Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:43, 19 June 2012

Archives

Shiny stuff Balkan, Caucasus, Malaysia, other countries Nature, Geography Notices, Chitchat

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!)

Pan-American

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

The Queen

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

Still waiting for the Royal Revert.

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

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

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

Malaysia

I will look at this in the new year. Remind me if there are no edits by say Jan 5th. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around to help with this. I had it on my to-do list. Didn't realise it would be closed so quickly. It's still on my list, and I'll help with Johnbod in the next few days. Hope you had a good Christmas. Nightw 02:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry X'mas~!

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Peer Review Pakistan

Hello, per your quick comments on Pakistan's peer review we made adjustments. I was just wondering, as the article has been significantly changed since you commented and the peer review is still open, if you could take a quick overview again and suggest anything major that still needs to be taken care of for quality? Thanks. September88 (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Andriabenia

Hi. There is currently a discussion about this editor at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Satt 2. They are evidently not a new user. Their arguments on Europe and other geogrpahical articles are too similar to those of ComtesseDeMingrelie (talk · contribs). Since you already seem to have encoutered them, you may wish to add your comments there. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Davis, I concur on this latest finding, for someone who started editing on 20 December 2011, he sure knows how to archive his own talk page. Something about this guy just doesn't add up. --Dave 18:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User unblocked, this is not relevant. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to post a note to the blocking administrator about this block. My preliminary review is that it seems unnecessarily harsh, especially in the absence of any warnings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, my apologies for this confusion, I should have stepped in and talked first before I had used the buttons. I still do not approve of the actions that you took on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, but you were not warned, and the block was not warranted in this case. Please do consider this a notice though that edit warring is inappropriate and that you have alternative venues like WP:RFPP and WP:AN3 to report the issues to. Again, my apologies for overstepping my bounds, and I wish you the best of editing. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation DQ. In light of the above explanation and the one on your talkpage, I'd like to know what to do further in a similar situation. I made my series of reverts with the following in mind. The user was edit warring on multiple pages, some of which I was not involved at all, so discussion on the single page wouldn't solve the issue. This was especially true in light of the fact that a talkpage discussion had begun (but had admittedly stalled) on Talk:Europe (a page in which the dispute was exactly the same), so discussion with the user had taken place. On both pages, I was not the only one who had reverted the other user, so it wasn't a personal edit war (better term?) either. In regards to noticeboards, I didn't think that another report would help. The user already had two cases at AN3, and one open AN/I. Another report I felt would be very redundant.

This I suppose stems from a problem I often have trying to reconcile the spirits of the BRD and edit warring guidelines. Any bold edit that is warred in could theoretically remain. But that's tangential. Any advice appreciated, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that you could have made a well seasoned report yesterday specifically about the edit warring (to ANI would probably been better) yesterday. I do see that the other user was very disruptive, but some sort of discussion about the edit warring somewhere (doesn't even have to be an admin noticeboard, it could be another admins talkpage or something), or asking for a third opinion, would have stopped me in my footsteps in considering a block. I do see the fact that it was not only you reverting on that page, but you seemed to take it on as your job to keep cleaning up the situation by reverting. I don't know if there is truly a right answer here, but that's my two cents on what lead me to the block. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll definitely keep this in mind. Thanks again for the explanation, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Jpech95/taiwan

Hey! I haven't seen you in a few days, which of course you are more than entitled, but I had posted a new topic on our taiwan talk page and I would like to have your input so we can get a better picture and get this rolling to approval. Thanks. Jpech95 22:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Update

Just to let you know, I've started trying to get our final stages moving in: We should possibly go ahead with the RM and notify and articles that could be affected on their talk pages, in my opinion. Head over to the talk page so I can get a better idea of where everyone stands. Jpech95 22:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Malaysia

Please, DO NOT reverted my edits as you did on it. — NZscout 04:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Captions. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the header for the article Culture of Malaysia. I do think there is a wave of immigration from Indonesia to Malaysia. Else how do some cultural from Java ended in Malaysia? But it's your page. I'm just trying to help the public to have an understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosa lilian (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Secular

Hi. You said you always welcomed my opinion, so I'm going to offer one, even though I think it's different to yours.

I think the Malaysia lead is better without that word. Most of my reasons are similar to those you've discussed with others, like: "why have it there if it's controversial?" or "it's just an opinion that it's secular", so I won't go into them in depth, except to say that I actually think they are enough of a concern not to include the term in the lead.

But, here's one aspect I wonder if you've considered. It read:

• "The secular constitution declares Islam the state religion while protecting freedom of religion."

But to me, that feels something like:

• The secular constitution contains this non-secular statement:...

Maybe a clumsy way to express it, but the main point is that I come away from that sentence wondering what a secular constitution is doing declaring any religion the state religion. I think there's enough potential confusion just there to make it unwise in the lead. I also think anything done to try to "fix" it would be likely to make it more clumsy and unnecessary.

Anyway, that's all this is, my opinion, and they are cheap. Begoon  02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It was one of my greyer decisions, and you're right, I hadn't considered it exactly along those lines. I had thought the contrast was quite interesting, and I thought not that confusing, but if it is... Another user has removed i (justifying it on my talkpage I see now that I view history). If secular isn't there, I think the paragraph would work better with the preceding sentence on multiculturalism and that sentence moved to the beginning of the paragraph. I'll definitely mull it over, and I suppose with two more opinions against consensus may be tilting against me. I don't have any great deal of time for a great deal of actual article work before early february anyway. Thanks for the opinion, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's cool. I just noticed it going back and forth in my watchlist, is all, and thought it would be wrong not to share a perspective you might have missed, once it occured to me. Turns out I might have been right, so I'll put that down as my one for the week. Consider yourself priveleged, I've got little else right this week :-) Begoon  12:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:China IP

The IP editor you are replying to at Talk:China has been blocked on behavioural grounds as being a banned user - see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood. Therefore its probably not worth replying ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ready to go

Is there anything specifically I can help out with on Malaysia? Is the to-do list on the talk page still relevant? Otherwise, I can look into addressing Johnbod's comments on the FAC page...? Nightw 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't be doing much until February due to real life unfortunately, but thanks. The to do list is not fairly relevant anymore, with it mostly being done or unnecessary. Johnbod's comments should be addressed, and a few citations are needed as one was removed from the article. What I'd appreciate from an outside view most is a look through Biodiversity with a mind to making it more concise by removing undue information. That may apply to Culture too, although less so. Hopefully that'll mean Economy can expand. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you read the biodiversity section? Never favour the economy at the expense of the environment! But seriously, to me it looks like all quality information, though could probably be condensed through style; I can see a few sentences that could probably be merged. I'm look into the sourcing now. Nightw 13:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Czech Republic

Česká republika vznikla dne 1.1.1969, Československo se stalo federací protože Národní shromáždění Československé socialistické republiky přijalo ústavní zákon dne 27. října 1968 a vyhlášen byl pod číslem 143/1968 Sb. Takže Česká republika existuje 43 let. Historicky prvním předsedou české vlády, se stal v době od 8. ledna 1969 do 29. září 1969 Ing. Stanislav Rázl. Po zániku federace, se již existující republika osamostatnila, ale datum vzniku je 1.1. 1969.

Czech Republic came into existence on January 1, 1969, Czechoslovakia became a federation because the National Assembly of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic adopted constitutional law of 27 October 1968 and was declared under number 143/1968 Coll. So the Czech Republic there 43 years. Historically, the first Czech Prime Minister, became in time from 8 January 1969 to 29 September 1969 Ing. Stanislav Rázl. After termination of the federation, the republic became independent of existing, but the date of occurrence is 1 January 1969. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.236.5 (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of International Futures in Country Pages

Hello,

I was referred to you by a fellow editor of country pages (Saravask) - I guess your name has gotten around! I've come in contact with a source that I believe would be a tremendous addition to Misplaced Pages pages dedicated to countries. I just posted a full message to the talk:WikiProject Countries page (under the same subject line), and I'd like to ask for your opinion on the matter. Instead of re-posting the message here, I'd like to ask you to check it out. Anyway, I look forward to hearing from you. (Shredder2012 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

Danish realm

Hello my friend. Can you please comment at Talk:Rigsfællesskabet? There's a move request that could use your opinion. Rennell435 (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Rui Gabirro

Thank you for eliminating the mud this man decided to throw at me, on my talk page. As the man is alsways writing in this vein on José Eduardo dos Santos, on different pages, I wonder whether this canot be stopped for good. -- Aflis (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of Attractions in Belize Article

I withdraw my comments. I now see the deleted section was nothing more than a redundant copy of Tourism in Belize. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

History of Georgia template

I already cut down the infobox and they block it. That is why I remove them from pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, see contributions of this user, please. This is typical vandal! In this resume, he (or she) outrage georgian user (shegeci jaba menas in georgian fuck you jaba). I request to you block this user! --MIKHEIL (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not the most amicable of users, but let's see if they get the message and go to talk shall we? If they cause more trouble and you think they should be blocked, I suggest recontacting User:Wifione. I'll drop a warning though, they shouldn't be using profanity. CMD (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I just notice that the Georgia template was just fine before it was inflated unnecesrly to its present size by a blocked User:Tanllocittis. Do you think theyr the same person and that explains the attacks on me by so many Georgia editors at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's Satt 2, in case you didn't notice. Elockid 03:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Noted, you might want to read up on s:Bible (King James)/Proverbs#26:11 too. --Dave 05:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to assume any editor of Georgian articles that swears at others is Satt 2... sigh. What we'd do without CU, I don't know. CMD (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

arab's league map

Hi arab league consider western sahara as part of morocco, please go and see arab league's web site, so don't revert my modification, thank you --41.248.105.212 (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

the map you put is not neutral, because it shows western sahara as full independent state, wikipedia is not UN or a political referee, the arab league's opinion and the fact that this territory is controled by morocco and not a no man's land must be taken in consideration...thanks to be neutral...--41.248.105.212 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

this is a neutral map of morocco, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Morocco_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg, it's used in many articls. When you put western sahara with international borders and in grey color (similar to independent countries) it means that this territory is a full independent state and this is extremely FALSE because the territory is under morccan control regardless international recognitions, I'm inviting you then to be neutral !!! Thank you --41.248.105.212 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

take a look to arab league members map in the arab league website : — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.105.212 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Moldova

Please see Talk:Moldova. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan

I've removed your speedy tag from this article, as it doesn't qualify under WP:CSD#G4. Only articles which were deleted as a result of a WP:Deletion discussion (such as an AFD) are eligible for being speedily deleted under this rational. As far as I can tell, the only deletion discussion which has taken place on this material is at WP:Articles for deletion/International recognition of South Sudan which concluded that there was no consensus for deletion. If there is another AFD that I'm unaware of, feel free to re-add the tag. Otherwise, you'll need to file a AFD if you feel that the content should be deleted. Thanks! TDL (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hexapoda and Insecta

Hello. Regarding your edit to Dicopomorpha echmepterygis, please note that Hexapoda is not a synonym of Insecta. The former is a subphylum, while the latter is a class. Hexapoda includes other organisms that are not insects, namely class Entognatha which includes springtails, diplurans, and proturans (the latter are sometimes treated as separate classes).-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the definitive authority in regard to Insect taxonomy? (Is there one?) I've encountered Hexapoda being treated as a class many a time. CMD (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is none. But unless you want to revise all the hundreds of thousands of arthropod articles to follow outdated systems (in which Insecta is a subclass), that is irrelevant. For consistency we are using the most recent accepted phylogenetic system which treats Hexapoda as a subphylum, with Entognatha being separate from Insecta. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the most recently accepted phylogenetic system? This isn't to dispute what you're saying and argue for a change (I really don't think it's all that important what rank different clades get), but just something to know. CMD (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The ranks are unimportant, what matters is consistency.

And please do not expect me to point you to a single page which summarizes all the studies done on athropod relationships. I neither have the time nor the expertise to hunt them all down (I'm currently expanding Caprella mutica under a time limit). It would be really nice if there was one, but higher taxonomic ranks are not governed by any ruling body and Arthropoda particularly has been very controversial. The classification we use is a hybrid of dozens of opinions, and this is one which works.

AFAIK, Hexapoda has traditionally been treated as a superclass. The only rank-based systems that treat it as a class are those that include Entognatha under it as orders or those which treat Hexapoda as a synonym of Insecta (both systems still survive today, mostly in outdated highschool-level textbooks). Both have a long and confusing history ever since Linnaeus used his "Class Insecta" as a wastebasket taxon for all arthropods. See the pages I linked in my first post for the history of their classifications (and do a Google search if you're still not satisfied). If you have any issues with the current system used or if you contest the splitting off of entognathans, please post at WP:WikiProject Arthropods. Until then, do not change any taxoboxes of higher ranks without consensus as you would be affecting thousands of articles.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I at no point in this conversation have desired to go off and change all Insect taxoboxes to have Hexapoda as a class. None of the wikilinks explain why Hexapoda is a Superclass (or subphylum) and not a Class, and neither does google. My questions were due to my writing of Megaphragma mymaripenne, which from google I had found classified as Class Hexapoda. If we use a hybrid, we use a hybrid, I'm fine with that explanation. CMD (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicities

And WTF? "Aryan race is just outdated not factually inaccurate"?!! Are you neonazi or something? That has to be the most insulting condescending bullshit I've ever heard. You might as well just call us the "little brown people" while you're at it. After all, it's just a name right?

Has my attempt to correct you on Hexapoda led to you to attempt to do the same to me as well? I'm starting to think I should just revert quietly. Too many people always take it personally. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Aryan is just a term, and one that was used until it gained rather damning connotations in the mid twentieth century. I'm not sure who the little brown people you refer to consists of, but I wouldn't use that term here, as there is no doubt a more current term for that group of people, just as there is a more current term for those who were referred to as Aryans, and as there is for those who were referred to as Malays. None of these terms are "factually inaccurate" (well, little brown people is obviously going to be inaccurate in many instances), but there are other reasons for not using them. CMD (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Aryan. See Christoph Meiners and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach for a glimpse of early scientific racism which began long before Hitler. As for the little brown people bit, you mean you were not aware that Malay race is basically the "formal name" of the third color in Blumenbach's system? We were supposed to be the "brown people". A highly scientific classification, I'm sure. </sarcasm>

If you felt insulted by my correction of your change to Hexapoda at all, just please tell me, and I'll just stop doing it. In turn, I ask that you drop any grudges that may have caused. If you wonder why I came to that conclusion, it's the only reason I could think of on why you reverted me on Ethnic Groups of the Philippines with that kind of rationale.

I am Filipino, and Blumenbach's five races system is an especially insulting example of scientific racism for my own ethnicity (and any non-European ethnicity at that). It is more than "just a name" and has no validity at all in modern anthropology. By arguing that it was valid, you are actually advocating creationism, agreeing that Europeans were the original "race" (to which all races can apparently revert to with "proper nutrition"), and that humans came from Asia. None of those are scientifically valid. Not to mention that there is an actual Malay ethnicity, which does not apply to all the Southeast Asian Austronesians. So it is inaccurate. Just because we look alike does not make us the same people.

That said I'm perfectly happy with removal of that term altogether, and is what I should have done in the first place. So I'll shut up now.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Scientific racism is old stuff, but that doesn't affect the point at which different words became associated with it. I don't know what you're trying to prove here, that human races don't exist? I don't mind about Hexapoda/Insecta, if there's a wikipedia standard, let's use it. I reverted on the Ethnic Groups of the Philippines page because I saw it in my watchlist and disagreed with the change. I would have done it for any editor, and I stand by my reason for reverting, but as you say, problem solved. Just because another group of people has the same name doesn't make another name inaccurate. What no doubt happened was the meaning of Malay shrunk while its former meaning has been adopted by the name Austronesian. That's really it. CMD (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh god, you're even more scientifically naive than I thought. "Race" as a popular concept is commonly used (particularly in the United States), as a social construct to quickly "classify" people, no matter how inaccurate that classification may be. But as a biological and anthropological concept, they are meaningless terms. Human migration and genetics is simply too complex to be neatly divided into the "white", "black", "yellow", "brown", and "red" races. Particularly when those classifications had bitter historical applications.

The Malay race concept is ANCIENT completely obsolete stuff. Neither is "Malay race" synonymous with Austronesian peoples as you seem to think it is. The former is a fuzzy concept applied by Blumenbach to people with brown skin who were supposedly a mixture of the black and yellow race (thus reducing people to mere color palettes). The latter is a real ethnic group with a shared genetic and linguistic history and encompasses peoples from Madagascar, Southeast Asia, Micronesia, Polynesia, and New Zealand.

Again if I described the people of Germany as "The Germans speak a Germanic language and are members of the Aryan race". You're saying you wouldn't have any problems with that? What if the article on Mexican people started with - "Mexicans are a mixture of the red and white races." Would you also just nod and smile and perhaps clarify it a bit more by saying they're a pink race?

The term has originally applied only to a specific group of people in the Malaysian peninsula. What happened is the opposite. Europeans applied a demonym inaccurately to an entire group of people. That's like calling all Europeans "French" because they all look similar and have similar languages. If you would like to be known as Aryan, be my guest and edit your own ethnicity's article, but please not mine.

And do have a look at scholarly sources. You'll immediately notice that the majority of sources treat the "Malay race" as a colonial construct with no basis in real ethnicities. And update your biology to the 21st century while you're at it. In case that was too complex, yes, races do not exist in any meaningful way. Unless you're a klanner, a neonazi, or a particularly insensitive European, of course.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I just don't bother with pedantic semantics and understand the development of ideas throughout history. Nothing in biology is neatly divided, yet divided it is. There was a study done some years ago which showed that the genetic differences between various races was increasing. The best analysis of this study I ever read was in new scientist, which concluded by noting that with ever increasing integration this difference was disappearing. Unfortunately, I can't find the study or the new scientist article (no doubt both are behind paywalls somewhere), but it was commented on by other outlets, such as the BBC.

The Malay race was a fuzzy concept, but as with everything in science, it has become more nuanced and specific as evidence progresses, and the major part of this group has been redefined as Austronesian. I'd compare it to how old biological taxa are sometimes scrapped even if the bulk of the group remains the same, but you'd probably twist it so say I think different groups of humans are different species or something like that.

As I said above, I wouldn't use the term Aryan myself, and I doubt many people do, but I'd understand it, however much I disagree with its usage. Mexicans originate from many different ethnicities, not just the "red" and "white" ones. Much of Latin America actually, making old ethnic classifications quite pointless. A microcosm of the future I'd say.

I know that the Malay race was originally a colonial construct, but that's the case for much of information from that period. Modern science is rooted in Europe, and its not unusual for the name of a familiar group to be expanded to cover others. Science was rather eurocentric at that period of time (it's better now though). As I noted above many times, the term Malay race has fallen out of use, with as you said everything being more nuanced. It's still a historical term though.

As a final point, I invite you to not make assumptions about my ethnicity. I also invite you to read the first sentence of the Department of Tourism Philippines page on the people of the Philippines, which opens with "the Filipino is basically of Malay stock with a sprinkling of Chinese, American, Spanish and Arab blood." CMD (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know. And that was the fault of the American education system during the American Commonwealth of the Philippines, which basically labelled us "Malays" in the same way that the Spanish labelled us "Indios". Being a country of hundreds of ethnic groups without a single name to unite us, we enthusiastically adopted it not knowing any better, even when it was used as a justification for American imperialism and anti-miscegenation laws. I know one other Filipino editor in here who keeps belligerently inserting Filipinos and Indonesians into the Ethnic Malays article for exactly the same naive reasons. Then again, as a culture, we've always been quite xenophilic even when we're being taken advantage of.

As for the taxonomy comparison, not quite. This is more like Linnaeus' "Class Vermes" in comparison to all the non-vertebrate and non-arthropod phyla in modern taxonomy. And by you admitting that it is a historical term originating back when science was still eurocentric, you have basically just said the same thing - the term is inaccurate. That is not opinion but simple fact. It should not be treated as valid in the same way that you would avoid "Aryan".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it is a historical term means that its original criteria are no longer relevant. It's still a grouping of people, which worked for what it was defined as. It's not accurate or inaccurate, it is what it is. It's also a fact that it is still widely used to describe Austronesians, for better or worse. It is not as obsolete as Aryan. CMD (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

An unwillingness to judge the reliability and accuracy of information is not NPOV. We ascribe due weight where it is due. And a discarded scientific theory based on flawed premises is the very definition of inaccurate. "Aryan" came from the same system, one can not be "not as obsolete" as the other when the very concept of races itself is inaccurate and obsolete. The fact that there is a modern accurate term "Austronesian", only underlines the point. Perhaps you'd like sources? Here. Count how many of the most recent, most reliable, and most in-depth sources accept the exonym. There are entire books written on this issue alone. Arguing that it is accurate because it applied to an understandable group of people is like saying "Indian" (American), "Eskimo", "Nigger", "Chink", etc. are all accurate demonyms and should not be refuted nor restricted in its usage in any way because you have always understood what it meant.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You clearly missed what I said above where I said the terms weren't "accurate" either based on your response. I suggest you reread what I wrote. Also, how you can in one breath say that races are obsolete and in the next discuss the accuracy of the new Austronesian definition is beyond me. CMD (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I understood it alright. You still believe people can be grouped neatly by the numbers, because "it is what it is". Austronesian is not a racial group. It's an ethnolinguistic group of peoples with a shared genetic and linguistic heritage. It actually has a scientific basis. Let me illustrate the differences: scientific racism classified Melanesians as a subgroup of the "Negroid" race simply because they were also dark-skinned. Modern population biology shows they are not even closely related to African populations at all.

Furthermore, it is not a discrete grouping with clean "borders" like races. It's diffuse with frequent continuous gene flow between subpopulations as they expand their borders or migrate, with edge populations blurring into the next one they come in contact with. For example, you wouldn't actually even know where Austronesian peoples end and the Tai peoples begin in Indochina.

And get your arguments straight. I am not saying racial typology is obsolete. Biology and anthropology does. Careful what you're doing now, next you'll start telling me biologists don't know what they're saying.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity is just race by another name (albeit a more politically correct name). Illustrating a previous misunderstanding doesn't make either word better than the other. Neither were races always cleanly divided, and noone has asserted they are. My statements have been perfectly in line with what biologists say, I'm just not being nitpicky and politically correct about it. CMD (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Let me read between the lines, hmk? I'm just not being nitpicky and politically correct about it - translation: "I admit it's inaccurate, but since it still applies to most of the people it was applied to, I'm being obstinately rude about it for no reason at all."

Thank you for clarifying your position. There so many things wrong with it, but by professing it, I believe I have realized that further discussion with you would be useless. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Terrible translation. You apparently see race as nothing but a pejorative, yet it is simply one way different human populations have been classified. Ethnicity does the same, but being a much later (and therefore I'm sure we agree a better) system, it takes far more into account. However there's nothing to be gained by putting it on a high horse and attacking the previous system. Social science progresses. I don't know where you intended this conversation to go; but to the initial edit, there's no point deciding to just add the word inaccurate in front of a term. That explains nothing to a reader. If there's a problem with it (the problem in this case with it being outdated), then it should be placed in context or replaced, not just attacked. CMD (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It was. By the noodly whiskers of the great FSM it had no redeemable values to anyone who wasn't "Caucasian", except perhaps the ease by which people can be stereotyped both informally and legally. That was why I assumed you were of European descent earlier. Everything but the "Caucasian/Aryan race" was pejorative. You don't need to be on a high horse to be higher than a friggin' hole in the ground.

And again, by you agreeing that the current system is better and the previous outdated one, aren't you saying that the previous one was inaccurate? Or are there subtilities to it that is apparently escaping me? "Outdated" does not invalidate something by virtue of age alone, there are significant differences between the two systems which does make the old one outdated and inaccurate. And it was in context. Being historically significant but also an obsolete and scientifically invalid term associated with the Philippine ethnicities, where else would you have mentioned it then? And how would you word it? With some wishy-washy double-speak that leaves a reader confused as to what term is actually more correct?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

His noodly greatness disapproves of connotations simply being added to every word. I don't think a system can be described as inaccurate. It could have a flawed premise, but as it really defines itself, I wouldn't use accuracy as one of the hallmarks of a system. By outdated I mean that it has gone out of fashion, so to speak.

For the Philippine article, I'd expect that any discussion of obsolete terms wouldn't belong in the lead. A paragraph on its application during colonial times could I suppose fit in population history somewhere. CMD (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

<Throws up hands. Makes various facial contortions. Walks away. > -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved thread

Hey, I moved that discussion thread which you started from here to here so it wouldn't get left behind. I hope this is okay, if not just let me know and I'll move it back. I also replied to your comment on the uninhabited territories. Nightw 12:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rwanda - testing waters for second FAC

Hi Chipmunk

I hope you're well. It's been a long time, but I may finally have a little more time to spend on Wiki so would like to try to push the Rwanda article forward again. I know you contributed to the first FAC and you're an expert on country articles so your advice would be valuable if you have a spare moment.

One of the points raised was that the history section was overlong and also unbalanced in having too manby paragraphs for the 1990s. I have therefore recently reduced its length from 9 to 5 paras, of which only one is for 1990 and beyond. Do you think it is now acceptable?

The other major sticking point as far as I could tell was the explanation of the Hutu/Tutsi distinction. Unfortunately I didn't get a clear idea of what people wanted with that one. It's a notoriously difficult issue to describe, not least because it is contentious as to what the terms actually mean. If you have any ideas as to additional or alternative points I could make on that topic in the lead/history/demographics section I'd also be grateful. Many thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Further to this, I have now put Rwanda back up for FAC. Please check it out and comment at WP:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive2 if you have the time. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Serbia and Kosovo in the Balkans page. Label status

Dear Chipmunkdavis: Do you think we need a label status for Serbia without Kosovo? In my opinion, the zero value is when the note concerning the Kosovo status within Serbia is not being located besides Serbia! We need to discuss this. Hope to have your answer! Have a nice weekend!--Estaurofila (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

How does Kosovo at all affect whether or not Serbia is partially in the Balkans? With Kosovo, it is. Without Kosovo, it is. No need for the note. CMD (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

US State Department list of diplomatic recognitions=

Here is the list you where asking about ], it is complete for all modern states and virtually complete for all extinct states the United States has diplomatically recognized (although i know of a couple obscure instances not included).XavierGreen (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I see they have two South Sudan entries. Perhaps you should email them about the obscure incidents! CMD (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Megaphragma mymaripenne

On 13 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Megaphragma mymaripenne, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that adult Megaphragma mymaripenne wasps are only 200 micrometres long, similar in size to single-celled organisms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Megaphragma mymaripenne.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of Oceanian countries by population, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

German brands

Why did you revert my edit. Nobody is doubting that these brands a German. All of them have their own wikipedia articles where the source is given. Do you want me to add a source? Otherwise I will revert your edit.--IIIraute (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I did add the sources.--IIIraute (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I've replied to your message at User talk:JamesBWatson#Children, personal details, privacy. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Country articles

Chip, I see that user Jrobin08 has just reverted a whole load of your edits. He has just been warned on his talkpage about the DR Congo one but not the others, and this is not the first time. Not all his edits are vandalism and sometimes it is not obvious whether they are or not. At the very least, it is clear that he hasn't yet got the hang of editing collaboratively. I and others have raised concerns on his talkpage but he just keeps blanking the page and doesn't reply to the points made. (He is a young schoolboy.) If you are sure he is mistaken about these edits, do you think further action needs to be taken about his behaviour? Can he be mentored? -- Alarics (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think he's mistaken, and I think there is (currently) a WP:competence issue. Evidence for both on the DR Congo edit summaries. He's definitely not a vandal though, some of his edits have been improvements. I see the classic updating of stats but not knowing about wikipedia's sourcing policies. He's taken into account the messages on the talkpage about emailing, so at least he's reading them. I think there's a good chance he could be mentored, yes. I doubt I'd be a good choice for it though! CMD (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

South Sudan deletion page

Sorry I did not get back to you, I had been away. When I read there was no vote I had assumed it was an acclamation, but I didn't think of it as equivalent to an unanimous vote because, to me, it simply meant that no member objected to entry. This could have also included abstentions. That was my line of thinking, but if theres more to the story I'd like to know. I thought at first that if it were made an 'important question' that could limit member states' ability to abstain from voting, but I think this only makes a vote required to be a two-thirds majority, so therefore irrelivent. Again, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Outback the koala (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, didn't affect the discussion. The security council had no vote, noted here. The GA resolution is recorded as passed "without vote" here. However, sources, like reuters and the BBC equate it to a vote. I think if there was any question there would be a vote. CMD (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Gabirro

Thank you for reverting yet another insult by this gentleman. Is there no means of stopping him altogether? Aflis (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say you have grounds to ask for him to be indefinitely blocked for civility issues, if you so desire. Ask a friendly admin. CMD (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have requested a block on this user at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Gabirro_-_personal_attacks Greenman (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(Near?) Perfect Record

If I had to vote for my #1 geographic editor on WP, it would be you by a landslide!...We've corresponded before. I've seen good or exceptional edits of yours about a hundred times over the past 6 months. So I'm sure I'm missing something and that you have a good explanation--please fill me in--for your recent changes to the status of Cook Islands and Niue on the various lists of sovereign states....As per your guidelines above, I'll added a note to the discussion page for List of sovereign states DLinth (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for cleaning up Associated State...I was really struggling with trying to break up that 8-line run-on sentence. DLinth (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan Barnstar

The Republic of China Barnstar of National Merit

I hope I have the authority to give this out, and anyone who might say something about it, it's really just a kind gesture. Chipmunkdavis, you already know, but I'll remind you of all the work you've done with me on the Taiwan Proposal on my userspace, which now is an RM, and hopefully will be a reality. You've done a lot between discussing problems and giving comments about it, to putting in major parts of articles so that they would fit the way the proposal is written. So, I'd like to take this barnstar to thank you for all you've done. JPECH95 23:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

World map

I left a comment on the talk page. I suggest you respond and/or self-revert, otherwise later today I will be contacting an administrator to help sort it out. You are continuing an edit war that I attempted to end by refusing to bring WP:RS to the discussion and reverting edits that remove inappropriate, unsourced content. That's not how wikipedia works. 174.113.154.168 (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you contact an administrator, you'll be up for as much scrutiny as myself. The aim of discussion on the talkpage is to seek WP:Consensus, not to make a statement and demand you get your way. If you want to expand the conversation, the options are found at WP:Dispute resolution. CMD (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to be scrutinized. After edit warring before I understood the rules, I was notified and stopped. I went to the talk page, and you did not engage in consensus building. You force reverted the unsourced content back into the article while refusing to bring any references to the discussion. Your only suggestion that I should find sources for all other countries, is irrelevant. That's not my responsibility. If this is your decision then I will go ahead and find an admin. 174.113.154.168 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I did engage in consensus building, I discussed on the talkpage. If you find you don't get your way on discussion you do not simply go and reinstate your edit, you seek dispute resolution, as I noted above. CMD (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your discussion was to refuse finding a source, and try to change the subject by demanding that I find sources for other irrelevant things. That's not consensus building. If you have a problem with something else unsourced, by all means go take care of it. I found this error, and it's unsourced. I tried to have a discussion on the talk page and ask people to bring sources if they believe it is correct. Nobody did that, therefore, the incorrect content should be removed. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. It seems you are arguing now in bad faith so I will leave it at this and allow the admin to do their job. Have a wonderful day 174.113.154.168 (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a source. Your request for a source showing that "the Palestine declaration changed the world map" is completely unnecessary, and one which we are unlikely to find for the vast majority of the items on that list. CMD (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently a 'Vandal'

This was a while ago, but I haven't had much time on here since. When you kept reverting my edits on the African Union maps, I honestly felt that it was a valid point by me, as all the European maps included the EU, so I didn't understand why the African maps shouldn't include the AU. Some African countries already had a AU map on them, e.g. Western Sahara. So, I thought to bring them all the same. I did understand after your feedback that the EU and AU do not work the same way, but I also realize that my comments to you on the revert feedback were completely unnecessary, but I would like to point out I am not a vandal, so please do not call me that, thanks. Josh Robinson Jrobin08 22:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember calling you a vandal, where did I do that? If I did, I apologise. CMD (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well saying I was vandalising is kind of the same thing. Anyway, happy to let it go. I understand your point about the maps, and keep up the good work. Jrobin08 (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd still like to know where I said that. CMD (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oceania nav template

Hello Chipmunkdavis! Just to clarify the edit history here, because maybe I'm missing something. I saw that Spesh531 moved Cook Islands to the "states row". Then I moved Niue there, because it seemed as a minor omission - since both have the same status it doesn't have any sense each of them to be in a different row. You reverted me (Niue only, which was very odd for the reason stated here). Then the editor who made the initial change came back and corrected the minor omission himself.

Later came DLinth and started moving both CI and Niue to "dependencies row". I reverted his changes. He didn't opened a section on the talk page and utilized only edit summaries to describe his changes - using strange reasons such as "not recog.as indep by UN or 190 of 195 states" what (and who) are those 5 states (195-190) is a mystery, who are the 195 is also a mystery. On top of that the "not recog.as indep by UN" part is wrong (I provided a source in one of my reverts of DLinth) and also not directly related to these edits.

Then you came, reverted to pre-Spesh531 version and asked to discuss pointing at another article. Then I restored the Spesh531 version and asked "CMD, what to discuss? Aren't CI and Niue listed at the article you point to? If they are, then my edit is OK. I think they should be, because that's what sources show. Only if they aren't-then they can be moved to "dependencies". So, are they listed?" You reverted again with "You know it's not that black and white."

But this doesn't answer the question: "Aren't CI and Niue listed at the article you point to?" - if they are, then there is nothing to discuss and the Spesh531 version is both factually-correct (according to sources) and Misplaced Pages-correct (the same as the other article). If they are listed there why do you revert? Japinderum (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I notified Spesh531 that I mention his edits here

I reverted Niue only at that time because only the CI had been included on the sovereign states list. Oddness was on the list, and we both know I was very against having only one on the list, but that's what happened. I've taken it back now because you and DLinth are in danger of getting into edit wars on multiple pages. Don't justify it to me, but to them. CMD (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, but I think DLinth will refrain from changing it if three editors (Spesh531, me and you) revert his change. I have contacted DLinth already, but what I don't get is this - aren't CI and Niue both listed at the article you point to? Because from your revert it looks like they aren't (logic says that if they aren't you wouldn't revert me and would've reverted DLinth instead). Are they or are they not listed? Japinderum (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We both know they are, but they're also in the New Zealand extant. I've been convinced by the long debate that it would be justifiable to move them (and move them I did myself in various pages), but DLinth hasn't, and an edit war isn't productive for anyone. Standard procedure is to go to the pre-war page, which is what I did. It won't be terrible if they don't move for awhile (and it probably would be in line with most other tertiary sources). Once DLinth has been presented with the secondary sources you have, I'm sure agreement can be reached. Also, this nav template is black and white, so I don't have much of an issue due to its use for navigation, but outright saying "the Cook Islands is a sovereign state" in prose, where we can explain, would not be the right thing to do. CMD (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we clarified whether they are listed, because both you and DLinth referred to that list article when removing them. I think it will help if DLinth gets an explanation from a second person (besides me). Also, I agree there's no rush with the template change, but it has to be done, if only for consistency sake. But also, I think your suggestion "discuss at the list page" should've be pointed at DLinth (who makes the changes to the nav template that contradict the list page) instead of me (and the nav template should've been kept in the 'according-to-list' state). I'm sure DLinth will get enough clarifications at the list talk page if he asks about this issue there. Japinderum (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion was directed towards both of you. I am happy to input into a conversation once one starts. CMD (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is now - User_talk:DLinth#Cook_Islands.2C_Niue (about making the nav template comply with the Misplaced Pages list), Talk:Associated_state#Cook_Islands.2C_Niue (about grammar/ordering changes I propose that don't change the meaning, but it seems DLinth objects those, because he doesn't like the meaning of the current version). Japinderum (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see my 12:17, 11 May 2012 comment at Template talk:Oceania topic. Japinderum (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

BE

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

DYK for Migratory Sharks MoU

On 6 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Migratory Sharks MoU, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks, brought into force in 2010, was the first global instrument that dealt with migratory sharks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Migratory Sharks MoU. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there embedded linking in Wiki (or some form of self-updating link)?

Thanks for the Welcome CMD.

I'm working through Help trying to find out, and I suspect the answer is no, but is it possible to create internal references between pages/sections that auto-update if the main entry changes? The classic thing I've seen is, for example, population on a country page Summary section differing from the figure in the Demographics section which in turn differs from the figure in the detailed Demographics page. Being able to maintain a single prime source that is shared between pages would be pretty useful.Bromley86 (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There's the possibility of creating a text template which you insert on all pages, allowing figures to be changed from a centralised location. However, as far as I know this has been done rarely, with the only ones I can think of off the top of my head being the Template:Numrec templates, which show recognition numbers. CMD (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, worth a try. Thanks! Bromley86 (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Niue, etc.

I was away for a week...thanks for holding the fort with Japiderum (others?) who wanted (want?) to include Niue, Cook Is. in lists with no distinction between them and the ~190+ states that have actually declared independence, have fully distinct citizenship status, etc. I'm only an occasional, non-WP-savvy WP editor, but I did add more on that Niue-Cook Is. distinction in reply at the talk page for Associated states just now that I hope will answer his concerns. I appreciate your attention to detail and common sense there, at Niue, with Palestine, at List of Sovereign States, etc., etc. (and your similarly deliberate, practical, well-researched approach with emotion-laden topics (for decades!) such as East Sea (another full page NYT add last week....we see East Sea stuff like that here all the time!)DLinth (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "etc." (after citizenship preferences, that are also one-way only and don't apply for NZ citizens in CI or Niue). "Declared independence" - what about Canada, Australia and New Zealand? When is their independence day? There are also other similar examples. I checked with Chipmunkdavis above and he confirms that both CI and Niue are included in the List of sovereign states. What distinction do you refer to? They are regular members of the international community, conduct official diplomatic relations with many states and are members of multiple various international organizations and treaties. For example the Cook Islands is full member state of more UN System/Vienna formula organizations (those are UN, ICJ, IAEA and 15 more) than Liechtenstein. Also, CI and Niue are not engaged in a sovereignty dispute and they are not states with limited recognition (unlike Palestine, Cyprus, PRChina, etc).

While for Palestine (and any other of the states with limited recognition) I agree that many edits are emotion-laden - for CI and Niue there is no emotion and no "freedom struggle" or something like that, but clash of the common misconception and mass market clumsy compilated inaccurate lists with efforts to implement what is shown by reliable sources with attention to details. Actually, if there was emotion, freedom struggle, sovereignty and recognition dispute - the attention of the mass market sources would've been pointed there. This isn't the case and that's why we have this Misplaced Pages clash instead. Japinderum (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's a desire for no distinction on either side, but just a disagreement on how to deal with a complex case. There's a conflict here between secondary sources and tertiary ones. We have a lot of sources which show what Japinderum says, that they participate in international organisations, have diplomatic relations, etc. I haven't seen a secondary source which really fleshes out an argument by itself to say "The Cook Islands is a sovereign state" or something similar, but I wouldn't be surprised if one were out there. Most tertiary sources still show them with bracketed (NZ) though. Japinderum is also right that this is more of an academic rather than emotional dispute, which has its upsides and downsides. I think there will have to be a few case by case discussions before any standard presentation can emerge (if indeed it ever can). Also, Japinderum, it would be useful if we had a list of sources making certain points in some location, probably a user subpage, for much easier referencing on all sides and a basis for discussion. Is that doable? CMD (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not the place for this chat....CMD caught in the middle....But, nevertheless: Japinderum, my only concern: that CI & Niue not be 1) called "independent" or "fully sovereign" and 2) not be listed with the ~193 independent states in an undifferentiated fashion. That's all.

Overturning that status quo (above) requires a very large burden of proof, in part because there is such a preponderance (~90%+ ) of time-honored sources (and common WP sources) as the World Factbook, Times Atlas(UK) & 90% of other atlases, Nat'l Geographic, the US State Dept. list on line, Webster's Geographic Dictionary, the UN membership list (Switz.'s long exclusion was for totally different reasons), & at least 20 or 30 WP articles including List of sovereign states (where, after over a year of discussion, they are not listed in the "top list" or called independent.) That's a well-established status quo that, I'm afraid, will take a full UN membership or an actual declaration of independence by CI or Niue (which they don't seem to want...they voted against it before.)

As mentioned before, Japinderum, some of these primary or secondary sources insofar as how the NZ govt. or its judges consider CI & Niue are not the "be-all and end-all," as the distinction we need, instead, by definition, is whether CI & Niue are considered independent by the world community at large. (You'll remember other cases such as S. Africa's homelands decades ago where territories were declared "independent states" by the "colonial" power, yet virtually nobody agreed, and they were not included in any lists of independent states by the UN or anyone else at that time.

Until CI and Niue actually declare independence and until they are no longer NZ citizens and until they receive full-level recognition as independent states from more than a tiny percentage of relevant authorities (UN, other states), then there simply isn't a case to be made for listing them as independent states, is there?.....no matter how many judges rulings or proclamations or other secondary sources turn up from NZ or elsewhere.

You are of course correct from those primary and secondary sources that the two are in many administrative ways about as close to full sovereignty as possible; not "dependencies". But not full independence nor full diplomatic, embassy-level recognition by more than a few states (which is different than engaging in a treaty directly with them, as the US has, for ex.)

So perhaps instead we want to change "dependencies" to "others" as the title in the templates....& and list that says "dependency" (most don't.)....Like you, I also tried to get rid of that run-on 8-line sentence in Associate states...see my note there, as you asked me, and I have no problem with your lengthy but much better worded proposed edit on the talk page there except for a few words.DLinth (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

CMD - the relevant sources are mostly in the associated state and foreign relations articles, but I assume many additional ones can be found in various previous discussions on the topic. But I think the issue here is in perception and common misconception, not in sourcing.

DLinth, if CI and Niue are not "independent and fully sovereign", then they have no place in the List of sovereign states. CMD confirmed that they were included there after a lengthy discussion, so now the list article conforms to what the sources show. And just to clarify - the states with limited recognition are also "independent and fully sovereign" - the special-ness in their case is not in some "limited independence", "limited sovereignty" or "limited control" - it is in that their status as sovereign states is disputed by other states (not by non-diplomatic lists or Misplaced Pages editors). CI and Niue are not subject to such dispute. This is a big difference.

"listing along the ~193" - why "~" and not an exact number? Who are those ~193? I assume you refer to the 193 UN members and the Vatican City/Holy See - one of the 3 states non-members of the UN, that aren't subject to a sovereignty dispute. The other two are CI and Niue. Why do you want them somehow excluded? What's so different in them? That Joe writing a list of states on some website, atlas or book didn't care too much to check for obscure small island state, that evolved from limited self-governance into independence without a big flashy independence day? Yes, it's not so important like Australia, Canada or NZ (who did the same), but this is no reason for Misplaced Pages to be as sloppy as Joe. Actually, if Wikipedians do a good job here, the next time Joe prepares a list or uses one of those nifty Misplaced Pages maps I see everywhere on the web without acknowledging where they come from - he will list/show CI and Niue without even realizing that. Just as Joe "removes" them right now without realizing that.

Again, the atlases/lists you point to and similar stuff - such arguments that "CI and Niue are not fully independent" should be pointed at the List of sovereign states together with a request to remove CI and Niue. I'm not sure what "fully independent top list" you refer to. The List of sovereign states is ONLY for fully independent states. Top or bottom, doesn't matter. I assume the bottom list is for fully independent sovereign states, that aren't regular members of the international community, because they are involved in a sovereignty dispute with another state. CI and Niue aren't such, but even if they were this doesn't mean that they are less independent. In any case I kindly ask (both CMD and DLinth) - is the List of sovereign states divided into "fully independent" and "not fully independent" or it lists only "fully independent"?

I don't know which vote you refers to when you say "they voted against independence", but I assume that if such vote exists it's far in the past, and that many of the gradual steps in the process resulting in their today independence were taken afterwards.

World community at large, or at least not the Joe-writing-with-unknown-criteria-and-quality, but the official diplomatic community, clearly states that CI and Niue are fully independent. That's confirmed by all relevant parties - NZ, CI, Niue, UN and all states that both of those have diplomatic relations with. Also, I'm not aware of a state or international organization that questions CI or Niue independence or statehood (unlike for Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan, etc) - on the contrary it's quite a common (and undisputed and "no need to discuss" and "natural") practice for CI and Niue to join international organizations and treaties. Those are the real world actions, not some strangely compiled atlas or unofficial list.

What's this with declaring independence? NZ itself hasn't. Many others also haven't. And about percentage - actually we don't have sources showing any state or organization disagreeing with CI and Niue independence. See above.

What few states? Again those 193-190? I said already that there are much more than 3 states that have established diplomatic relations with CI and Niue. I don't know where you come up with that 3. And it's a common practice for small states not to have relations/recognitions with/from everybody else - this doesn't mean somebody objects or disputes their independence.

I think there are two major points of disagreement here:

• Number of diplomatic recognitions/relations. Applying Kosovo and Palestine logic to CI and Niue. As explained above the situations are different. Kosovo/Palestine/Taiwan are in a situation of "big international problem, sovereignty/territorial dispute" transpiring into "by default/if unknown - assume lack of recognition" - here there are plenty of sources with explicit statements for both recognition and objections to recognition. CI and Niue are not in this situation. They are like Tuvalu, Nauru, Bhutan, Monaco, Vatican City and any other small ("mostly irrelevant") state - "by default/if unknown - assume no problem with recognition" - few sources about recognition and relations and none sources about big sovereignty/territorial dispute or recognition problem.
• Discussion about whether CI and Niue are fully independent - apparently this already happened and concluded that they are. That's why they are included in the List of sovereign states article, the appropriate place for such discussion. Bringing arguments against that here (templates, associated state) is unproductive - if you want them removed - please go there. Top, middle or bottom part of that list can not be related to "fully independent" vs. "not fully independent". CMD, please confirm. Japinderum (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I've replied to your above concerns so as not to clutter up CMD's page Bottom line; this isn't up to one or more WP editors, but instead will require: an actual declaration of independence (not vote against, which we have in force now from the only referendum held there), and/or full UN membership, and/or recognition by a large number, not 3 or 5 independent states. Until then, all major international authorities (Factbook, Nat'l Geographic, Times atlas (UK), atlases from publishers around the world, US State Dept's on line list, Websters on line, every world map I've seen, etc., etc. (and other secondary sources widely used by WP editors) continue to link CI and Niue to NZ, and all continue to NOT list or show them within the world family of 190+ independent states. WP editors in 30+ articles including Niue and Cook Islands have followed suit for a long time, and I suggest will continue to do so until something changes with the UN and/or with the other factors listed above and at the link I provided. DLinth (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No. As I explained above - your arguments about "CI and Niue are not independent" can be utilized ONLY to remove them from the list of sovereign states articles. But as CMD confirmed already they are not removed from that article (following a discussion). So, unless your arguments convince editors there to remove these (but I assume those arguments have already been taken into account - and I also explained above what problems in those arguments I see) - please stop reverting edits to the navigation templates and other articles that are consistent with the current status of that article. Japinderum (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: The existence of a Civil War section

A user has expressed concerns that your vote on the above RfC on Talk:Sri Lanka is not genuine. I would appreciate if you could make some clarification to break the current deadlock as the user firmly stands by his opinion. Astronomyinertia (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Since he is not ready to drop it, I've taken the issue to the ANI. I don't see any other way to establish the credibility. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 04:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan and niceness

Superficial niceness is achieving nothing on that page. I figure it's time to try another approach. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:ROC

I acted in good faith to restore the comment that you have left at 01:22, 11 March which later disappeared. I thought it was deleted by accident when you restore my comment at 18:43, 10 March (which was removed by 114.229.255.127 ). Since Tiderolls questioned about it, could you help clarify whether your comment was deleted intentionally or by accident? Thanks. 202.189.98.134 (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I accept that your action was good faith. I removed it in a general rollback and didn't reinstate it, but I don't particularly care it's there now. For future reference, if you notice a comment that has not affected conversation has been deleted by its writer, it's best to clarify with the writer, like you did here, before taking action. I'll note Tiderolls you were acting in good faith, but you should understand you walk a thin line here, and should undertake extreme caution before touching someone else's edit. I suggest not doing it at all. CMD (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I truly believed that it was a plain accident since you didn't indicate anything in the edit summaries, and therefore thought that it's too minor to clarify with you (until Tiderolls questioned about it). Please accept my apologies.

Regarding HiLo48's comment, I still think that it's more logical to have his comment arranged in the same manner as Eraserhead1's and John Smith's. All three comments are responses to the same piece of comment by Niyaendi. 202.189.98.134 (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Accepted. It is common practice to place a new reply to a comment that has already been replied to under the old comment, often with an additional indentation, as otherwise it randomly pops up on the bottom of the thread, forcing editors to trace the indentation up, which is very inexact. CMD (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Agree. That's better than the way HiLo48 did. He's cutting in in the middle with additional indentation, ignoring Eraserhead1's and John Smith's earlier comments. That's making earlier comments difficult to follow. 202.189.98.134 (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Syria

No worries, I figured it was something like that. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for your work on the migratory sharks article

You deserve a cookie for that map you added to Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks. Too bad that the map shows what a small portion of the world's coastlines are represented! Orlady (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions (Chinese)

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

The convention is only meant to describe up to province level. CMD (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I am rather surprised to learn that. Would you be able to help me understand the reason behind? >g2g886 (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they prefer to have province over country, but in general you wouldn't have titles so disambiguated. Once you have the name of the place, X, you could disambiguate it as "X, province" or "X, country", but having "X, province, country" is long and unnecessary. In regards to your edit specifically, that was a list to try and show that the description of what a place is, eg. a mountain, province, or city, goes after the name of that place, so including Republic of China didn't really make a point. CMD (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

When you say "they prefer to have province over country", do you mean Chinese speaking communities? If that's the case, I believe I would have a better understanding over it. The Chinese communities used to be extremely China center due to its history; however, today, province, which is very similar to "state", along is not sufficient to address a place within Chinese speaking countries (ie. Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia may have places in Mandarin Chinese language). As a result, "X, city, province, country" can be the full description of a location while for short, the "country" is still necessary for actual identification. "大雪山 (Dasyue Mountain)" for example, the name is used in describing Dasyue Mountain, Taichung city, Taiwan and Dasyue Mountain, Sichuan province, China (they are different mountains). Please refer to . IMHO, country name is essential. >g2g886 (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

When I say "they" I mean the writers of that guideline page. There's no need to include the country and the province. Either one will provide disambiguation. Disambiguation is not meant for identification. CMD (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

lol

there is no such thing as wikipedia commitees who say if the arguments people make will pass or not. censorship trolls are simply gonna vanish now as they are obvious. fear the power of many. bOOOOOOoooooo--Frizstyler (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time

On behalf of WikiProject Sri Lanka and all Sri Lankan users and as a participant of this discussion I would like to apologise to you for the negative and uncivil comments and responses you received in taking your time to respond to our Rfc. I hope the following events did not discourage you from participating in Rfcs and Sri Lanka related topics in the future. Thank you.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria, again

Hi, since the last FA nomination didn't succeed, could you take a look at the article to see if there's anything that might cause trouble ? I'm trying to be precise with source formatting, but there's always something I miss. I'll clean up the single-sentence paragraphs and look for more dead links to replace, but I'll always appreciate some extra help. Oh, and it was copyedited a week or so ago. Thanks. - ☣Tourbillon 13:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Hello Chipmunkdavis, u reedited my edits which were sources from EU, BBC, and etc. And u have written that abkhazia is actually a State what is large Misinformation and Because of that i have contacted to Wiki administrator, if such edits will appear again i will make a complaint about it. i told same to Administrator. We are wikipedia users and this must not happen to wikipedia because it has already problems with law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsA-92 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor details at Taiwan

Yes, in the sentence on neighbouring states, the long form is needed or otherwise it is similar to constructions such as "pro-China president of Taiwan", which even supporters of the recent move have derided; this also is not a situation where using "China" instead of PRC won't create any precision issues, such as "China's space programme", or "Kyrgyzstan borders China". Remember this is article text, not article titles. GotR 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it needed? There is no precision issue, readers will be perfectly clear as to what China refers to. CMD (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly needed more in those last two examples I used. GotR 02:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That may be the case, but why? CMD (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Abbott's Booby

Hello! Your submission of Abbott's Booby at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! matt (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Abbott's Booby, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Red crab and Robert Ridgeway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Atretochoana

On 4 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Atretochoana, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Atretochoana eiselti, the largest tetrapod to lack lungs, was until late 2011 known only from two museum specimens whose origin was unknown? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Atretochoana.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fauna names

The short answer to your question is "if it's a proper noun". The relevant policy is at WP:MOSCAPS, but I think I'll add it to WP:FNAME as well to avoid confusion. Anaxial (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Chipmunkdavis. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply "Malaysia labelled map"

Hye, how about it? Is it ok ?? :) — иz нίpнόp 09:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It still separates them from the geographic areas they're in. Recolour the actual areas to be yellow and green, and shift the legend for federal territory to a new column, which should also include a note that blue font is for states. The font colour for West and East Malaysia in the legend should be changed too. CMD (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Shift the legend for federal territory to a new column?, mm, you mean like Alaska and Hawaii on this map??. I hope you can shows some maps for examples. — иz нίpнόp 10:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not the pictures, just the legend, so that there will be two columns, one for the geographical divisions (East/West), and one for the political (States/Federal territories). I can try myself, when I have more time. CMD (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

File request

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

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

Possible merge

Could you help me merge these two pages? - Serbian–Bulgarian wars (medieval) and Bulgarian–Serbian Wars (medieval). These articles appear to be unmaintained and so far no one has paid any attention to my request. I consider the merge between these pages to be inevitable and necessary. --Dj777cool (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

PNG and SVG Maps

Hello CMD, can you please suggest me some users who can do or usually do maps here on the English Wiki? I need some new maps of SVG or PNG format with better quality to change the older ones and can you recommend me someone I can contact for? Thanks. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ask at Misplaced Pages:Graphic Lab/Map workshop, chances are they'll be able to do whatever you want. CMD (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you CMD. I hope I'll get their help there. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Mtheory1 (talk · contribs)

I know you're a good regular editor in geography articles Chip. Could you keep your eye on Mtheory1 (talk · contribs). He is on a fringe POV campaign to change all references to Iran from Middle East/Western Asia to South Asia. He apparantly is a "scholar" and "must do my duty to spread the CORRECT information" to "FIX THESE PROBLEMS" . Irānshahr (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Category_names#Supranational_.2F_historical_country_categories. KarlB (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

DYK for Abbott's Booby

On 13 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abbott's Booby, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that if an Abbott's Booby (juvenile pictured) falls to the ground, it will starve unless it can catch the wind and take off again? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Abbott's Booby.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Victor Schnirelmann in Georgian alphabet

Hello CMD,

In the Georgian alphabet topic there's quote of Russian historian:

Victor Schnirelmann has noted that the Georgian historians' somewhat painful attitude towards Mesrop Mashtots is conditioned by the "myth of some pure original indigenous culture".

That sounds offensive and insulting don't you think? Don't you think that this quote should be removed? What do you suggest? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't read as offensive and insulting, and explains the rest of the paragraph it's in. There could be better wording for "somewhat painful attitude", but I'd have to read the source to know that, and I can't find an online copy. CMD (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So you would suggest that the quote should stay? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably. While we should usually write in our own words, when attributing something to a single source a quote can be useful. Here, the quote means I haven't questioned that phrase like I questioned "somewhat painful attitude". CMD (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

But is the source correct and should Russian (along with Armenians) be considered a trusted and credible as a source. I don't know if you know about it but it's mainly Russians and Armenians in the historical circles who were and still are always fighting against Georgian heritage and having ridiculous claims about anything what is of Georgian origin. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if the source is correct, but I see no reviews online which make me think it is. While it's always prudent to watch out for nationalistic sources, this author seems to hold some respectability, and it's the only explanation for the different dating presented on the page. Also note that the credibility argument goes both ones, if one intrinsically distruts Russians and Armenians due to a default position, one should be equally wary of Georgian sources for the same reasons. CMD (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Sri Lanka Demographics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Distributor108 (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox country

--Cybercobra (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Provinces of the Philippines

I have nominated Provinces of the Philippines for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I know that you've only edited this page twice, but among people who (1) have edited it comparatively recently and (2) are currently active with the project, you still have the second-highest number of edits to the page. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, never mind — turns out that you have the highest number of edits to this page among the population in question. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thy name

Is it a reference to Chip Davis, US producer/arranger/something musical? Varlaam (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not why I created it. It's a great coincidence though; it's good to have a name similar to someone else who plays drums (despite his claims to be a basoonist). CMD (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Then the only possible alternative is quite glaring.

It's Chip "Munk" Davis because you love the show Monk and you are not a strong speller.

QED. Full marks to Varlaam (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that is a show I haven't seen in quite awhile. I do like it though, very much. I'm afraid there's no great story behind my name, sorry, but maybe I can give it one! Full marks to you though, I can incorporate your ideas into a future autobiography ;) CMD (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Germany

Please see: Great Power → List of great powers by date. --IIIraute (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Linking to Encarta would have been far more convincing, but since that tertiary source qualifies it, I suppose it's fine then. CMD (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are some other interesting articles: and . --IIIraute (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't access the Telegraph one, but the other one is indeed interesting. Evidently, any course of action taken by someone in power is wrong! CMD (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. If you like, try: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8898945/Germany-The-reluctant-superpower.html or google the given keywords. --IIIraute (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that link works for some odd reason. Thanks again, CMD (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

FYI: Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Seyitahmetmrk

Conversation moved from User talk:TerriersFan#User:Seyitahmetmrk:

We will see. But this looks more on a protecting a friend. And in the mean time mr CMD is personally attacking and discrediting me, here and on the talkpage of Seyitahmetmrk. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe all of my statements are backed up by evidence and quite fair. If you point out one that isn't, I will gladly strike it and apologise. CMD (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please stop harassing me over this? And could you please prove why this is no vandalism? A three year older source (2009, but unrefereced) makes the city 150% bigger dan a 2012-source (that is refenced). Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism. CMD (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

a) you are clearly blind for the facts. b) I requested you to stop harassing me. You know, as in Misplaced Pages:Harassment. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Which facts? I'm not harassing you, as in Misplaced Pages:Harassment, or any other benchmark of the word as far as I'm aware. CMD (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Then read it again: Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, as that's not my purpose, that doesn't apply. CMD (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To make sure it is known, and because TerriersFan is named in it (but not part): AN/I. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the 2009 pop. figure given by Seyitahmetmrk is for Samsun Province; the population of the urban part of the Samsun municipality from the same census was 482,873. To me this looks like a mistake rather than vandalism, although so elementary (for someone with a Turkish background) that it suggests a lack of competence.  --Lambiam 19:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC) P.S. Some Internet sleuthing leads me to think this user is a high-school freshman.  --Lambiam 13:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it does seem like quite a difficult mistake to make. Perhaps they don't speak English well, and confused something. CMD (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I still consider it as malicious and a deliberate attempt to grow the city to rise in the list of biggest cities. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

And your opinions still fly in the face of wikipedia guidelines. CMD (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your removals also fly in the face of wikipedia guidelines. A few lines up you state it does seem like quite a difficult mistake to make. I had the same idea and I just was bold. Most likely mr. Seyitahmetmrk was a vandalistic one-day fly. I guess the best way for the both of us, is leave the stalemate as it is and leave the talkpage untouched after adding an archive-bot-thingy. It is useless to keep fighting over this. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My removals fly in the face of nothing. They aren't based on any sort of faith, they're made because the tags were inappropriate, as agreed by two other editors at AN/I. In addition, the BOLD guideline is mostly about article editing, not about warnings, and is supplemented by things like Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which you have not taken to heart at all (even after you filed a failed AN/I). This isn't about "us", but about a new user who didn't WP:vandalise, yet was blocked for vandalism. If you think it's useless to fight, then stop fighting. I think that doing what I can to fix a mistake as much as I can is useful, and is the right thing to do. Perhaps Seyitahmetmrk would have only been around for a day, or a few days, or even for just those edits made. However, perhaps had they not had their edits labelled as vandalism then found themselves blocked, they may have become a productive editor. We probably will never find out. Lastly, best not to add an archive bot to another users page, especially as it's so short. CMD (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why are you removing the warning that I placed for my opinion that the edits were malicious? The so claimed consensus is not there. On AN/I, on TerrierFans page, there is clear doubt about the edits being proper and AGF. So stop removing those templates. There is no ground whatsoever to remove them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Because your opinion is wrong. The edits may not be proper, but they were not vandalism. The templates you gave were for vandalism. As the edits were not vandalism, the warnings do not belong. Quotes from AN/I:

"Why is providing a new source that shows the city as 150% bigger years ago vandalism? Inaccurate? Maybe. Vandalism? Absolutely not." --v/r - TP 17:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"Although an error, it was not vandalism." Mathsci (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought you had determined this was useless? If so, why are you continuing it? You placed some vandalism warnings for edits that weren't vandalism, and have been informed by myself and others that these were not vandalism. You have not been able to provide any policy or guideline to support your actions besides trying to justify them with WP:Bold, which even if it justified the initial warnings does not justify your continued reapplications of the inappropriate templates. I have noted that the edits were not WP:Vandalism, and other users have agreed with that, while not one has agreed with you. What would it take to establish consensus in your eyes? CMD (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Why I am continuing? Because I still think that the edits were malicious. And an extra reason is some dude using almost every policy in the book to proof that I am wrong. Unfortunately, the policies "common sense" and "respect for the different opinion of an other Misplaced Pages" seem to miss in your library. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You do this even though it's abundantly clear that the edits fail WP:Vandalism? Our policies and guidelines exist for a reason, and an editors personal opinion doesn't supercede community consensus. CMD (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is/is not a sovereign state

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Palestine is/is not a sovereign state". Thank you. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 21:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA notice

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.

This is specicfally due to you being named as a disputant regarding Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Palestine is/is not a sovereign state Hasteur (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Modifs of Template:History of Georgia

Hi! I just saw that you edited that template, only to be reverted by User:GeorgianJorjadze. I'm trying to improve the template too, and posted a possible version of it on the talk page in order to reach some consensus. I think your changes are quite welcome too, and would like to suggest incorporating them into the template I am building. However, the same user that reverted you seems quite opposed to my proposal, without answering specific arguments. I am rather new at editing, so I would greatly appreciate if you could have a look at the debate so that we can work out possible changes. Thanks!--Susuman77 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute at Template talk:History of Georgia

Hello Chipmunkdavis,

Yourself and a few editors appear to have reached a deadlock situation in a dispute at Template talk:History of Georgia. Therefore, I am inviting everyone involved to reboot discussions in a peaceful and amicable manner at Template_talk:History_of_Georgia#Discussion_reboot. Please read carefully the opening statement, and engage with others involved in a civil discussion, avoiding personal attacks as much as possible. Thank you - Wesley☀Mouse 09:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretenders no longer lead the coutnry

Prince Ahmed Shah Khan is not a pretender he's the heir apparent to the throne of Afghanistan and is currently living in America, so is Prince Niaz Ali Khan (Spitfire202 10:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC))

As heir apparent, he's a pretender. See Pretender. CMD (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese Angola

@Chipmunkdavis: I find your intervention on the talk page of this article very helpful: "blatant POV" is exactly what has been in evidence there, in two opposite directions. However, you have now deleted a portion of the text which contained a source (Atmore) which I think should be maintained. Is there any reason why you think it should not? -- Aflis (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The portion of text I removed was done simply as part of my revert of Ackees's edits, which were simply terrible, and basically said the same thing that was already there but with a nicer, whitewashed, cooperative Kongo Kingdom and a horrid evil Portugal. The only part of their edit which added something was the "thus they began a policy of disrupting the social order of the Kongo Kingdom", but taken with the major POV this user has and the fact they so readily change information to fit their POV gives me doubt as to that information's neutrality, especially since they sources this to 550 pages of a book. 550, for a statement which should take one. If say they gave more information about the source (cite templates perhaps), including a quote if it's offline, then perhaps there's something to add. CMD (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

West Philippine Sea

It is how a sovereign state refers to body of water so it's definitely not some sort of "neologistic synonym" or whatever you call it. Like I said in the Talk page, the term passes the Google test and the term can even be found in official state correspondence. Besides, my version looks similar to East Sea, so your argument about "This is a disambiguation page" and "Leave disputes to the actual articles" does not hold. Pleasure doing business with ya~! Xeltran (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You are a real man who helps create my user page?

I didn't expect that the other man could also create my user page. Anyway, thanks for your creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypku (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

-- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been entered in a dispute on the serama page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.133.214 (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Checking users' contributions

Hi, thanks for trying to sort out 172.129.125.50's good-faith but incorrect edits. However, you didn't revert that user's edits to French Polynesia, probably due to this edit by Helpful Pixie Bot. Graham87 01:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I think you're right. Maybe they'll come back in a couple of days. CMD (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ads

Got nervous? You made me smile... Sorry, forgot to sign. --E4024 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Brisbane workshop and meetup invitation

	Brisbane Meetup v t e Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a series of Paralympic History workshops and a meetup next Saturday (26 May) and Sunday. In attendance will be University of Queensland faculty members and Australian Paralympic Committee staff. Details and an attendee list are at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Brisbane/5. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 07:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sovereign states and navigation templates

Please see the RFC related to a Template talk:Oceania topic discussion or associated edits you participated in. Japinderum (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo

I find your last revert on the Kosovo page highly tendentious. Please refrain from this in the future and let's work for a better wikipedia Ottomanist (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

One edit, on a talk page, is not tendentious. You clearly have no idea what the word means. CMD (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous or Rude?

Dear Chipmunkdavis, I got confused and said Cyprus instead of Country. This was a Lapsus L. I did not do anything wrong nor ridiculous by replacing Country with RoC, given the state of affairs on the island of Cyprus. I consider your labeling my edit or whatever act or attitude (I know, it is not the Lapsus) as "ridiculous" and announcing it to the WP community in an edit summary is a rude behaviour. I wanted you know that. Sorry for disturbing you and all the best, --E4024 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Bahrain: an absolute monarchy or a constitutional monarchy?

Dear Chipmunkdavis,

I requested a change in the article about "Bahrain" stating:

Please change "Bahrain is a Constitutional monarchy" to "Bahrain is an absolute monarchy which claims to be a constitutional monarchy".

I provided just a sampling below of the hundreds of sources which agree with this classification.

Sources: http://adonis49.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/bahrain-western-pr-firms-to-the-rescue-of-this-absolute-monarchy/ http://socialistworker.org/2011/05/11/brutal-face-of-bahrains-monarchy http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/bahrain-demonstrators-repressed.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/middleeast/18voices.html http://www.enritimes.com/countries/bahrain.aspx http://guides.library.cornell.edu/content.php?pid=259276&sid=2163172 http://bahrainipolitics.blogspot.com/2012/01/bahrains-war-of-attrition.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/world/middleeast/21bahrain.html http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/8304-turmoil-in-the-middle-east-bahrains-revolution http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50527 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=610_1300114588 http://wspus.org/2011/02/bahrain-resists/ etc., etc., etc. Clioveritas (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You responded by stating:

Not done. Many of those sources aren't reliable, and we have sources like the factbook noting it is a constitutional monarchy. CMD (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

May I inquire as to which--other than the CIA World Factbook--sources are considered reliable by you?

regards,

Clioveritas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clioveritas (talk • contribs) 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy is found at WP:Reliable sources. This means, for example, that basically all wordpress and blogspots are immediately out. CMD (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Dutch Guiana vs. Suriname (Dutch colony) (and Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands))

Dear Chipmunkdavis,

Could you please stop reverting my edits in which I changed the wrong links to Dutch Guiana to either Suriname (Dutch colony) or Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands)? I created both Suriname (Dutch colony) and Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands) to end the confusion once and for all; despite common misconception, the Dutch colony which is now the independent country of Suriname, was never known officially as Dutch Guiana. The name Dutch Guiana only became prominent on maps etc. after the United Kingdom united Berbice, Essequibo, and Demerara to British Guiana in 1831. Even maps that do refer to "Dutch Guiana", as an analogy to British Guiana and French Guiana say something like "Suriname, or, Dutch Guiana", like this one for example. From 1683 until 1795, the colony was governed by the Society of Suriname and never known by the name of Dutch Guiana. And from the moment the Dutch state took control of the colony in 1795, until the moment Suriname became a country within the Kingdom in 1954, the colony was referred to in official documents as "Suriname", not as "Dutch Guiana". The governor was always known as the Governor of Suriname, never as the Governor of Dutch Guiana. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

N.B. you should read the article Dutch Guiana. The term Dutch Guiana is a geographical term which not only refers to Suriname, but also to Berbice, Pomeroon, Essequibo, Demerara, and Cayenne, which were separate jurisdictions!. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course it was never officially Dutch Guiana. Dutch Guiana is an English phrase, whereas the actual colony was Dutch. All Dutch writing and sources have no bearing on what it was ever called in English. And I have read that unsourced article. I then looked through other, non-wikipedia sources, which equate them. I don't know the details of how Dutch administration changed and shifted throughout time, but the English term for the colony between British Guiana and French Guiana seems to be Dutch Guiana. CMD (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"but the English term for the colony between British Guiana and French Guiana seems to be Dutch Guiana": simply not true. You say on your user page: "This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake". This is just an example of that. People assume that because Britain named its colony British Guiana, and France still names it French Guiana, the Dutch name must be Dutch Guiana. It's just not true, not in Dutch sources, neither in English sources. If you still don't believe me: the official name of the Anglo-Dutch treaty on the emigration of Hindoestanen to Suriname is named Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands, relative to the Emigration of Labourers from India to the Dutch Colony of Surinam; it's on the site of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Please complain to them if you think they worded the treaty wrong back in 1870... Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Things can have more than one name. For all the sources you show which call it Surinam, or Suriname, others will call it Dutch Guiana. All of the names are easily found via google. CMD (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems the British government prefers Surinam though (which may indeed be better than Suriname, which is actually Dutch, I'll change my articles accordingly). It remains a mistery to me why you insist on directing people who read about the abolition of slavery in 1863 in the article "Netherlands" to Dutch Guiana instead of Suriname (Dutch colony)... The latter article is far more relevant, don't you think? If not, please explain why. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The latter article is about 3 hours old and seems to be based on promoting a clear distinction between the term "Dutch Guiana" and the colony which evolved into modern Suriname that doesn't exist as a clear distinction in sources. CMD (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"The latter article is about 3 hours old"... duh: I just created it!. There was no article about the colony yet. There was an article about Berbice, about Essequibo (colony), and even about Pomeroon (colony) (all part of Dutch Guiana), but not yet one about Surinam (Dutch colony), only one about Suriname, the independent state. That's why I started to change the wrong redirects to Dutch Guiana after I created Surinam (Dutch colony) and Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands). Until you began frustrating my efforts... Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"seems to be based on promoting a clear distinction between the term "Dutch Guiana" and the colony which evolved into modern Suriname", not at all, the term "Dutch Guiana" isn't even mentioned in either Surinam (Dutch colony) or Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands). The sole reason I created these articles is the fact that they didn't yet exist (the article Dutch Guiana was never about the Colony of Surinam, but rather about the whole bunch of Dutch colonies in the Guianas). The vast majority of articles on the colonial history of Suriname linked to Suriname like this: ] (example), only a small minority of articles linked to Dutch Guiana for the Colony of Suriname.

May I ask you how you think articles like Johan van Scharphuizen and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck should link to the colony which evolved into modern Suriname? If that would be Dutch Guiana, that seems very odd and historically incorrect to me. It would imply Johan van Scharphuizen and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck were also Governors of Berbice and Essequibo (colony), which they clearly were not (and to say this once more: these articles, nor any articles about the colony of the Society of Suriname ever refer to the colony as Dutch Guiana). The term "Dutch Guiana" originates from after the British take-over of Berbice, Essequibo, and Demerara, in 1814 after which the British united these colonies named them British Guiana.

I don't dispute "Dutch Guiana" or "Netherlands Guiana" was sometimes used for the colony of Suriname (the FIFA code for Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands) seems to be NGY), but that doesn't mean the article should be named that way (let there be no doubt: in official contexts, international treaties etc., always the term Surinam(e) was used). The Netherlands itself, for example, was for a long time referred to as Holland in semi-official context (e.g. the IOC code for the Netherlands was HOL between 1968 and 1988), but since Holland is a pars pro toto (similar to referring to the United Kingdom as "England"), we don't use that on this Misplaced Pages, not even for the period in which Holland was arguably more used than the Netherlands.Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Saying "the term "Dutch Guiana" isn't even mentioned in either Surinam (Dutch colony) or Suriname (Kingdom of the Netherlands)" is a rather poor argument considering that they are articles which you wrote. There are no sources on Dutch Guiana to back up the current text there saying it was a region. On the other hand, part of the article was dedicated to the Surinam colony. It had an infobox attesting this, until you removed it. It doesn't matter when the term Dutch Guiana originated, only that it is now used to refer to colonial Suriname. From all the sources I've seen, the best course of action seems to be a merger of your new Surinam (Dutch colony) into Dutch Guiana, and otherwise rewriting it to conform with external sources. CMD (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So you seriously want Johan van Scharphuizen's and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck's articles say that they were governors of Dutch Guiana? How does that make sense when there are governors of Berbice and Essequibo at the same time Van Scharphuizen and Van Aerssen van Sommeldijck were governors of Suriname (installed by the Society of Suriname!). Using Dutch Guiana might make some sense for the 19th and 20th centuries, when the term was actually used in a unofficial and semi-official way for the colony of Suriname, but not for the 17th and 18th centuries, in which Suriname was just one of many Dutch colonies in the Guianas (and in that period, the term Dutch Guiana was used to refer to all these colonies collectively, see Jan Jacob Hartsinck (1770) for this:

Het Nederlands Guiana word verdeeld in de Colonie van Essequebo, waar onder de Rivier Bouweron, of Poumeron en verdere onderhoorige Rivieren en Districten behooren; mitzgaders de Colonie en Rivier Demerary; welke Colonien thans bestierd worden door de Westindische Compagnie ter Kamer Zeeland: de Colonie de Berbice, die door byzondere Directeuren van zekere Maatschappy, volgens het hen verleende Octroy, wordt geregeerd. En de Colonie van Suriname, behoorende voor één derde deel aan de Westindische Compagnie, één derde aan de Stad van Amsterdam, en één derde deel aan het Huis van Aarssen van Sommelsdyk, allen echter onder de Oppermagt van de Algemeene Staaten der Vereenigde Nederlanden.

Thus, saying that Johan van Scharphuizen was a governor of Dutch Guiana is just plain incorrect. Furthermore, I have seen no English-language international treaty in which the Colony of Surinam was referred to as Dutch Guiana. Not a single one. All talk about the Colony of Surinam. To clarify things, I have written Dutch_Guiana#Dutch_Guiana_vs._Suriname (sourced). I hope you can finally agree that Surinam (Dutch colony) is a better description of the colony than Dutch Guiana. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, article titles and the terminology used isn't based on what things were called in the past (although this deserves mention), but what they are called contemporarily, in the English language. The source you provide above is both historical and not in English, so it's irrelevant to the English discussion of the word. Also, official terms do not determine article titles. They can be used, but their being official is not part of usage consideration (Misplaced Pages:Official names). Thus international treaties don't determine article titles, and also have less weight on modern terminology due to their being historical.

Dutch_Guiana#Dutch_Guiana_vs._Suriname is not well sourced. The first sentence is sort of sourced, although whether treaties provide official names is disputable. Everything after that appears to be your own analysis of the terms usage, with the third source actually being misleading, as 1) it uses Nederlands Guiana, not Dutch Guiana, and 2) is in Dutch, and therefore doesn't support any sort of statement on the English usage of the word.

On the other hand, here's a dictionary, Encyclopaedia, historical account, and modern paper that equate Surinam and Dutch Guiana. The Britannica article on Paramaribo even notes that the city was once known as Dutch Guiana, implying the name applied to the initial settlement before spreading to the entire colony. CMD (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

with the third source actually being misleading, as 1) it uses Nederlands Guiana, not Dutch Guiana, and 2) is in Dutch, and therefore doesn't support any sort of statement on the English usage of the word.: sigh... the adjective "Nederlands" in the Dutch language means "Dutch", the Dutch term for "Dutch Guiana" is "Nederlands Guiana", the Dutch language itself is called "Nederlands". I seriously doubt you know what you are talking about. The Britannica article about Paramaribo stating it was once known as Dutch Guiana says it all really... these encyclopedias also contain errors, this is obviously one of them. It makes absolutely no sense that Paramaribo itself was once called Dutch Guiana.

I never disputed that Dutch Guiana is used to refer to colonial Surinam, I only contend that Dutch Guiana is a confusing term and that Surinam (Dutch colony) is a better term, especially since that term was used in official English-language texts of the day (please name me one treaty which refers to the colony as Dutch Guiana!). Referring to the colony as Surinam is not uncommon, the only English language historical map of the colony on Wikimedia Commons says A map of the Colony of Surinam.

You refuse to answer my question. Do you seriously want Johan van Scharphuizen's and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck's articles say that they were governors of Dutch Guiana? How is that factually correct. Could you please explain that to me? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, do you want the article Society of Suriname to be renamed Society of Dutch Guiana? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Two more things: 1) I think the reason why the Colony of Surinam is now often referred to as Dutch Guiana, is because it is an (unhappy) way of describing that it used to be a Dutch colony. What writers actually want to convey with "Suriname, formerly Dutch Guiana" is that the country used to be a Dutch colony. I don't think they actually imply that the colony's (official) name was Dutch Guiana, at least that is not the intent of the sentence. 2) When does Surinam stop being referred to as Dutch Guiana according to you? In 1954, when Suriname became a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, or in 1975, when it became fully independent (I'm just curious)?

I know that Nederlands is Dutch in Dutch. It being Dutch is a rather important point. It is obviously not English. You've somehow also missed the point on official names not being important. It wouldn't mean a thing if I could find a treaty calling the colony Dutch Guiana. You've also missed my point on historical usage of terms being superceded by modern usage. Providing an old map is completely irrelevant to my statements, especially in light of the fact that I have noted that alternative names were used. In addition, your opinion on Britannica is quite irrelevant. It's a WP:Reliable source.

I see no reason why Johan van Scharphuizen's and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck's articles can't say they were the governor of Dutch Guiana, given that every source I have shown provides that the colony is nowadays referred to as such. It's correct because...they were. The explanation is that the colony is nowadays called Dutch Guiana. See the sources I posted above for example.

Your question on the Society of Suriname is irrelevant. If the society is known as the Society of Suriname in modern sources, then that's what it is known as.

In your two more things you again bring up official names. Again I point out that official names don't determine what things are called. My opinion of when Surinam stops being referred to as Dutch Guiana is of no consequence. What matters is what sources say. The exact political setup of the Netherlands is a rather niche topic, so I haven't read two much about it. From what I have read though, most sources refer to Suriname in that period as Suriname. CMD (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

While indeed a name being official does indeed not mean it should be used here, it does help to prove that the name is "consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources". As for Dutch Guiana, it doesn't meet the criterion of being unambiguous and is therefore unsuitable as the title for the article on the Colony of Surinam. I think "Surinam (Dutch colony)" is recognizable to readers, so I prefer that one.

I'm glad you replied on my question about Johan van Scharphuizen and Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck, because this is where you make your big mistake. While the post-1814 colony of Surinam was increasingly referred to as Dutch Guiana, this is not the case for the colony before 1814. English literature about the colony of Suriname before 1814 speaks about the colony of Surinam, both the literature written then and now.

In August, 1799, an expedition was prepared for the reduction of the Dutch settlement of Surinam on the coast of Terra Firma; the squadron, consisting of two ships of the line and five fifties, was under the immediate command of Lord Hugh Seymour; the land-forces under Lieutenant-general Sir Thomas Trigge. -- Edward Pelham Brenton (1823) - The naval history of Great Britain: from the year MDCCLXXXIII to MDCCCXXII, page 447.

Between the English and the Dutch it was determined that each power should keep the conquests in its possession as of 21 May 1667. This confirmed the loss of Surinam to the Dutch in exchange for having New Amsterdam (New York) remain English. With the death of Francis Lord Willoughby there was nobody to defend the interest of British planters. -- Mordehay Arbell (2002) - The Jewish Nation of the Caribbean: The Spanish-Portuguese Jewish Settlements in the Caribbean and the Guianas, page 88

The Dutch possessions in Guiana in 1803 included the four settlements of Surinam, Berbice, Demerara, and Essequibo. -- The English Illustrated Magazine (1891), Volume 8, page 379

While the Dutch Caribbean islands -- St Eustatius, St Martin, Saba, and Curacao -- were small trading colonies, Surinam, on the 'Wild Coast' or Northern littoral of South America, had considerable plantation potential. -- Robin Blackburn (1998) - The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern, 1492-1800, page 501

What happened in 1814 is that the term Dutch Guiana became coterminous with the Colony of Surinam, whereas before that date, the term applied to four separate Dutch colonies collectively. In short, and I say this very clearly now because you are apparently not getting my point: Dutch Guiana is a perfect term to describe the Colony officially known as Surinam after 1814. However, Dutch Guiana is a factually incorrect term to describe Surinam before 1814, as Dutch Guiana also included Berbice, Essequibo and Demerara at that time. Thus, Dutch Guiana is not a suitable title for the article now known as Surinam (Dutch colony). You can fix this of course by splitting the article into a pre-1814 article and a post-1814 article, but such a split doesn't make too much sense, as the biggest change for the colony itself was when the administration was transfered from the chartered Society of Suriname to the Batavian Republic in 1795.

In addition, your opinion on Britannica is quite irrelevant. Where did I state an opinion on Britannica? I only said Britannica is not free of errors (hardly a controversial statement). Referring to Surinam as formerly Dutch Guiana is not an error, referring to the capital Paramaribo as Dutch Guiana clearly is. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources you provide demonstrate your assertion that the colony-pre 1814 is nowadays not referred to as Dutch Guiana. Your statement, "Dutch Guiana is a factually incorrect term to describe Surinam before 1814, as Dutch Guiana also included Berbice, Essequibo and Demerara at that time", hasn't been backed up by any of the sources you have provided. I understand fully what you are trying to say. The problem is it remains unsourced. It is not clearly an error that Paramaribo was once called Dutch Guiana. Paramaribo is where the original settlement was begun. It was once all that made up Surinam. If, say, that area is called Dutch Guiana, it once made up all that was Dutch Guiana.

If you have sources demonstrating a widespread more general use of Dutch Guiana, then there's something to discuss. Perhaps Dutch Guiana could be rewritten to cover what it is defined as with a note that usage was once more expansive. Perhaps this can be done in conjunction with a new page covering Dutch expansion in the Caribbean in general, rather than a somewhat arbitrary division of only looking at the South American coast. Perhaps a convention can be developed where before 1814 it is pipelinked as Surinam, just in case clarity is unsure. So, do you have a contemporary English source that uses "Dutch Guiana" in the expansive way? One source wouldn't show widespread usage, but it would at least show what you're trying to show. CMD (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources you provide demonstrate your assertion that only the pre-1814 Colony of Surinam, rather than all Dutch colonies taken together, is nowadays referred to as Dutch Guiana. All your sources say something like "Suriname, formerly Dutch Guiana" without going into details about what that term implies for the situation before. There is actually nothing factually incorrect about stating that the colony of Surinam equals Dutch Guiana, it was the only part of Guiana administered by the Dutch after 1814. Before 1814, that term applied to all Dutch possessions in Guiana. I have already provided sources for that, an English one from the English Illustrated Magazine, and a Dutch one from Hartsinck, but as you keep insisting that only the Colony of Surinam was referred to as Dutch Guina (which none of your sources say), I'll give you some more:

Sources demonstrating that Surinam is part of Dutch Guiana

In time, he felt it his duty to take an active part in the missionary work. After a training period he was dispatched to Surinam, in Dutch Guiana, as the leader of the mission station of the Brethren. -- Øystein Ore (1974) - Niels Henrik Abel: mathematician extraordinary, page 135

The colony of Surinam in Dutch Guiana, extending a hundred miles along the north-east coast of South America, between the fifth and seventh degrees of north latitude, has been known for many years past. -- Thomas Christie (1796) - The Analytical review, or History of literature, domestic and foreign, on an enlarged plan, Vol. 24, page 225

When terms of pacification next took place between the English and the Dutch, the latter resigned rights over the late New Netherlands, and accepted, in exchange, the colony of Surinam in Dutch Guiana. -- François-Xavier Garneau (1866) - History of Canada: from the time of its discovery till the union year 1840-41, Vol. 1, page 225.

Every part of the world where domestic slavery is established, may be occasionally liable to insurrection and disquiet, more especially where the slaves constitute the majority of the inhabitants; but the colony of Surinam, in Dutch Guiana, has been peculiarly unfortunate in this respect. -- John Gabriel Stedman (1963) - Expedition to Surinam: being the narrative of a five years expedition against the revolted Negroes of Surinam in Guiana, on the wild coast of South America, from the year 1772 to 1777, elucidating that country and describing its productions, with an account of Indians of Guiana and Negroes of Guinea, page xi

Sources demonstrating that Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice are part of Dutch Guiana

In 1796 a Colonial Expedition was sent to South America, 1796. where the Dutch settlements of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice in Dutch Guiana peacefully surrendered at the end of April to Captain John Parr of the Malabar. Marcus Robert Phipps Dorman (1902) - A history of the British empire in the nineteenth century, Vol. 1, page 27

As commander, on 5 June, 1795, he obtained a victory over a French division off Porto Rico, and he aided in 1790 in the capture of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice, in Dutch Guiana, of which he became the governor. James Grant Wilson, John Fiske (1888) -- Appleton's Cyclopædia of American Biography, Vol. 4, page 334

Early in 1796 they also took Ceylon, Malacca, Cochin, Trincomalee and the Spice Islands, in the East Indies, from them; and Demerara, Berbice and Essequibo, in Dutch Guiana, in South America, in May, 1796. -- Israel Smith Clare (1893) - The Unrivaled History of the World: Sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, page 1402

Sources demonstrating that Berbice is part of Dutch Guiana

AMSTERDAM, NEW, the seat of government of Berbice, in Dutch Guiana, is situated between the rivers Berbice and Canje, near their confluence, and extends along the banks of the former, about 1,5 miles, with the houses facing the waters. -- (A. Constable and co., 1822) - The Edinburgh gazetteer, or geographical dictionary, page 166

On some occasions, African rebels tried to come to an agreement with the colonial power. In 1763, in the colony of Berbice in Dutch Guiana, enslaved Africans led by Cuffee rebelled for the fifth time in 30 years, seized part of the colony and threatened to take over the whole island. When the Dutch brought reinforcements, the enslaved initially suggested a partition of the island and sought to establish an alliance with the maroon communities in neighbouring Suriname. Understandingslavery.com - Resistance and Rebellion

Sources demonstrating that Demerara is part of Dutch Guiana

He had left France about the year 1782,7 and probably had gone to Demerara in Dutch Guiana, where some members of the Rousselet family lived and where at least one of them was then occupying an official position. -- Robert Howard Lord, John E. Sexton, Edward T. Harrington (1944) - History of the archdiocese of Boston in the various stages of its development, 1604 to 1943, Vol. 1, page 414

When van M died, a few years later, at Demerara, in Dutch Guiana, I learnt that his will contained several clauses in my favour. It merely remained for me to avail myself of them. Ida Saint-Elme (2008) -- Memoirs of a Contemporary: the Reminiscence of of Ida Saint-Elme, page 28

Sources demonstrating that Essequibo is part of Dutch Guiana

Along with the Leewards, several other slave colonies close to Spanish territory lost slaves because of this tolerant policy: Dutch St. Eustatius and the Danish islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix to Puerto Rico; Jamaica to Cuba; South Carolina to Florida; and Essequibo in Dutch Guiana to Orinoco or Spanish Guiana (Venezuela). -- David Barry Gaspar (1993) - Bondmen and Rebels: A Study of Master-Slave Relations in Antigua

A British fleet reduced the settlements of Demerara and Essequibo, in Dutch Guiana, in South America; but a British squadron on its way to attack the Dutch colony at the Cape of Good Hope was defeated off the Cape de Verde Islands by the French fleet under... -- Israel Smith Clare (1893) - The Unrivaled History of the World: Sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, page 1306

I hope you are finally convinced now. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please reply? Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, as you can see from my contributions I haven't been the most active recently. Lots of stuff to do. Now, although for some reason you've again insisted on using century old sources to somehow support modern usage, a couple of those do show the term is nowadays used for all Dutch colonies there. There's still probably greater usage of Dutch Guiana for the Surinam colony though. In light of this, what do you think of changing Dutch Guiana into a disambiguation for the region and the post-1814 colony, while including a note on the Surinam page that post 1814 it was referred to as Dutch Guiana? That should solve the anachronism issues and direct users to the right pages. CMD (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly fine, I'm quite busy myself as well. I already included the note in the lead of Surinam (Dutch colony) that it was often referred to as Dutch Guiana post-1814, I hope you're fine with that. I'm not too sure about making Dutch Guiana a redirect though. I'm more in favour of rewriting it into a sourced article on the history of Dutch colonization in the Guianas, with perhaps a bit more emphasis in the lead that after 1814, Surinam was the only colony in Dutch Guiana left, making the terms Dutch Guiana and Surinam coterminous.

As for the use of those old sources: sadly, little is written about these plantation colonies these days, making it much harder to find contemporary sources about them (Bondmen and Rebels: A Study of Master-Slave Relations in Antigua (1993) of David Barry Gaspar and Resistance and Rebellion on understandingslavery.com are modern sources, however). The discipline of historiography is dominated by whites, and they are not too inclined to write about plantation colonies that relied on slave labour. Furthermore, Berbice, Essequibo, and Demerara had always been considerable smaller than Surinam, which made them quite obscure to start with, which was further execarbated by the cession of these colonies to the British in 1814. Berbice's claim to fame nowadays seems to solely rely on the 1763 Berbice Slave Uprising. A big event which has only a tiny article on this Misplaced Pages. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary sources are preferable though, so I'm glad you found the 1993 one. I'm not suggesting a full hard redirect, but disambiguating it to be something like "Dutch Guiana can refer to 1) The colony of Surinam after 1814 2) all Dutch colonies in the Guiana region", with the current article under Dutch Guiana at Dutch Guiana (region) or perhaps even better, Dutch colonisation in the Guianas if that's the focus (was it that separate from other Dutch colonial exploits? I'd imagine prima facie that there was a lot of communication with the ABC islands). CMD (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I can live with that. Dutch colonisation in the Guianas would indeed be a better title for the article now named Dutch Guiana, because that term--as we have seen--is quite confusing. The term Dutch Guiana should IMO be mentioned in that article's lead however, as that is the term used to refer to the Dutch possessions in the Guianas (as demonstrated in the sources provided above).

About the Dutch colonies in the Guianas vis-a-vis the other Dutch colonies in the West Indies: they were actually quite different: Curacao was a prominent slave market, more important than Jamaica in the late 17th century. Through the asiento slave trade, Curacao provided the Spanish America with slaves. There were a few plantations on Curacao, but they were relatively unimportant for the island's economy. Aruba was and is completely barren, and was only occupied for a strategic interest. Bonaire was barely settled. This makes these islands quite different from the plantation colonies in the Guianas. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps exactly how to structure subarticles of Dutch colonisation in the Americas in general is another discussion. Disambiguation page now at Dutch Guiana. I moved the previous entry to Dutch colonisation of the Guianas, and rewrote the lead to flesh out the history slightly. Anything missing? CMD (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This is all really good, thanks very much! Now only Dutch colonisation of the Guianas needs a bit of a rewrite, since it is almost completely unsourced. I'll see if I have some time for that in the time coming. Thanks again for your constructive criticism. Best, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Featured article review

I have nominated Nauru for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You are receiving this notification as a major contributor to the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

welcome words

mr.c      thank you for your kind welcome and virtual cookies! i am not planning on an ambitious assault on the wiki community as you seem to have taken.i looked at some of your work and cannot but admire the scale and determination.As i am new to editting in general,i will probably confine myself to the odd and mostly obvious sorts of careless errors of form rather than fact.However this may change over time and i might engage in something more substantial if the text warrants it.             i have great respect for  this project and will try to be both careful and thoughtful for whatever mark i might make. Your offer of assistance is generous and i will take it in spirit it was surely meant.--Bjhodge8 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your welcome message with info on my editing intent for the time being.

Hi. I've got so little time now that I've only occasionally run across situations that I felt like editing and I'm also intentionally keeping them minor, such as putting in a comma or a two letter word, etc., where typo left them out. I'll not have much time until I retire in 10 years or more, so I won't be a big factor. I wouldn't know what to say about the Romney question. I felt the page informative and I read Obama's as well. It is fun sometimes though. Regards.71.202.213.228 (talk)IraChesterfield (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC) 10:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Denmark lead changes

Hi, since you were involved in merging the Denmark and Kingdom of Denmark articles, I wonder if you could take a look at the change to the lead that I've propose: Talk:Denmark#Proposed_new_lead

Thanks. -- Peter 00:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Middle East: Istanbul

Hi CMD, I think you need to bring in an Admin per WP:3RR for the problem with User:Justinian-of-Byzantium. --24.44.84.169 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked at WP:RfPP for page protection, to promote discussion. I attempt to avoid reports unless I have tried other feasible options. CMD (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Xe did it again. --24.44.84.169 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Schengen Area Map Update

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

Currently they're included as future members. I suggest you wait till you obtain consensus at Talk:Schengen Area, then I'd be happy to make the change. CMD (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize for the inconvenience on earlier topic. I learned how to edit svg but I think I changed it too early without consensus. I posted a new discussion on take page, can you please state your opinion at Talk:Schengen Area, and if you do agree with, could you please clearly write that you agree that it should be changed? thanks a lot.--Camoka4 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback at Vatican City

Question

Why do you think adding LGBT info to the Europe article is "undue"? Pass a Method talk 16:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a whole section devoted to one specific set of laws. CMD (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did at Europe, you may be blocked from editing. Pass a Method talk 00:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)