile page. I am not going to allege anything of the conduct of the two recent contributors, but have had to remove some inaccurate POV pushing content on Singapore. Seloloving (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

They look like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betteruser/Archive to me. @Darth Coracle: may know more. CMD (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it was You Know Who. In the Philippines section, the authors have tried to lump Taiwanese culture into Chinese culture, so that might be worth noting. I am no expert, though, on the intricacies of the differences between the two, so I won't touch it for now. Seloloving (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Well sockpuppet or no, it looks like it's a load of OR/synth, as you have already specifically noted for Singapore and North Korea. I mean really, calling Christopher Columbus a sinophile? CMD (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I have done my best to remove a few...questionable entries, but as to whether to pursue further, I will leave it up to Darth Coracle, I guess. There are a ton of misleading content there and I am not even sure what tags to place at the top. Seloloving (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

So the stuff that initially tipped me off were a few edits which alleged that Soren Kierkegaard, Niels Bohr, and Aage Bohr had been inspired by Daoism, since Betteruser just completely mangled the sources to try and prove it. Considering [9], I'm inclined to agree. Were there any other accounts besides Synchronize6th and Knottinghill? Darth Coracle (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Darth Coracle:, those two have the vast majority of edits on the page since the IP was blocked, but a CU check might find more. CMD (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Request in revising history content regarding Balikbayan box and Overseas Filipino Worker

Hello. May I kindly request you to please revise the Balikbayan box history section regarding the origins of the box? I have found several sources such as those below linking the balikbayan box to the Balikbayan Progam in the 1970s during President Ferdinand Marcos' time, but is nowehere to be found in the article:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

And perhaps also the history section of the article Overseas Filipino Worker can be revised to include this information? Thanks.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Well the OFW article doesn't really have a History section, which is somewhat of a pity. Your sources do link the emergence of the box to the program, and that information fits in with the existing text on the Balikbayan box article, so would make a good addition. I'll find some time to edit the box article with a small addition, but the OFW article would require some dedicated and significant time. CMD (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic RFC on Countries WikiProject. Thank you.

I am informing you as a participant in the RFC in question. Kahastok talk 17:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Economy of Taiwan

If we google "Mainland China", we can get 218,000,000 results and it's really an indication that English speakers are not so unfamiliar with the term as you had expected. And it's really tricky to say "Taiwan and China" since the official name of Taiwan is actually Republic of China and that one-China priciple is a widely-accepted policy. --HypVol (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid "per previous" is not a valid argument. And accessibility is definitely not affected simply by using the correct term. --HypVol (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A term existing on google does not mean it is widely understood. As for the second part, "Taiwan and China" also appears in google. CMD (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You may have misinterpreted WP:ACCESSIBILITY which basically says Wikipedia pages should be easy to navigate and read for people with disabilities. By no means Wikipedia has banned the use of appropriate and precise terms. --HypVol (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

By comparison, we have MOS:NC-CN clearly stating The term "mainland China"...it should only be used when a contrast is needed. --HypVol (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't cite the guideline, I was referring to the principle. MOS:JARGON runs along the theme I was referring to. As for MOS:NC-CN, it makes it quite clear in the quote you provide that use should be rare, and the bulleted list in question is not one that needs the term, nor a situation that I have seen many external sources use the term for. CMD (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Mainland China is a jargon? I don't agree with the calling. The expression "Taiwan and mainland China" is quite common and I don't see how mainland China here is being viewed as a "jargon". As for MOS:NC-CN, please look at the context: Because of the ambiguity of the term, it should only be used when a contrast is needed and when a simpler construction such as "China, except Hong Kong" is unworkable.. In this case, the conditions are appparently satisfied. The original article said Taiwan's Main export partners include China and Hong Kong and that Taiwan's Main import partners include China. If you would insist that the use of mainaland China here is a "jargon", we may have to resort to a RfC. --HypVol (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Three external sources here: US government: Mainland China is Taiwan’s largest trading partner, accounting for 23.9 percent of total trade and 18.6 percent of Taiwan’s imports in 2018.; Statista: Mainland China is Taiwan's largest export partner.; South China Morning Post: The mainland is Taiwan's largest trading partner – ahead of the US. --HypVol (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's jargon. It's a specific political term that has a very unintuitive meaning. While I am not familiar with the discussions creating NC-CN, that is presumably why it notes the term as ambiguous. Bulleted lists are one place it should definitely be avoided, as it's not contrasted with anything else. CMD (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Bulleted lists are one place it should definitely be avoided: Would you mind explaining why? HypVol (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

And even if mainland China is a "jargon", WP:TECHNICAL#Avoid_overly_technical_language says Use jargon and acronyms judiciously instead of banning the use of "jargons".--HypVol (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A bullet in a list has no context, unlike the sentences given as examples in NC-CN which had the direct contrasts in the same sentence. Use across all economic lists is unjudicious. CMD (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A bullet in a list has no context: No, the biggest context is the article's name itself Economy of Taiwan. The trading partners here are Taiwan's trading partners. --HypVol (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There's no issue there, it's easily understood by readers. CMD (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

And it's also important to tell readers that Taiwan's biggest trading partner is Mainland China, not China. It's not the same thing. Even Taiwan's government agrees that Mainland China is Taiwan's largest export market, largest source of imports. (per Bureau of Foreign Trade). --HypVol (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written to reflect the diplomatic conventions of the one-china policy, but to reflect common English usage. Hence the current article titles of China and Taiwan. CMD (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It's becoming off-topic. Back to the original discussion, the use of Mainland China here is by no means far less understandable term to most readers. But rather it's totally legitimate per MOS:NC-CN. --HypVol (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

And shall we move the thread to Talk:Economy of Taiwan to request for a possible third-party opinion? --HypVol (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what the connection between supposed legitimacy and understandability is, but you are welcome to begin discussion at an appropriate venue. CMD (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Postage stamps and postal history of the Pitcairn Islands

On 7 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Postage stamps and postal history of the Pitcairn Islands, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a decline in the sale of stamps from the Pitcairn Islands (example pictured) led to the territory's bankruptcy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Postage stamps and postal history of the Pitcairn Islands. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Postage stamps and postal history of the Pitcairn Islands), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 12:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Peer review sustainable energy

I was wondering if you would fancy commenting on the Peer review of sustainable energy that me and Clayoquot are planning to bring to FAC. I really appreciated your work at the FAR of climate change :). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have a few things on my July plate, but I will try to take a look in early August. Feel free to remind me then if I forget. CMD (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Kenya women's national volleyball team

On 25 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kenya women's national volleyball team, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first Olympic volleyball match in more than 16 years for Kenya's Malkia Strikers is being played today in Tokyo against Japan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kenya women's national volleyball team. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kenya women's national volleyball team), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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) 00:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - your intervention at DYK prevented this from being abandoned. Victuallers (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Regional Committee for ESEAP region

Hello ChipmunkDavis, I'm Chris Schilling, a program officer with the Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm reaching out to you regarding your Regional Committee application for the ESEAP region. Could you contact me at cschillingwikimedia.org as soon as possible? With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. CMD (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Economy of South Korea

In case you were wondering, both IPs  Confirmed proxies, consistent with INTSF's technical pattern. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Good to know regarding the technicalities. I didn't really have any doubt, it's pretty obviously an active period right now. It's so active that I think that INTSF is restoring the edits of two other sockpuppets ([15][16][17]) from other cases I've been involved with, which is novel. CMD (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I left them some kittens though. Seloloving (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

All  Confirmed, all consistent. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Seloloving, more kittens is a net gain for all. CMD (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Spidey senses tingling

I haven't been following INSTF socks and the content they have created recently, so I would like to check in with you on this page Singaporean national identity to see if it should be report for an SPI. – robertsky (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Robertsky: That's a good sense, the more I look at it the more I agree. It's clearly a sleeper created during a busy period and then clearly getting over the autoconfirmed barrier. As to the specific link, it's typical topic matter, and of course the text has little relation to the purported sources. CMD (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 Core Contest

Hello. Congratulations on winning third place in the 2021 Core Contest. Could you contact me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk to sort out your prize? Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)