Misplaced Pages

User talk:Chipmunkdavis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:39, 12 October 2011 editWatti Renew (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,592 edits Talk:United States#Population of the US WP:Summary Style is new to me. Now there are technical difficulties to open it.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:17, 23 January 2025 edit undoChipmunkdavis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers67,249 edits →Update: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User talk:Chipmunkdavis/ArchiveBox}}
{{archive box|]<br>], ], ]<br>], ]|auto=no|search=yes}}
{{user new message|color=lightblue|name=Chipmunkdavis}}


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.
]


{{clear}}
If '''you''' post on ''this page'', I will respond on ''this page''.


== Please explain this to me ==
If '''I''' post on ''your talk page'', I will have it watchlisted for the duration of the conversation (and possibly longer)


I do not understand why you reverted my edit on ] or ],while it is probably within the range of talk page use,it was not related to those articles, the thread on ] I removed because it was related to the article ],not the Article ],and the thread on ] I removed is because it was related to the article ],not the article ] ] (]) (]) 03:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
== New Guinea ==
I remind you of the policy ]. The lead of the article ] is not the place to debate the merits of whether the term Malay Archipelago is arbitrary or a colonial construct. The term Indo-Australian Archipelago is perfectly applicable and neutral and no editorializing is necessary.
:I have not made any reverts or debated whether the term was a colonial construct. Your edit removed more than that anyway. Bring it up on the talk page. ] (]) 16:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for the suggestion. If I change the name of the archipelago back to indo-australian archipelago, logically I would revert the comment that inclusion in the malay archipelago is arbitrary. Is this okay with you? It would only leave your linkification later in the first paragraph. If this is not okay, and you want to say that its inclusion in the malay archipelago is arbitrary, let me know on the talk page of the article. (I have no problem with explaining this in the body of the article, if you think it is important, but it is to much a fringe issue for the lead.) If I don't hear from you, I'll revert to indo-australian archipelago. in the first sentences.] (]) 01:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
:::I explained my inclusion in the talk page. Hope it helps. ] (]) 06:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


:also in ] I removed an uncivil comment,that happens on[REDACTED] when comments are not civil, am I wrong? ] (]) (]) 03:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
== Pan-American ==
::I did not revert your edit on Talk:Canada. There is a point where discussions are removed but both of those threads did not get close to that point. Uncivil comments are not usually removed no, and the one you removed was not even uncivil. Please stop trying to moderate talkpages, it takes some time to become familiar with the norms here. ] (]) 04:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Maybe, though it's an enormous can of worms to delve into at all. ] is already an unholy mess; and ] could probably be an unholy mess as well - nothing related to the Americas is easy or one-sentence-y, in my experience. Cheers, ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 11:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Looking at your contribution history,I see you to have removed comments and threads,for example,that is what I was trying to do <span style="color: Purple">] (] ]!)</span> 02:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::::That is not what you were doing. A clear difference for example is that the comment I removed was random gibberish, the comments you removed were about article development. ] (]) 02:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@], I'm going to try being blunt again: you are a comparatively inexperienced editor. If you are not yet sure what the distinctions in the rules are generally understood to be, then please refrain from enforcing those rules and just observe what others do instead for now, and ask about things that might be real problems first. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


== East Sea == == Good article nominee ==


Hello, I recently nominated the article '']'' as a good article under the Language and literature subtopic, though I believe it could also fit under World history. Since you have not "contributed significantly" to the article, you might be able to review it according to the criteria. I would like to know if, having the necessary skills for this, you would be willing to do so. Thank you, ] (]) 12:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
While I appreciate your edit on the East Sea question, I kept both names as an effort to keep the Koreans happy. While driving on the freeway in Los Angeles yesterday, I saw a big, well-placed billboard in one of the outlying K-Towns that pronounced that "East Sea" was always the proper name!--] (]) 13:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
:I could take a wild guess at the nationality of the people who bought that billboard ;) I was simply editing per the convention, I won't object to an undoing of what I did, although I don't think it's necessary to have it in all of the time Sea of Japan is mentioned. I do find it an interesting debate though! ] (]) 13:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


:Noted ]. I am not full of time at the moment, but I will keep it in mind for the next time I look at GAN. Fear not someone will look at it at some point. Best, ] (]) 15:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
==The Queen==
Hi, in more detail than I provided in the article (because its quite complicated, but I thought people would be able to understand the wording and realise what I was talking about), the Queen is a 1st cousin, 4 times removed, to all of her children, due to them all being descendents of Queen Victoria and Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, who were 1st cousins as grandchildren of King George III. The closer family connection was provided for when Victoria's grandson, the future George V, married Mary Adelaide's daughter, Mary of Teck. The source is the ancestry charts on Wiki which show the previous generations of the Royal Family. ] (]) 21:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


== Sorry to bug you ==
==Etymology in Country articles==
Please avoid the perception of tracing my recent edits in country articles. You have specifically
separated Etymology sections from History main section in country articles after the recent edits that followed the MOS . From an outsider position your edits could be interpreted as a personal edit war. Please avoid this impression in the future. Because my edits have a solid base in the MOS ] (concerning the Etymology part) and yours haven´t, I have to ask you stop this. ] (]) 14:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
:There is an ] on the matter, stick to it. ] (]) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


<s>Is my reasons at ] not clear or out to lunch? Should I remove the tag over tryng to move forward in improve the section? Is this just a case of one of us or both of us exhibiting</s> '']''. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 18:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Not concerning the Etymology recommendation, as this was already a recommendation before my recent edits on this Project Page. ] (]) 15:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
:Nevermind...going with ] to much effort for any change.SORRY TO TAKE UP YOUR READING TIME! <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 20:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:It does concern it. Etymology is point 3 in the RFC. ] (]) 15:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


== Join the talk ==
As far as I can see, you or any other editor have NOT made a relevant proposal for changing the MOS ] in terms of positioning of the Etymology part. Am I wrong ?
I´m afraid I´m right. ] (]) 15:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


Why did you undo my writting?
:You're wrong. I made a proposal in the RFC. "...it should be a separate header" ] (]) 15:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Plz join the talk and tell me why
Im qwert0617 ] (]) 14:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


:I have already posted on the talk. If you are them, then you will see your message saying it was finished. ] (]) 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Neither you nor any other editor have made a proposal for changing the recommended position of Etymology (preferably in History) in the relevant talk page here: ] ! There is NO evidence not even an edit made on ] that indicates a change from the established recommendation. This was the last comment concerning this issue here on your talk page. I expect any serious argumentation to happen on the specific talk pages. ] (]) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
:There is a ] at the ]. ] (]) 02:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


== Still waiting for the Royal Revert. == == Million Award for East Timor ==


{| style="border: 1px solid red; background-color: #fff7f7; width: 100%;"
Hi, I have given you a week to reply to my earlier section titled 'The Queen', which you have not yet done; I have been waiting for you to revert your last edit to the page in question as you promised you would do when I provided the justification for the inclusion of this noteworthy information. If you do not respond soon, I shall have to revert your edit for you and assume you are happy with the inclusion of my edit.
| rowspan="2" | ]
| style="font-size: x-large;" | '''The Million Award'''
|-
| style="border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your contributions to bring ] (estimated annual readership: ) to ] status, I hereby present you the ]. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Misplaced Pages's readers! ] (]) 17:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
|}<!-- Template:Millionaward -->
Thanks for your work on this vital article! – ] (]) 17:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
With best intentions,
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
] (]) 20:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC) ' '''information is gold''' '.


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


Why can't the public domain poster be used? ] (]) 22:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
== Oceania ==


Just a heads up that I noticed that the IP that has been edit warring on ] made the same edit again; I did not revert because I do not consider myself familiar with the subject, but as their talk page is empty, I did leave an edit warring template on their talk page. Perhaps a note on ] would help in clearing up the issue? Thanks, ] (]) 15:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC) :It's currently used in the article. At any rate, the posters are clearly the same design and have the same copyright info, it is unlikely their copyright is different. How did you figure out the copyright on the poster was not renewed? ] (]) 23:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::Because it doesn't state it was. I also contacted the owner on where I found the poster and he said it's copyright was not renewed. ] (]) 10:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::So can I please revert it? ] (]) 10:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The copyright from the movie was renewed, per an ongoing discussion on Commons. As I noted, both posters will have the same status, which may or may not be affected by the movie copyright renewal. Further, the poster is already in the article. ] (]) 12:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Only the restoration of the film's copyright has been renewed. But the copyright for the poster has not been renewed ] (]) 15:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::If you have a source for that that would be of great help in the discussion. Either way, that would also apply to all the posters, not just one. ] (]) 17:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I emailed from the owner of the website "The Judy Room" who is Scott Brogan (where I found the Girl Crazy posters) and he said all of the posters, magazine ads, lobby cards; etc copyright's hasn't been renewed. So they are in the public domain. ] (]) 09:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That is certainly a possibility. If so, that would as stated apply to the existing poster as well, so there isn't a public domain poster and a non-public domain poster. ] (]) 10:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::But the one that was uploaded as fair use was mistaken as fair use ] (]) 11:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::If true, why not fix that? ] (]) 12:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Fix the fair use one? ] (]) 15:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Per your information the posters are not fair use but public domain, so they can be fixed to state that. ] (]) 15:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Ok, I'll export it commons ] (]) 16:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


== Out of curiosity ==
:Thanks. It's not a content issue for me, but a style issue. There's probably a better way to write it, I'll post on talk. ] (]) 15:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


About your comment on an IP address' puffery, there was a longstanding issue surrounding this? As you did mention that none of this is new. ] (]) 18:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
== Peer Review on Falkland Islands ==


:There isn't anything definite, as these are IPs and so harder to draw links between, but the history of ] and ] for example have a lot of IPs that various tall building articles. It is likely at least some are the same person. That said, there's little that can be done with this, you'll need to do the normal dispute resolution processes. ] (]) 02:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Appreciate the enthusiasm but shouldn't we wait for the peer review to focus our efforts. No objection to the changes, its just a review requires a stable article. ] <small>]</small>
::I see.
:Well, I personally feel we could've done more before a PR, but no problem. I am always happy to avoid work! ] (]) 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
::Well, some have told me to let the ANI case to "play out", but there have been a couple of ANI cases previously that "played out" with zero resolution.
::Hi Chipmunkdavis. I see that you moved the section about "boggy plains" out of flora and fauna into the main part of the section. I appear to have reversed your action - my rationale being that I want to replace that sentence with something more encyclopeadic - flora and fauna is not my forte, so I need to do some reading up (unless you are happy to do it). ] (]) 12:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
::It's been 24 hours and quite frankly, this case appears to be headed the same way - nothing. Considering other dispute resolution procedures, but said IP address is persistently ] and it is sad that ANI has yet to take action on such behaviour. ] (]) 04:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Right. I'm happy to handle Flora and Fauna, and think I can build up a good section from information on sources that are already in the article. Perhaps you can do something better with that sentence, maybe somehow include it in a paragraph about the landscape? I'll do a test breaking of it now. ] (]) 12:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:::It is difficult to get action on AN/I when an issue has both content and behaviour components. Best to do the normal ] and discussion out of the way to isolate the behavioural aspect. ] (]) 06:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah... I have just opened a ], seeking for more consensus. Hope this works. ] (]) 08:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== Did USA really recognized North Korea? ==
== 6 continents ==
Hi. I think all these continent models are current and used in differents regions of the world. The 6-continent model is used in Latin America and South Europe, and being the references in Spanish it is logical to use Oceania instead of Australia. In this case and in general, Oceania is not a synonymous for Australia, and they have different articles. To many non-native English speakers, Australia is an island and a country, but never a continent. Puting Australia in this context is misleading and normally unacceptable. What's your point? Regards. --] (]) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
:The problem is there is a long-standing consensus to keep Australia instead of Oceania on that article. Every model, 6-continent, 5-continent, 7-continent, in English and other languages can interchangeably use Australia or Oceania. Australia has been chosen, being an actual continent rather than a collection of everything that didn't fit in other continents, and the footnote below explains the interchangeability. ] (]) 04:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


In recent months, I saw several concerns from other Wikipedias than enwiki that:
== ] copyedit complete ==
#How can Mongolia became a UN member state? Was that meaning that Taipei (UN seat holder before 1971) recognized Mongolia? North & South Koreas, just like Eastern & Western Germanys, they are bunded and sold.
#A country that can participant in UN, is related with ] that whether they vote oppose (aka. veto) the recommendation of UNSC, but unrelated with whether members of P5 recognize that country, or otherwise we don't need votes, we can just count the statements from "ministry of foreign affairs" of UNSC member states. Even one day United States recognized Palestine as a country, US representative can still veto the UNSC recommendation, so that Palestine still can't be a UN member. In 1991 when North and South Koreas joined UN, China even didn't recognize the South Korea, but why South Korea can still join?
#United Kingdom, Netherlands and Norway were stated in 1950 to recognize government of the People's Republic of China as China's legal government, and de-recognized Taipei regime. But originally these 3 countries all oppose Beijing's claim to replace Taipei's seat in UN, claim that Beijing should suspend their plans to join UN, or both to join UN each other. Thus they didn't establish diplomatic relations until 1954, when Norway decided to support Beijing instead of Taipei, and both UK & NL, which were semi-established whilst still ambiguous on China seat in UN. So far, during 1950-1954, were they recognized PRC government or not?
#During voting of the ], how much of states established with Taipei supported Beijing, some were even keeping ties with Taipei, after the vote, for several years, then how do we count these countries? Were they bi-recognized (i.e. recognize both PRC and Taipei govt)? Or just de facto recognized Beijing?
Which looks like doubting why enwiki removed United States, France, Japan,... from the North Korea entry of the ]. I'm not sure how to answer these doubts properly, so I need your helps on inputs. ] (]) 08:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


:If I'm understanding the quandary correctly—I would reject the notion of {{xt|de facto recognition}} as a contradiction in terms—whether or not lack of recognition means a lack of relations, the concept of recognition ceases to mean anything at all if it becomes anything but explicit. There's not really a lens I can imagine where the US recognizes the DPRK, say, because it all hinges on the stuffy formality that likely correlates with material shifts in relations as well. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I've completed the copyedit of ] that you requested at ]. Fascinating article! <small>And such a cute creature you could make them into... Pokemon or something :)</small> I've not made a huge number of changes, as you'd already dealt with all the problematic apostrophes etc by the time I got there. The article is perfectly intelligible from my sub-undergraduate level of biology knowledge, but I've wikilinked a few extra words to hopefully make it even more accessible. As for wording, I've re-phrased some parts but without (I hope) substantially changing the meaning; you might want to briefly skim through . I think the prose is now suitable for a GA attempt. It would need a lot more work to get to FA, although I'd be happy to help with that as well when the time comes.
::Thanks Remsense. In 1961 the ROC did not vote on the Mongolia admission, see ]. North and South Korea joined together through ], which passed without a vote. As these show, relations and politics are complicated. The China and UN-related questions presume a direct link between recognition and UN votes. They presume a relationship between recognition and relations. Neither of these are the case. As Remsense notes, the essence of recognition (in the modern world) is formal. Recognition is needed for diplomatic relations on a formal level, but relations can occur informally. However, a lack of recognition does not stop one state engaging with an entity they do not accord formal recognition, and conversely the presence of formal recognition does not create the certainty of engagement. ] (]) 09:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It seems the common sense position that the US does not formally recognize the DPRK, but the two clearly have diplomatic relations, and particularly debacular ones at that <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::There are relations between their diplomats for sure. One of the issues with using the plain term "diplomatic relations" to have a narrow formal meaning perhaps, or more likely the purity of the ideal of international relations bending to accommodate reality, as it often does. "Does X recognize Y" is an extremely narrow question with an extremely narrow answer. "Does X have a relationship with Y" is a similar question but with an entirely different scope. ] (]) 09:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Disruptive edits by an IP ==
A couple of minor outstanding issues over what goes where;


Hello, Chipmunkdavis.
* First two sentences of "Capture and captivity" seem out of place in this section - maybe move earlier?


The ] is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page including by yourself.
* Last paragraph of "Environmental degradation" seems (slightly) out of place in this section - maybe move to the existing third sentence of "Ecology and life history"?


Kindest regards, ] (]) 20:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I've also added a few templates to the talk page, plus a possibly useful extra source. --] (]) 17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


:] if they are continuing to be disruptive, you can ask for intervention at ]. ] (]) 02:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks a lot. Looked through the composite diff, and nothing seems out of place. I didn't even think of wikilinking words like Kidney or Lung. I've found it sometimes difficult to determine where information best fits in, but I made both of the changes you suggested, they made sense to me. I'll peruse through the seagrass article and related articles, but BBC nature like the Malaysian government has a bad habit of just copying wikipedia! ] (]) 08:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
::Thank you for the advice. ] (]) 06:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== WikiProject Malaysia September 2024 newsletter ==
== Asean Rail Express ==


{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Malaysia/Newsroom/Newsletter/September 2024}}
Hello! I notice from the 'view history' that you can edit the page ]. Can you change the mistake near the bottom: Asean Rail Express is not the name of the railway line, but rather of a the freighter service run along that line. The line itself, as far as I'm aware, has no name. '''''<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; padding: 1px 3px;">]'''<sup>]</sup></span>''
:I'm sure you could edit the page yourself if you wanted! In lieu of this, I changed it from "railway line" to "railway service", as really it's the connection provided by a single service that is the notable thing about it. ] (]) 14:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks. I would've done it, but it's semi-protected and I'm not yet well-enough established on the English site. You might want to clarify that Asean Rail Exp. is a freighter service. The passenger service doesn't go all the way through, you have to change trains in Butterworth. From KL-Butterworth is operated by Malayan Railways (KTM), and then from Butterworth-Bangkok is by the State Railway of Thailand (SRT). I don't think the routes have names. The only one that does go through is the Eastern and Oriental Express, that's also a passenger service on that line. '''''<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; padding: 1px 3px;">]'''<sup>]</sup></span>'' 20:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


== WikiProject Malaysia October 2024 newsletter ==
== Karpal Singh ==


{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Malaysia/Newsroom/Newsletter/October 2024}}
Hi, I noticed you're a fairly active user who contributes to Malaysia-related articles so I thought I'd run this by you: I intend to take the ] article to good article status, so any help and suggestions are welcome! I'm about to submit it for peer review. - ] <small>'''] · ]'''</small> 04:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


== WikiProject Malaysia November 2024 newsletter ==
== DYK for Religion in Malaysia ==


{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Malaysia/Newsroom/Newsletter/November 2024}}
Hi Chipmunkdavis, sorry for the late reply. Yesterday I was quite busy and did not get a chance to go online in the evening, so I did not see your request. Congratulations on fixing that problem, and I am glad that ] has been approved (it is now in Prep 4). Hopefully the DYK script will help you in the future. Keep up the good work! ] (]) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


== January 2025 GAN Backlog Drive ==
==DYK for Religion in Malaysia==
{{tmbox
|style = notice
|small =
|image = ]
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that due to laws regarding ''']''' a non-Muslim must obtain the permission of his Muslim neighbours to get a pet dog?'' You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ].
}} Thanks from the DYK project ] (]) 14:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: #F6FAFF; padding: 10px; color: #000;"
== Evolution of the British Empire revert ==
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" |

]
What's confusing about describing Canada as a dominion during that period? Canada's status as a dominion is universally accepted... as the article is written now, it makes it appear as though Canada became independent in 1867 and ignores the fact that it held the same status as the other dominions (which all noted to have been such) up until the Statute of Westminster. There's no ambiguity in Canada's status between 1867 and 1931, it was exactly the same as that of Australia between 1901 and 1942 with the primary difference being that Canada didn't have to pass an act to adopt the Statute of Westminster as it automatically applied to every dominion but Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland. This is reflected in every article on the matter, from ] to ] to ] to ] itself. -- ] (]) 08:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
| rowspan=3 | ]

:It could be confusing as Canada is still sometimes called a Dominion. In addition, unlike in the Australia/New Zealand tables, there is no "Event Ending Political Entity" column, which is necessary to make it clearer. However, the lack of this is not anyone's immediate fault, so I've self-reverted. Next time, please discuss a single article content change on the article talk page rather than a user talk page, so other's can see. Cheers, ] (]) 15:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

== Whitby ==

Many thanks for the very thorough peer review. As an editor, it is sometimes difficult to get a global perspective and your comments will help with future articles as well.--] (]) 12:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

== Bare links ==

'''Maintenance categories''' {{tl|Barelinks}} is applied irrespective of how many bare links there are in an article because any of them leave the sources vulnerable to ]. If you want to see a much longer explanation of why this is a problem, see . —]❤]☮]☺]☯ 05:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

== Alcohol spam ==

Please see and discuss on talk page. ] | ] 05:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

== Dominion of Pakistan ==

(sorry for the late reply. somehow missed your post and didnt see it till now). As for the official documents - instruments of accession signed by states that joined pakistan use that term. throws up some examples. For example, is the accession document for ] and of ]--] (]) 15:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

== Good Article promotion ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Congratulations!'''
|- |-
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for all the work you did in making ] a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. Here is some tasty seagrass as a reward.
* On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.

* Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed.
In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the ] that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup>
* Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words.
* Interested in taking part? ''']'''.
|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from ] or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add ] to your user talk page.
|} |}


] (]) 22:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
== Response ==
<!-- Message sent by User:Queen of Hearts@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Good_articles/GAN_Backlog_Drives/January_2025/Mass_message_list&oldid=1263928765 -->


== In-Text Citations ==
Thankyou for your response, friend. I'm sorry I have not been able to get online for the past few days. I've responded to you on my talk page. Chao, ] (]) 19:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


I'm adding a new source to ] for the great axe factory of the ]. This is my bibliography citation: *{{cite web |url=https://coflein.gov.uk/en/site/407068/ |publisher= UK Government |title=Axe Factory, Graig Lwyd;Graiglwyd |date=2021| ref={{Harvid|UKGov|2021}} }}. This is my in-text citation: {{sfn|UKGov|2021}}. I feel like I'm doing something wrong, specifically with the in-text citation. Please let me know if I am. ] (]) 16:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hello, I responded to your message on my talk page. ] (]) 17:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:Hi ], what do you feel is going wrong? The in-line citation seems to correctly link to the long-form citation. If you're worried about specific formatting quirks, I would say don't worry about it too much, so long as it's clear what the source is any editor can tweak it. ] (]) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


== Wayback machine == == Season's Greetings ==


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FFF7E6;"
I just went to http://wayback.archive.org/web/ and entered "http://www.time.com/time/asia/2003/mahathir/mahathir961209.html" into the search box and clicked "latest". One thing: check you don't have "http://" twice; it is easy to do that since one is there already. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Season's Greetings'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | <blockquote>When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it." </blockquote>


(Text on page 17 illustrated in the ] in ]'s ''Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers'', illustrated by ], London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.)
==Isle of Man - Council of Europe==
(Further to "(Undid revision 445147142 by Arrivisto (talk) Mention of the CoE is extremely WP:UNDUE, it is barely mentioned even on the pages of its members) :
I had not intended this entry to be biased, but rather a neutral statement that although the IoM was not a member of the CoE, nevertheless the CoE's European Convention of Human Rights can be made to apply via the "supervision" of the UK. I think this information should be on the IoM page, but I am content (pro tem) to be advised on a "less biased" way of doing it.
(Also: "it is barely mentioned even on the pages of its members" I don't understand this! Whose members? ) ] (]) 14:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


]] 04:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Hey, thanks for the message. Sorry to be unclear. I reverted the addition of the section not because of bias, but because I didn't think it deserved that much detail and its own level four subsection. The Council of Europe is not really mentioned on the pages of its members (which is what I meant by "its members", sorry), most just say it is a member, if nothing else. It seems strange then to mention it on the page of somewhere that is not a member. However, the information that the UK can intervene does seem relevant. Can you source the birching? If you include that it'd be far more relevant. I'd suggest not creating a new subsection though, the page is overloaded as it is. ] (]) 15:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
|}

:], very grateful for another yearly welcome. I'm afraid this book was not part of my childhood, I will have to look into it with new eyes. ] (]) 16:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== Willamette River FAC ==
::I inherited this book from a relative, who may have inherited it from an older relative! Ewing is mostly out of print now. Fashions have changed. Her writing is probably more moralistic than is accepted now, even though she wasn't really by the standards of the late 19th century. Even so every now and then in her books you find some real gems of writing. ]] 18:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis. I remember when you did the peer review of ]. First of all, thank you for your feedback there, and I wanted to let you know that the article is now at FAC, in case you wanted to weigh in there. It can be found at ]. ] ] 04:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
:Here's ], in case you wanted to comment there. ] ] 16:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

== Welsh and ovelink ==

On reading the ], you were right to unlink Welsh but I think the policy is a bit heavy handed and have proposed ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

== Venetian Ionian Islands ==

Thank you so much for your response and the time you spent on it! I have some questions on ''Relations between Venice and Byzantium'':
* What do you want to say about the Barbaric invasions?
* The sources do not provide such list. Should I remove ''"Such treaties include the Byzantine–Venetian Treaty of 1082."'' then?
* I included this section with the thought that before the Fourth Crusade the islands were part of the Byzantine Empire. You think I should put it under background as a distinct subsection then?
* I only found Ottoman names for two of the islands.
* Which information you mean?

And, generally, what do you think of the so far alterations? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Hello! Yes, that was me. I'll continue in the Peer Review page. --] (]) 12:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Somebody changed the name of the article without even put it under discussion! Can he do it? At least without suggesting it first? --] (]) 11:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

:Yep, in line with the ] guideline. Equally, you can revert it without discussion, in the spirit of ]. ] (]) 12:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

::Anyway. This is over now. What do you think on the article now? Is it more complete? What do you have to say? --] (]) 18:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

== Draft for RFC ==

Finally got that draft done today. It's at ]. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

== SADR rev ==
Honestly man, is a bit uncalled for. I'll start a discussion for this trivial edit, but I will not bother to revert if '''anyone''' objects. ] (]) 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:I do. Will respond there in a minute. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>''' 17:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
== please help ==

HI, I found some Anonymous IP adress are Break this article : ] , please take ACTION to stop it, thanks.] (]) 12:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

== A kitten for you! ==

]
Okay, how can we reach a consensus to end this?

] (]) 02:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both"/>

:You should open up a discussion on ] where you state your change and why you think it would be beneficial. ] (]) 03:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

== Kenya ==
I'm not really familiar with this user talk thing, but I just don't understand why you want to use the outdated orthographic map that only a fraction of the African country articles use. This map is pretty much shows whatever the other one does, and is more appealing to the eye.. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You should really place this at ], but basically the map is completely accurate and actually more up to date than the AU one, having South Sudan. Even without, a map showing Kenya's position in the world is much better than one showing it just in Africa. Showing it in the AU also gives the AU a relevance it simply doesn't have, making it seem as important as the EU. ] (]) 03:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

== Malaysia history chart ==

Hey, I just noticed the improvements you made to the Malaysia history, and am dropping this note to say good work. Colouring the columns and making a similar colour coded map was an extremely novel idea, and it works brilliantly. Cheers, ] (]) 16:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Chipmunkdavis. Much appreciated''!'' ''']&#9786;]''' 17:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

==Commonwealth of Nations==
Why are you vandalizing the member states of the ]? ] 18:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
:Not all members of the ] are ]s. ] (]) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
::True, but if you find an error, please don't revert all changes. ] 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
:::I try not to. ] (]) 15:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

== List of states with limited recognition ==

why have you reverted here when the source clearly states that NK didn't recognize anyone de jure? Why do you think "de facto recognition" or "de jure recognition" are "oxymoron"? Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and such "nuances" matter. Please see this from Oxford University Professor Talmon, an international law expert: "Distinctions between “de facto recognition,” “diplomatic recognition” and “de jure recognition” may be traced back to the secession of the Spanish provinces in South America in early 19th century." That much is obvious from a Misplaced Pages article on ]. But wait, here's more:

*Professor of International Law at the University of Leicester ]
*Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor Boleslaw Adam Boczek
*United States Naval War College and UC Berkeley Professor ], who "is considered one of the preeminent jurists of the 20th century and has been highly influential among scholars of jurisprudence and public law"
*Dr. ]
*judge Nurullah Yamali
*Indian jurist S. K. Verma

As you can see, it's not an "oxymoron". Kindly revert back your edit or provide a better justification that would trump professors Talmon, Shaw, Boczek, Kelsen, Bedjaoui and all other international law experts. --] (]) 06:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

:It is one, even if it has come into use. I don't doubt that it exists as a phrase, just that it shouldn't be used without very good sourcing. But your source? Seriously? A thread on a forum? No. ] (]) 08:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

::First off, there is no thread from any forum above - these are all reliable, verifiable articles from top experts. Secondly, the reference I gave in the article comment section was of an article from Arminfo news agency , that was simply archived on a forum. I did not use it in bibliography, only in the comment section to show that the information in the article was incorrect. If you'd checked, you would have found the original article on its news agency website. Thirdly, the incorrect information that I changed - and you've restored - relies on a article from a forum site - why aren't you removing and reverting that? It would be better if you carefully study the sources provided, and then revert yourself as you've obviously been in haste when you made a revert. Thank you. --] (]) 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

==Your question==
From my talk page about where the link was from: it doesn't especially matter (The note is a request not to randomly rename the section), but if you're really curious and didn't want to go through the linked here page, I'm using "Etymology of X" redirects to include the etymology sections of some national pages in {{tl|main}} hatnotes on the ] article without having to include ugly hatchmarks or uglier {{tl|dablink}} headers. The hope is that information and sources can be more easily checked and shared across pages. Right now, that's it, but some articles could also use them for cross-comparison of etymologies (all the ''*]'' cognates come to mind). — ] 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
:Sry for being coy on my talk page. I just figured I'd be done here soon enough it wouldn't matter. Obviously not! — ] 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
::No problem. Thanks for the clarification. I commend you on your mission. ] (]) 15:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

== How did you made your nice user page? ==

Hello,

Question for you. How did you make the user page with the things like 'This user is a native speaker of English.' And 'This user is interested in Geography'.

Thank you for your help again,
] (]) 19:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

:The ones I have on my page are just standard ], which someone else made and I just pasted on my page. Basically you paste a particular code, for example, the native english speakers can be coded with <nowiki>{{user en}}</nowiki>. The ] has a links to lists of hundreds you can look through. Hope the helps, ] (]) 01:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


:Thank you! ] (]) 07:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

== Germany - citation needed ==

Hello Chipmunkdavis, thanks for keeping an eye on the Germany article. I believe, you are sometimes a little too strict with citation requirements, but it's still greatly appreciated to keep the article in good shape. Do you have a suggestion regarding the last two "citation needed" issues?
*"constituent states" - number of Kreise and kreisfreie Städte. Apparently this number will and does change (due to mergers, splits, promotion of new cities). Would it help to just say "approximately 440" and link to the central German statistics site?
*"list of musicians" - i doubt, we could find an easy source for this list. Maybe just remove the "have influenced" part and plainly state, that those musicians are popular as common knowledge? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I'm much less strict than many, in my experience. Especially some of the PR, GAN, and FAC old timers. But that's policy I suppose. I only wish it was easier to improve it from the current state, but never mind now. Perhaps there is some sort of list or information in German instead? I'd suggest listing the city states, and then summarising the divisions of others, rather than trying to explain it all in a long sentence. Don't give a total number if it's not feasible, and considering how even without the 3 citystates German states have different subdivisions it may even be slightly misleading to lump them all into one number.
:As for lists, sourcing is a major problem with them. Sometimes you can get a source for a list, but even then one should say what the source is in the article text. The problem with common knowledge is it isn't common, and even with sourced lists, you have IPs and user coming in and adding or removing due to their personal opinions. Perhaps with popular music there is a list for best selling artists which can be used? The list of classical composers isn't sourced either unfortunately. I usually try to replace lists with a general statement, because in the end they're just too much trouble. ] (]) 10:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

== Nagorno Karabakh ==

all sources that were mention show all 3 countries of the caucasus in the same region, though Abkhazia and South Ossetia could be considered as part of the region where Russia is (if the Caucasus and Russia are in the different regions), Nagorno-karabakh is clearly in the same region as Armenia/Azerbaijan, even if you complain about it i'll add that most of the sources have map which shows Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan and part of its region. Still its ridiculus that a country page on[REDACTED] lacks general location information. ] (]) 15:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
:Yes they all border each other, but the divide between Europe and Asia is the peaks of the Caucasus Mountains, which is far to the north of the NKR. ] (]) 16:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
::There is no accepted border between Europe and Asia, recently socio-political criteria is used more often than geographical, however two major sources - UN and the CIA use the old-styled geographical version, however EU, BBC, worldatlas, FIFA, FIBA, FIVB (and in practice every sport governing body) consider whole Caucasus being part of Europe. ] (]) 16:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
:::There is an accepted border, reliable sources all use exactly the same one. Whether bodies classify the caucasian countries as European or Asian is entirely up to them, but it doesn't change geography. ] (]) 16:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Not actually like you mentioned, but you're right on the geography part. However there isn't an accepted border between subregions, so there are two possible outcomes<br />
1. Armenia is located in Asia<br />
2. Armenia is located in Asia and is socio-politically part of Eastern Europe, South-Eastern Europe, Western Asia or Central Asia
I think the second version is better ] (]) 16:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
:Subregions must be by definition part of the broader region, but even so, they are completely arbitrary and based on the opinion of whoever is defining them. Here's how it is: Armenia is fully within the borders of Asia. However, culturally it is very similar to many European states and it has politically aligned itself towards Europe. Does this justify a giant obtuse footnote? No. ] (]) 17:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
::Deleting some footnotes and using your template on all inter/trans-continental countries would be just great and suitable for both sides, you have really found right words to explain the situation, great job! ] (]) 17:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Thank you. Good change in NKR by the way removing the region. That was confusing. ] (]) 18:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

== Maps ==
Hi thank for the advice, this is exactly what i wanted to do but i can't find any link to upload new version of the file, can you help me please.
] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== WikiProject Malaysia December 2024 newsletter ==
== China vs. People's Republic of China ==


{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Malaysia/Newsroom/Newsletter/December 2024}}
There is no one to revert the ] link, it has now redirected to ]. See ] and the ] has still linked with "People's Republic of China" article. The only thing is China is now the ] of "PRC". Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:Right, sorry, I was confused. Cheers, ] (]) 05:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


== Bulgaria is Southeastern Europe and Romania is Southeastern/Central Europe. Neither are Core Eastern European ==
== Cabinda Province ==


<p>Your attempts to classify Bulgaria and Romania as (Core/ East Slavic) Eastern European, Russian-influenced countries to a greater extent than the Baltic countries, Poland, Hungary or Former Yugoslavia is biased and not backed up by any scientific, academic or political sources. These two countries are grouped in Eastern Europe only within the context of the post-communist states (Eastern Europe, where the two countries are lumped with the Visegrád countries), or as part of the broader Eastern Orthodox region (where Greece, Serbia, North Macedonia and Montenegro are included).
In order to give the historical perspective, I consider it important to maintain the link ]. This is why I reverted your edit where the link was eliminated. If you think the matter has to be discussed, please do so. -- ] (]) 10:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
<p>By contrast, Romania is a Latin country and Bulgaria a South Slavic country, neither being (in their current territories) ever included in the former Russian Empire. When not discussing these two contexts, the Eastern European region (as per the CIA, Britannica, etc.) include the countries speaking East Slavic languages and post-Soviet Moldova exclusively. The arguments regarding Austrian, Hungarian and Turkish influences (traits of the former Yugoslav states as well) are also valid.
:Portuguese Congo is just a redirect to Cabinda Province. Absolutely useless. ] (]) 10:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
<p>The most cited websites (which include a reliable data source and an encyclopedia) clearly list the countries as Southeastern European, and not Eastern (East Slavic) European.
Ok, I have the intention to write a page on Portuguese Congo and shall then re-introduce the link. -- ] (]) 11:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
<p>https://www.britannica.com/place/Bulgaria
:That would be a good idea. ] (]) 22:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
<p>https://www.britannica.com/place/Romania
<p>https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/bulgaria/
<p>https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/romania/
<p>https://www.worldatlas.com/maps/romania
<p>https://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/romania/
<p>https://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/bulgaria/
<p>Since none of the above-mentioned sources group the two countries within the (Core) Eastern Europe, the edits that specify Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine must be left intact and no biased edits, not backed by any cited sources (the "many sources" comment in the reversion is not accompanied by citations, which is punishable in academia ) must influence the content of publicly-accessible pages such as those for ] and ]. ] (]) 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


== !help == == RFC Notice ==


Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the ]. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: {{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not|RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations}}. ] (]) 01:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello Chipminkdavis,


== January music ==
It's me again :-(
{{User QAIbox
I have a problem, I now did something stupid and all my userboxes are wrong placed (not in nice lines above each other). Can you may look to it and explain me how to organize them?
| image = Ehrenbach icicles.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Snskiller
| image_upright = 1.3
First I like the language I speak above, then my games etc, my interest and maths stuff, then my opinions and likes.
| bold = ] · ] · ]
But I guess I even added a wrong header because it do not show on my profile.
}}
Happy new year 2025, opened with ] that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had it). My ] is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. -- ] (]) 14:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:Happy new Year Gerda! ] (]) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyways thank you very much (again).
:: Thank you! - Today a violinist from Turkey, ], whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --] (]) 22:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Greetings,
:: ... and today, ], ], in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author ]. --] (]) 19:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 18:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Today, between many who just died, ] on his 45th birthday who was good for ] mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --] (]) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Glad to hear about a musician who hasn't recently passed away :) ] (]) 06:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: 2 others, though: today I have ] (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with ] who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --] (]) 19:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== CS1 error on ] ==
:The easiest way to organise them is to arrange them in a wikitable form. If you check my user page, the extra information section I have uses this. The table allows you to group the rows together, and if you're tricky enough you can colour backgrounds and all sorts of fancy stuff. Check out the ] for a detailed look at different ways to arrange your userpage if you're so interested, it may be of great help! ] (]) 22:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that ] performed by you, on the page ], may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
* A ] error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can .
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->] (]) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== N2e == == Update ==


I knew I remembered you from somewhere: ]! I'll have you know that the article cites '''way''' fewer primary sources now and is probably closer to a proper GA status than it used to be. I've read multiple books and made 400+ edits, but there's still a long road ahead. For example, the country interactions still need to be more seriously fleshed out. Not expecting you to do anything about that but figured you might find an update like this interesting. ] ] 04:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to provide a cite, I did have one ready in a sandpit. Sorry if I was being slightly petty but N2e irritates me when he does drive by tagging and then comes back and deletes information it would take very little time to find a cite for himself. Thats all he does. ] <small>]</small> 12:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, I'd understand if the fact was not immediately obvious and not easy to find, but for something that can be found on the first page of a google search, it's a bit off. I think the spirit of ] should be applied, although obviously it's on a much smaller scale. ] (]) 12:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::Trouble is he tags facts that are immediately obvious (often they're already cited by a reference) and its not always obvious what he disputes. He has a bad habit of adding a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tag at the end of huge paragraphs and you've no idea what facts he is disputing. Anyway vented enough already, thanks for your patience. ] <small>]</small> 14:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


:Hi ], I am always happy to hear about article improvement. It does look rather well sourced, although I note there is a citation to Encyclopaedia Britannica in the lead! I also see "Adherents commonly call their body of beliefs "The Truth"", which doesn't seem to be in the body. That said, I don't think you need to worry about GA status. Thinking about Government interactions and FAC, it might be worth getting some in put from those with much more FAC experience. It is my impression that a list of individual countries is not the best way to get through FAC, as it heads towards "overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings" territory and is not conducive to presenting an overall picture. This is not to say don't flesh it out, just a note that perhaps the fleshing out will identify strands of information that can be put together as a summary, perhaps with details moving to the subpage. ] (]) 07:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
::Well the problem is that most reliable sources focus on government interactions rather than beliefs (this limited scholarship focus is mentioned somewhere in the article already), so I don't see how this could be an FA without that. What is wrong with a citation to the Encyclopedia Britannica? I didn't add it but I don't see why it can't be there. I already have someone that will help me with FAC when I'm ready, it's just that getting the article in the best shape I can before all that part I'm still working on. ] ] 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, ] is new to me. I answer after reading it. Now there are technical difficulties to open it. ] (]) 17:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Britannica has a no consensus on ], so usually it gets raised if its present and replaced. Good to hear you've got a plan for the FAC. ] (]) 17:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:17, 23 January 2025

Archiving icon
Archives

Shiny stuff
Balkan, Caucasus, SEAsia, Malaysia, Philippines, other countries
Nature, Geography, Miscellaneous
Notices, Chitchat, Office


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.

Please explain this to me

I do not understand why you reverted my edit on Talk:Nauru or Talk:Canada,while it is probably within the range of talk page use,it was not related to those articles, the thread on Talk:Nauru I removed because it was related to the article Nauru 19,not the Article Nauru,and the thread on Talk:Canada I removed is because it was related to the article Canadaland,not the article Canada UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 03:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

also in Talk:United States I removed an uncivil comment,that happens on[REDACTED] when comments are not civil, am I wrong? UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 03:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I did not revert your edit on Talk:Canada. There is a point where discussions are removed but both of those threads did not get close to that point. Uncivil comments are not usually removed no, and the one you removed was not even uncivil. Please stop trying to moderate talkpages, it takes some time to become familiar with the norms here. CMD (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Looking at your contribution history,I see you to have removed comments and threads,thisfor example,that is what I was trying to do UnsungHistory (Wrong Edit!) 02:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
That is not what you were doing. A clear difference for example is that the comment I removed was random gibberish, the comments you removed were about article development. CMD (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
@UnsungHistory, I'm going to try being blunt again: you are a comparatively inexperienced editor. If you are not yet sure what the distinctions in the rules are generally understood to be, then please refrain from enforcing those rules and just observe what others do instead for now, and ask about things that might be real problems first. Remsense ‥ 论 02:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article nominee

Hello, I recently nominated the article Le langaige du Bresil as a good article under the Language and literature subtopic, though I believe it could also fit under World history. Since you have not "contributed significantly" to the article, you might be able to review it according to the criteria. I would like to know if, having the necessary skills for this, you would be willing to do so. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Noted RodRabelo7. I am not full of time at the moment, but I will keep it in mind for the next time I look at GAN. Fear not someone will look at it at some point. Best, CMD (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you

Is my reasons at Talk:Israel#Tag not clear or out to lunch? Should I remove the tag over tryng to move forward in improve the section? Is this just a case of one of us or both of us exhibiting mind-boggling stupidity. Moxy🍁 18:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind...going with Misplaced Pages:Avoiding difficult users to much effort for any change.SORRY TO TAKE UP YOUR READING TIME! Moxy🍁 20:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Join the talk

Why did you undo my writting? Plz join the talk and tell me why Im qwert0617 211.213.219.100 (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already posted on the talk. If you are them, then you will see your message saying it was finished. CMD (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Million Award for East Timor

[REDACTED] The Million Award
For your contributions to bring East Timor (estimated annual readership: 1,170,000) to good article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Misplaced Pages's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § Propose to create page of block discussion in noticeboards

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § Propose to create page of block discussion in noticeboards. JPPEDRA2 21:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Girl Crazy infobox poster

Why can't the public domain poster be used? Jorge906 (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's currently used in the article. At any rate, the posters are clearly the same design and have the same copyright info, it is unlikely their copyright is different. How did you figure out the copyright on the poster was not renewed? CMD (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Because it doesn't state it was. I also contacted the owner on where I found the poster and he said it's copyright was not renewed. Jorge906 (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
So can I please revert it? Jorge906 (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The copyright from the movie was renewed, per an ongoing discussion on Commons. As I noted, both posters will have the same status, which may or may not be affected by the movie copyright renewal. Further, the poster is already in the article. CMD (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Only the restoration of the film's copyright has been renewed. But the copyright for the poster has not been renewed Jorge906 (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
If you have a source for that that would be of great help in the discussion. Either way, that would also apply to all the posters, not just one. CMD (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I emailed from the owner of the website "The Judy Room" who is Scott Brogan (where I found the Girl Crazy posters) and he said all of the posters, magazine ads, lobby cards; etc copyright's hasn't been renewed. So they are in the public domain. Jorge906 (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
That is certainly a possibility. If so, that would as stated apply to the existing poster as well, so there isn't a public domain poster and a non-public domain poster. CMD (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
But the one that was uploaded as fair use was mistaken as fair use Jorge906 (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
If true, why not fix that? CMD (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Fix the fair use one? Jorge906 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Per your information the posters are not fair use but public domain, so they can be fixed to state that. CMD (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I'll export it commons Jorge906 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

About your comment on an IP address' puffery, there was a longstanding issue surrounding this? As you did mention that none of this is new. hundenvonPG (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There isn't anything definite, as these are IPs and so harder to draw links between, but the history of Merdeka 118 and List of tallest buildings in Malaysia for example have a lot of IPs that various tall building articles. It is likely at least some are the same person. That said, there's little that can be done with this, you'll need to do the normal dispute resolution processes. CMD (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I see.
Well, some have told me to let the ANI case to "play out", but there have been a couple of ANI cases previously that "played out" with zero resolution.
It's been 24 hours and quite frankly, this case appears to be headed the same way - nothing. Considering other dispute resolution procedures, but said IP address is persistently WP:HOUNDING and it is sad that ANI has yet to take action on such behaviour. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
It is difficult to get action on AN/I when an issue has both content and behaviour components. Best to do the normal WP:3O and discussion out of the way to isolate the behavioural aspect. CMD (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah... I have just opened a WP:DRN, seeking for more consensus. Hope this works. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Did USA really recognized North Korea?

In recent months, I saw several concerns from other Wikipedias than enwiki that:

  1. How can Mongolia became a UN member state? Was that meaning that Taipei (UN seat holder before 1971) recognized Mongolia? North & South Koreas, just like Eastern & Western Germanys, they are bunded and sold.
  2. A country that can participant in UN, is related with P5 that whether they vote oppose (aka. veto) the recommendation of UNSC, but unrelated with whether members of P5 recognize that country, or otherwise we don't need votes, we can just count the statements from "ministry of foreign affairs" of UNSC member states. Even one day United States recognized Palestine as a country, US representative can still veto the UNSC recommendation, so that Palestine still can't be a UN member. In 1991 when North and South Koreas joined UN, China even didn't recognize the South Korea, but why South Korea can still join?
  3. United Kingdom, Netherlands and Norway were stated in 1950 to recognize government of the People's Republic of China as China's legal government, and de-recognized Taipei regime. But originally these 3 countries all oppose Beijing's claim to replace Taipei's seat in UN, claim that Beijing should suspend their plans to join UN, or both to join UN each other. Thus they didn't establish diplomatic relations until 1954, when Norway decided to support Beijing instead of Taipei, and both UK & NL, which were semi-established whilst still ambiguous on China seat in UN. So far, during 1950-1954, were they recognized PRC government or not?
  4. During voting of the 2758 resolution, how much of states established with Taipei supported Beijing, some were even keeping ties with Taipei, after the vote, for several years, then how do we count these countries? Were they bi-recognized (i.e. recognize both PRC and Taipei govt)? Or just de facto recognized Beijing?

Which looks like doubting why enwiki removed United States, France, Japan,... from the North Korea entry of the List of states with limited recognition. I'm not sure how to answer these doubts properly, so I need your helps on inputs. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the quandary correctly—I would reject the notion of de facto recognition as a contradiction in terms—whether or not lack of recognition means a lack of relations, the concept of recognition ceases to mean anything at all if it becomes anything but explicit. There's not really a lens I can imagine where the US recognizes the DPRK, say, because it all hinges on the stuffy formality that likely correlates with material shifts in relations as well. Remsense ‥ 论 09:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Remsense. In 1961 the ROC did not vote on the Mongolia admission, see United Nations Security Council Resolution 166. North and South Korea joined together through United Nations Security Council Resolution 702, which passed without a vote. As these show, relations and politics are complicated. The China and UN-related questions presume a direct link between recognition and UN votes. They presume a relationship between recognition and relations. Neither of these are the case. As Remsense notes, the essence of recognition (in the modern world) is formal. Recognition is needed for diplomatic relations on a formal level, but relations can occur informally. However, a lack of recognition does not stop one state engaging with an entity they do not accord formal recognition, and conversely the presence of formal recognition does not create the certainty of engagement. CMD (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems the common sense position that the US does not formally recognize the DPRK, but the two clearly have diplomatic relations, and particularly debacular ones at that Remsense ‥ 论 09:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
There are relations between their diplomats for sure. One of the issues with using the plain term "diplomatic relations" to have a narrow formal meaning perhaps, or more likely the purity of the ideal of international relations bending to accommodate reality, as it often does. "Does X recognize Y" is an extremely narrow question with an extremely narrow answer. "Does X have a relationship with Y" is a similar question but with an entirely different scope. CMD (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by an IP

Hello, Chipmunkdavis.

The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page including by yourself.

Kindest regards, Moroike (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Moroike if they are continuing to be disruptive, you can ask for intervention at WP:AN/I. CMD (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. Moroike (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Malaysia September 2024 newsletter

The Malaysia WikiProject
Newsletter
Issue 53 • September 2024 • About the Newsletter
WikiProject Malaysia Statistics
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal
Newsletter written by Chongkian. You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here.

WikiProject Malaysia October 2024 newsletter

The Malaysia WikiProject
Newsletter
Issue 54 • October 2024 • About the Newsletter
WikiProject Malaysia Statistics
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal
Newsletter written by Chongkian. You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here.

WikiProject Malaysia November 2024 newsletter

The Malaysia WikiProject
Newsletter
Issue 55 • November 2024 • About the Newsletter
WikiProject Malaysia Statistics
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal
Newsletter written by Chongkian. You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here.

January 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

January 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

In-Text Citations

I'm adding a new source to Prehistoric Wales for the great axe factory of the Neolithic. This is my bibliography citation: *"Axe Factory, Graig Lwyd;Graiglwyd". UK Government. 2021.. This is my in-text citation: . I feel like I'm doing something wrong, specifically with the in-text citation. Please let me know if I am. Brioche23 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Brioche23, what do you feel is going wrong? The in-line citation seems to correctly link to the long-form citation. If you're worried about specific formatting quirks, I would say don't worry about it too much, so long as it's clear what the source is any editor can tweak it. CMD (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. UKGov 2021.

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings

When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it."

(Text on page 17 illustrated in the frontispiece in Juliana Horatia Ewing's Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated by Mary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, very grateful for another yearly welcome. I'm afraid this book was not part of my childhood, I will have to look into it with new eyes. CMD (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I inherited this book from a relative, who may have inherited it from an older relative! Ewing is mostly out of print now. Fashions have changed. Her writing is probably more moralistic than is accepted now, even though she wasn't really by the standards of the late 19th century. Even so every now and then in her books you find some real gems of writing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Malaysia December 2024 newsletter

The Malaysia WikiProject
Newsletter
Issue 56 • December 2024 • About the Newsletter
WikiProject Malaysia Statistics
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal
Newsletter written by Chongkian. You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here.

Bulgaria is Southeastern Europe and Romania is Southeastern/Central Europe. Neither are Core Eastern European

Your attempts to classify Bulgaria and Romania as (Core/ East Slavic) Eastern European, Russian-influenced countries to a greater extent than the Baltic countries, Poland, Hungary or Former Yugoslavia is biased and not backed up by any scientific, academic or political sources. These two countries are grouped in Eastern Europe only within the context of the post-communist states (Eastern Europe, where the two countries are lumped with the Visegrád countries), or as part of the broader Eastern Orthodox region (where Greece, Serbia, North Macedonia and Montenegro are included).

By contrast, Romania is a Latin country and Bulgaria a South Slavic country, neither being (in their current territories) ever included in the former Russian Empire. When not discussing these two contexts, the Eastern European region (as per the CIA, Britannica, etc.) include the countries speaking East Slavic languages and post-Soviet Moldova exclusively. The arguments regarding Austrian, Hungarian and Turkish influences (traits of the former Yugoslav states as well) are also valid.

The most cited websites (which include a reliable data source and an encyclopedia) clearly list the countries as Southeastern European, and not Eastern (East Slavic) European.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Bulgaria

https://www.britannica.com/place/Romania

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/bulgaria/

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/romania/

https://www.worldatlas.com/maps/romania

https://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/romania/

https://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/bulgaria/

Since none of the above-mentioned sources group the two countries within the (Core) Eastern Europe, the edits that specify Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine must be left intact and no biased edits, not backed by any cited sources (the "many sources" comment in the reversion is not accompanied by citations, which is punishable in academia ) must influence the content of publicly-accessible pages such as those for Eastern Europe and Southeastern Europe. EconomicGeographer (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

RFC Notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2023 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

January music

story · music · places

Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had it). My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy new Year Gerda! CMD (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! - Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Glad to hear about a musician who hasn't recently passed away :) CMD (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
2 others, though: today I have a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Transnistria

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Transnistria, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Update

I knew I remembered you from somewhere: User talk:Chipmunkdavis/ArchiveOffice#GAR questions from Clovermoss! I'll have you know that the article cites way fewer primary sources now and is probably closer to a proper GA status than it used to be. I've read multiple books and made 400+ edits, but there's still a long road ahead. For example, the country interactions still need to be more seriously fleshed out. Not expecting you to do anything about that but figured you might find an update like this interesting. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Covermoss, I am always happy to hear about article improvement. It does look rather well sourced, although I note there is a citation to Encyclopaedia Britannica in the lead! I also see "Adherents commonly call their body of beliefs "The Truth"", which doesn't seem to be in the body. That said, I don't think you need to worry about GA status. Thinking about Government interactions and FAC, it might be worth getting some in put from those with much more FAC experience. It is my impression that a list of individual countries is not the best way to get through FAC, as it heads towards "overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings" territory and is not conducive to presenting an overall picture. This is not to say don't flesh it out, just a note that perhaps the fleshing out will identify strands of information that can be put together as a summary, perhaps with details moving to the subpage. CMD (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Well the problem is that most reliable sources focus on government interactions rather than beliefs (this limited scholarship focus is mentioned somewhere in the article already), so I don't see how this could be an FA without that. What is wrong with a citation to the Encyclopedia Britannica? I didn't add it but I don't see why it can't be there. I already have someone that will help me with FAC when I'm ready, it's just that getting the article in the best shape I can before all that part I'm still working on. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Britannica has a no consensus on WP:RSP, so usually it gets raised if its present and replaced. Good to hear you've got a plan for the FAC. CMD (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Chipmunkdavis: Difference between revisions Add topic