User talk:Chipmunkdavis/ArchiveCountries

List of sovereign states

Hey, I reverted your edits on recognition because the statements were already relayed in footnotes, which I hadn't realised when you brought it up on the talk page. Did you want to move the statements to the main text? Night w (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of consistency, and as stated the recognition is covered in some countries but not others. Will take this to the article talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Isla Perejil

Hello, As it has been discussed more than 5 years ago[1], and according to the articles Perejil Island and Perejil Island crisis, this island is not a Plaza de Soberania, and the current/ante status quo is that this island doesn't belon to any one the the two countries. Please stop inserting POV information in the articles. We're trying to keep a neutral approach on articles related to disputed issues, then don't act against that. Thanks. Omar-Toons (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is that what counts as a discussion? It's one statement by one editor, unsourced may I add, from 5 years ago! Start a new discussion if you wish too, until then, observe wikipedia policy. Edit, Revert, Discuss. Please move to the discussion stage, bring it up on the talk page. If you can provide a good argument, complying with WP:V and WP:RS then that would be fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The articles Perejil Island and Perejil Island crisis are clear: current status quo and no sovereignty over the island.

Thanks

Omar-Toons (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The articles simply state that Morocco retreated from its attempt to seize it militarily. Nowhere does it state that they are not part of the plazas. Besides, WP:V states not to use wikipedia as a source. Will you bring it up on a talkpage or not? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

<<The resolution is expected to return the island to what it had been for decades -- an uninhabited rock -- barren and largely ignored.
A statement from the Spanish government's office of chief spokesman was released shortly before the troops were withdrawn. "Spain and Morocco have reached an agreement over Perejil Island that means a return to the status quo," it said.>> [2]

<<The statement which the Spanish Foreign Minister, Ana de Palacio, made to Congress was much more measured.
"I want to make it very clear that the aim of the Spanish government is to re-establish the rule of law, to return to the status quo which existed before the 11 July," she said.
"We have not changed our position. Before and after this morning's operation the Spanish Government said and defended the same thing, the return to the status quo and frank and constructive dialogue with Morocco," Mrs de Palacio added.
(...)But several Spanish commentators have pointed out that the legal status of Perejil is complex and open to interpretation.>>[3]

Omar-Toons (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources you just quoted in no way say that the dispute is different from the dispute over the plazas in general. In fact, you seem to have quotemined, intentionally or not. I'll take quotes from them aswell.

Madrid says the island is Spanish[4]

Participants take it for granted that the island is Spanish and as such, must be defended to preserve Spain's sovereignty.[5]

Please consider your own POV in this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that WP should consider it as a Spanish territory? Certainly not.

Again, since the territory is disputed, and that no country controls it, the island (according to WP:NPOV) shouldn't be categorized as dependent to any of the two countries claiming it.

For your last remark, my opinion is that this island is Moroccan, but since the WP:NPOV policy should be respected, I contribute without considering my opinion, and keeping the information about the island as a "disputed, uninhabited and until today not dependent to any country" territory. I hope you'll be able to do so.

Omar-Toons (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the territory is disputed yes, so are the others. Anyway, your edit actually reads to me to be a Spanish POV, saying the others aren't disputed. If you want my opinion, remake the map that was originally there, but change the colour of all the plazas to a different colour than Spain and Morocco. That would show that they are disputed, and wouldn't automatically incline the reader towards one point of view or the other. Also removes the frankly confusing circle with disputed you added. Please WP:AGF next time instead of just accusing me of pushing a POV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if I didn't assume your GF. Since there were too many edit warring and vandalisms on this kind of articles, it is not easy to make a distinction between vandals and GF contributors. I was wrong!

I think that the difference between Perejil and the Spanish territories is that the UN, EU and most countries recognize the last ones as Spanish, while they don't recognize the island to be so. Even Morocco is (for example) the main water supplier of the "disputed territories"! Putting these territories in another color is, in my opinion, a POV since only Morocco, the African Union and the Arab League consider them as "disputed". In my opinion, the fact that it is mentioned on the article that these territories are claimed by Morocco is sufficient, what do you think about that?

Omar-Toons (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the UN makes a distinction between them, and I'm sure the EU tries not to get involved. If it did no doubt Gibraltar would come up as a major issue too. There is the question of de facto control that is more blurred than the others, but the Spanish military did manage to deal with the Moroccan one quite well, if that means anything about that. I'm not sure what water supply has to do with the island, it is legally uninhabited. And as for who considers them disputed, I have no doubt the whole world recognizes them as disputed. They are disputed, there are two claimants. There is no argument about that fact. I'm not comfortable with making such a distinction on the map really, Spain considers the island as Spanish as the other islands are. Morocco considers it Moroccan, as it does the others. Maybe recaptioning the old picture?

I understand the problem with vandalism perfectly, don't worry, water under the bridge. Have been exposed to it and made similar reverts as you have. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the UN makes the difference...

When I was talking about water, it was about how Morocco deals with the issue (it was about Ceuta, Melilla and the Plazas (where Spanish army is stationed, it is not the case with Perejil).

Btw, I think that we shoul create a new article about the status and the recognition of Spanish territories in Africa, by giving the details about the positions of Spain, Morocco, the EU, NATO, AU, Arab League, OIC, UN... would it be an easy target for vandals and POV contributors?

Omar-Toons (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you link me to that difference? I'm interested.

I'm not sure what the supplying of water has to do with sovereignty, but I suppose it must for the mainland cities.

I think the problem with your map is that the improvement it makes on the last one is unclear at best. Additionally, it's French, so could be improved! :) Did you make it by editing the old one?

The article sounds like a good idea, though I'll be shocked if it doesn't exist in some form. Before creating that article, might be better to add the information on the Plazas de Soberania page. Once it's long and detailed enough it can be split off into its own article. I'm sure vandals could be dealt with. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that I know is that the UN recognizes Ceuta and Melilla as Spanish, while it doesn;t recognize Perejil as (nor Spanish nor Moroccan). The main difference remain the fact that Spain exercises its sovereignty over the Plazas (military) and the two cities, while it doesn't for the case of Perejil. You can take as example the declarations after the crisis. I'll try to find a reliable source for that, I don't have it right now (sorry :s)

For the map, I just adapted the existing map, using a neutral map that was already existing on Commons but that wasn't in use.

However, I don't think that my English level is high enough to create an article, I prefer that somebody else do it.

ps: I didn't understand what do you mean by "additionally, it's French"? :s

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

List of countries and territories in North America

Aves island is one of the Leeward islands and is one of the Federal Dependecies of Venezuala, as for the others there location is as debatable as Aruba is, but Aves is definately in North AmericaXavierGreen (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read up the talkpage, you'll notice I did mention that Isla Aves was in North America. My concern is with the other ones, I've never heard of anyone of them being considered part of North America, unlike Aruba etc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Re your edits, I felt that the different group of claimants was covered in the note I had edited. A difference had been made between the claimants of the two islands, covering your edit summary "Serranilla is occupied by Columbians and is claimed by a slighty different group", so is there another reason you reverted? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jamaica does not claim Serranilla but claims Bajo Nuevo. Serranilla's beacon cay is occupied by a small Columbian garrison. Bajo Nuevo however is not occupied by anyone. The columbians came and constructed a beacon there in 2008 (some sources allude that there was an earlier beacon that fell into disrepair, most likely built by the US) but then left. Bajo Nuevo is currently unoccupied by any of the claimants though several of them occasionally occupy it for short periods of time (American yachters, Jamacan fisherman, various radio expeditions). Thus the situation on Bajo Nuevo (no claimant controls) is very different from that on Serranilla (Columbia controls).XavierGreen (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My note didn't say Jamaica claimed Serranilla, but no matter. If you have this information, you should add it into the notes, as none of this came through in your reverts. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Rwanda

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

Thanks for the copyedit to Rwanda. The history section looks nicer now. I will look into the comments you've raised in the text later on.

Incidentally, I've had a very quick look at the etymology of the name and it appears that it is basically completely unknown - the name originates from the precolonial days and no written record of its origin exists. The only marginally interesting thing to say about it is that it is used with varying prefixes to describe different aspects of the country, namely the people - banyarwanda (singular munyarwanda), the language - kinyarwanda and the country itself - Rwanda or sometimes U Rwanda. I don't know if this really warrants a whole section in the absence of origin information though.

Thanks again  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no point placing in a section with barely any information. I'll try run a copyedit through some other sections when I have time, may I commend the fact you raised what was previously a C-class article to the current state. When you first mentioned it your effort to raise it to FA, I went over to the page and thought "that is a very deluded person", but I'm glad to see I was wrong! Be good if this goes through to FA, it would provide a new point to judge other articles from. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, it just goes to show I guess - no article is beyond redemption... (and it helped that there's usually little serious activity on this article which meant I could approach each section as almost a blank slate, just using those existing elements that I chose). If you do get a chance to copyedit the remaining sections that would be very helpful. Also, if you need any assistance from me on any of your projects, just drop me a line - I see that you have spent a lot of time on Malaysia, so I look forward to a GA or FA push on that one! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

northern Cyprus

Hi Chipmunkdavis, You wrote "The word official isn't even in the text". The word "formaly" is though, and formally means "With official authorization", "following or according to established rule" Merriam-Webster, = officially Cambridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.162.51 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, what is it called "officially"? There is no name for it per the (southern) Cyprus POV, it's just occupied land. Per Northern Cyprus POV, it is officially called the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Formally here most likely means the name used in formal documents etc, be they "official" documents of Turkey/TRNC or just random diplomats talking. Anyway, I think that Northern Cyprus has the right of naming "according to established rule", so better not to go there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Does that mean that by "established rule", i can start an article, titled "occupied north cyprus", as the occuppied part of a small weak country by massive Turkey, as right now this subject is not covered.?? BTW "occupied" is not a title given by Cyprus POV, but by the United Nations. Thanks 213.207.162.51 (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that would be a WP:Content fork, which would be quickly deleted by an admin somewhere. What content do you want to add? (I don't care whose POV it is) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I see.. I would like to add, facts about people who lost their properties, wanting to return but can not because of massive turkey and had to start all over again. About the loss of a countrys natural resources, including mines of copper/gold, gas and oil, the loss of 85% of the hospitality industry, 75% of the manufacturing sector, ports and airports, that turks are now saying they are theirs. The international community (UN ~191 countries) recognize all the above, but 1 ( the bully does not). Even the intro has "formaly" for Turkeys POV but the rest are silenced. And my additions are being reverted by people who dont care enough to investigate further. Keep well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.162.51 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems historical, probably too much detail for Northern Cyprus. If you have WP:Reliable sources, you can add them to appropriate sections at Turkish invasion of Cyprus probably! Best of luck. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Somalia

I am having trouble understanding your judgment that adding a very brief discussion of genocide allegations to the Somalia article violates WP:UNDUE. Its a tiny piece of the overall content of the article, and confines itself to the assertion that Boutros Boutros Ghali, two organizations and some African media have said so. I don't mind moving it to the history section, but thought in the spirit of avoiding an edit war, would ask you for further clarification first.Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Note the following language in WP:UNDUE cited to Jimbo Wales: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". I think former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali meets that specification. Also, your edit summary suggested that the information might belong elsewhere in the article. Based on the foregoing, I'm going to boldly re-add it to the History section.Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not questioning its mainstream/fringe status, but its weight, "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Do accusations of genocide deserve their own subheading in an article on Somalia? It's a volatile article (check the talkpage), and the POV of the article is already in dispute without adding something as strong as genocide to the article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The original material was one two sentence section in an article of thirty three sections. With respect, I think this is the most undue use of WP:UNDUE I have yet seen. I have now created one single sourced sentence in the "History" section without its own section heading and hope this will be acceptable to all involved. Personally I like the "talk first, revert later" philosophy expressed in WP:Reverting, which also says, "if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert."Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The article and especially the table of contents is already ridiculously long, so why make it longer? I don't think theories of possible genocide deserve a section on the Somalia article, no matter how long the article is. It's undue to the subject itself. That's a useful philosophy to keep in mind, but I actually wasn't sure where to put it myself (somewhere in History is as far as I could go). I suppose time will tell if the editors like what you added. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

INDIA

You have removed a sentence on Sher Shar Suri and Hemu's rule in India during medieval period saying that this is unnecessary information. Please note that both these rulers, one Afghan and one Hindu played important role in India's history. This sentence has to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhirkbhargava (talk • contribs) 04:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This conversation should be moved to the article talk page if you want to continue it, but the history section is already long and in dispute. The sentence does not have to be there, and shouldn't as I doubt any specific ruler made a huge difference in comparison to others. Few names are present in the history section anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

LOSS

Hey. What did you take off the notes on Spain and Nepal for? Just curious... Nightw 11:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, forcing me to look back through my work... I removed Spain because it doesn't really have any autonomous regions if all its regions have the same status. It's more of a name, as each region has the ability to achieve whatever autonomy they want. Nepal was an error, good revert. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That brings up an issue. The central government in Spain has very little power, most of it lies with the regional governments, more so than most federations. But it's not officially a federation. Should things like this be mentioned, or not? Nightw 06:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a very interesting issue. I think that what has to happen is that a bright line is drawn, we stick with states that have been officially termed federations, and treat unitary states all the same. Otherwise we must acknowledge each state is very different, and there will be a huge number of grey areas. We should probably link to Table of administrative divisions by country somewhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with that. Nightw 05:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hi, you've done a lot of work on comparing FA country articles. Are you aware of any country that got special praise for the selection of images in the article? DeCausa (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know any articles that as a whole got praise for images. Obviously if there are any relevant Fine images they should be included. There's an interesting setup on the India page where some pictures are rotated through by a bot. What I have seen is fullscale attacks on images, often to do with sourcing. If an image doesn't properly cite a source location for it (if it's not user made), or its source images don't cite a source, it should be removed. To show how important this is, recently the infobox map of Japan had to be removed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a discussion on images at UK. DeCausa (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus

Why did you remove my changes [6]? You written in the discussion [7]: "Now, let's say we take Europe as a geographical continent for now. That means there has to be a border. Where is the border? It doesn't go anywhere near Cyprus, see Borders of the continents#Europe and Asia. In addition, the reason to include Africa still isn't clear". Your above opinion and your edition are incompatible because in the your editing write "the boundary of the Eurasian and African continents". Furthermore, from Cyprus to Europe (Rhodes island) and Africa (Egypt) is the same distance. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about geologic continents, it makes perfect sense to discuss Africa...so what I wrote was completely compatible with what I wrote. Furthermore, shouldn't you post this on the article talk page? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of images from Libya

Hallo Chipmunkdavis,

please explain. Cheers Alex2006 (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:MOSIMAGES, more specfically, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." An article can not have a huge number of images, and too many images make the text strained. In essence, I assume the other editor removed the images because they were sandwiching text, and thus some had to be removed. The history section still has sandwiching in some areas, and as a whole it much too long anyway. The option exists of replacing current images with others, but I don't think there's space for any more in most areas of history. Hope that helps, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:FA images

Yeah, I just said that based of experience on trying to do the same thing in that article. Apparently, having the images to the left directly under a subheading is improper. But if you've found proof that it's not, then I gladly take by my revision. --Truflip99 (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the link you provided, "Infoboxes, images and related content in the lead must be right-aligned." --Truflip99 (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If so, then go for it. I also think it looks better anyway. --Truflip99 (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

List of countries and outlying territories by total area

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

Please notice that the information about states with limited recognition were arranged in end-Text notes (see Notes 15, 23, 24, 25 and 31 for Somaliland, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Abkhazia and South Ossetia & Northern Cyprus). I also support this arrangement because by inputting only the essential geographical descriptions in in-Text notes (e.g. Kazakhstan as the largest landlocked country in the world) we can keep the article neat and simple, if we put all the political stuff in, it will look messy and uninteresting to some people.

Another kind reminder to you, for the sake of the quality of Wiki articles please use your Reverting or Undid function cautiously. You may disagree with me on the issue of in-Text/end-Text Notes but by Reverting my edits you basically treated all my contributions as spams. I did correct an obvious mistake in Note 31 (changing the weired United Nations UN buffer zone to UN buffer zone).

List of states with limited recognition

For general public with limited geopolitical knowledge, Republic of China is an even more confusing topic than Taiwan. That's why most ROC-related Wiki articles have that Taiwan link attached for clarification purpose. As for the reordering of states with limited recognition in alphabetical order with their full names, I reckon it will make the article neat and informative (since this article is mainly about these states, not those states with full or near full recognition).

Again, please use your Reverting or Undid function carefully. You may not agree with me on the reordering issue but I did correct some of the obvious mistakes in this article. For example, the original article classifies the llikes of Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transnistria as UN non-memeber states. In fact, Holy See is the only UN non-memeber state in the world, all those states with limited recognition are non-UN member states, not UN non-memeber states. If you don't check properly before using Reverting or Undid you could be nullifying people's contributions.

Cheers,

2sc945 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

BI changes in UK

Fair point. To be honest, I only noticed the change in the history section! (Didn't scroll down!) although arguably it's more "article relevant" to say these are "UK" geographical features rather than BI ones. DeCausa (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC) PS I'm completely univolved/don't care on the whole BI naming thing

You were of course right that British Isles was technically incorrect, although it's a stretch of AGF to take that as the reasoning of the original editor. As for the geographical features, I've discussed that elsewhere. My reasoning is that the United Kingdom doesn't exist in a bubble, and items in it aren't notable just for their being in the UK. Ben Nevis and Loch Neagh are in the United Kingdom, but are notable for being the largest of their respective geographic feature in the groupofislandsthatcannotbenamed. Sure we could also say that it's factually correct that they're also the largest in the United Kingdom, but if you'll allow me to make an analogy from Saudi Arabia it would be similar to the Saudi Arabia article saying that Mecca and Medina are the two holiest places in Saudi Arabia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough (and yes, I'm sure that wasn't the reasoning of the original editor.) DeCausa (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi Chipmunkdavis. As someone with a good knowledge of Somaliland, I was wondering if you could perhaps share some input on a particular matter involving the region. Specifically, a user has added a rather lengthy section [8] to the Dahabshiil article that charges the company with various things, including terrorist financing, Al-Shabaab links, and funding the Somaliland administration's military. Dahabshiil is a company that was founded in Burao and which has some officials who are reported to hold important positions in the Somaliland government; so the charges have much wider implications. Many of the charges cited by the user, however, appear to be obsolete and/or have been dismissed by the relevant authorities. I and another editor have pointed this out on several occasions, but to no apparent effect (c.f. [9]). When you have the time, would you mind sharing your insight on the matter? I've already tried contacting Outback about this, but he seems to be away. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply. It seems to me (belatedly) that you were basically right. The links did not directly support the statements given, or as you say are not as strong as would be liked. Obviously there is corruption everywhere, and officials in companied probably fall under WP:BLP guidelines. Good job sorting this all out. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Moldova

You have to look into content to which you are reverting before you revert instead of pestering people with formally correct, but stupid reverts. Imagine if everyone starts reverting edits without summaries everywhere. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

But you did so yourself there. :-) I very nearly reverted you myself before taking a closer look into the cat heap and finding out that the correct category was there all along. --illythr (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see now. Yes, my apologies, but it would be much easier if you were to use an edit summary as well! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Singapore

Hi, I noticed you recently blind-reverted editing by Smilingfrog. Some of Smilingfrog's edits seemed reasonable and useful to me, so I was wondering why you hadn't been more selective.Brythain (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Me too; an explanation at [10] would be appreciated. Jpatokal (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, again, for my tardiness in replies

Hello, Chipmunkdavis. You have new messages at Night w's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Noleander has come up with a solution very similar to yours. Could you take a look at it? I've posted a link to yours on his/her talk page. Nightw 17:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you think?

Putting aside my dislike of multiple exclamation points, it could solve a lot of problems. The documentation may have to be prettied up slightly though! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sweet. I'll add them in now. I took out the extra !marks. Nightw 19:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks heaps mate! Got over it after the Thailand one so the last two were pretty half-assed, but I think almost every country (yes, of all definitions hehe) has one now. Nightw 10:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chipmunkdavis. You have new messages at Talk:Singapore.
Message added 13:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Appreciate if you could share your view on that jerk, I'm done talking to him. Best and out. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

India FAR

Hi there, The history section expansion of India in response to FAR comments is now complete. All remaining issues have been addressed. Please weigh in at FARC. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry to sound like I'm pestering you, but if you get a chance, please add your comments at the FAR. It seems most people who had weighed in earlier have disappeared (some temporarily, some not so temporarily). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No pestering. You've done a good job with the article. I've avoided the India article and related lately, can't be bothered to risk getting into all these India related wikibattles that seem to be playing out over AN/I and similar boards. Commented at FAR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Chipmunkdavis. My apologies for this unwanted reversion. It must have happened earlier, when scrolling down on my watchlist, and I just noticed it. Quite unexpected and embarrassing. Again, sorry. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, I'm sure I've made worse mistakes. Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You are very kind :) Thanks again and take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted midwifery section for Malawi.

Hey, I was wondering why the paragraph I added was completely deleted when the information was entirely relevent to the Health section of the article? I understand why the external link was removed, but not the accurate and verifiable information? Hope you can shed some light on the matter, as people are continuing to delete without justification.(NatalieF25 (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC))

Apologies for the potential bite that was. The main reason I reverted it was because I thought much of the information on that paragraph was WP:UNDUE, which has been discussed on your talkpage. While this is a problem for many articles you added the information to, I reverted in Malawi because the Malawi article has already reached WP:Good Article status, so upkeep is an important consideration. I assume that the idea that a paragraph on midwifery is WP:UNDUE is a factor in many reverts. Another issue is the addition of a very specific external link to the article. There's a guideline to external links, Wikipedia:External links, which you can read, but the main reason for reverts is that it's far too specific a link to be included in a general country article. Reading WP:Summary Style may help you understand here.

In terms of the actual content, much of what you added is not needed in country articles. Looking at my revert on Malawi, much of what you added is information about the report, rather than Malawi itself. If I was looking for specific information to add, I would refine your edit to:

"The 2010 maternal mortality rate per 100,000 births for Malawi is 510. This is compared with 1140.1 in 2008 and 743.2 in 1990. The under 5 mortality rate, per 1,000 births is 115 and the neonatal mortality as a percentage of under 5's mortality is 27. The number of midwives per 1,000 live births is 4 and 1 in 36 shows us the lifetime risk of death for pregnant women."

I would probably also further refine it by removing the data for 2008 and 1990 (as well as rewriting the last sentence, to something like "The number of midwives is 4 per 1,000 live births, and 1 in 36 pregnant women die during birth" for clarity). If you slim down your additions to something like the above it will be much more likely to be accepted, and probably is important information for many countries.

Anyway, sorry for all the blue links above. I'm very happy to clarify anything I've said and to do my best to assist you. Thank you for not edit warring and opening a discussion such as this instead, that'll earn you much love in wikipedia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive advice! I absolutely understand what you're saying, so many people just delete things and it can get a little irritating when know one tells you why! Thanks again. (NatalieF25 (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC))

Gallery of sovereign-state flags

We got a user who thinks Palestine should be in the main group of nations and keeps changing the Chinese article links. Thoughts? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

He's had a combined total of 1½ hours to "print" it as he wanted. If his printer is that slow, he'll have to userfy the page. His talk page shows a shoddy history. Next time he reverts, he's at 3RR. Nightw 19:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That was the odd thing about it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus

Hi

I guess you got there first (again lol), I saved and it did nothing then I see you in there on the history.

Are you reverting the other editors work? (They changed Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot -> Greek and Turkish)

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. I was on the point of reverting, but the editor does have a point. In my experience, most countries don't add the country denonym to their ethnicities. In my experience most outside sources use "Turkish Cypriots" exclusively to refer to citizens of Northern Cyprus, with Greek Cypriots used against that. Due to that it may actually be better to simply refer to ethnicities as Greek and Turkish, especially in the infobox. In the prose, I suppose it would depend on whether it was referring to the actions of Northern cypriots of turks/greeks throughout Cyprus as a whole. I'd be interested in whether it is common in domestic Cypriot media to refer to the ethnicities as Greek and Turkish Cypriots, or just Greeks and Turks. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Turkish Cypriots I have met under 30 call themselves "Turkish", the ones over 30 tend to call themselves Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots. There is the problem of semantics - Turkish born Cypriots (not really applicable as it is an illegal occupation) or Cypriots of Turkish descent could get confusing (not necessarily just Turkish - eg 25% Turk 75% Greek), as might ethnic Turks or ethnic Greek (not necessarily specific to Cyprus - could be an ethnic Greek from Crete, or a Turk from Turkey for example). Also the main pages for them are Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots

Cyprus Mail - "... the Turkish leadership has warned Cyprus against making any moves that might ignore the rights of Turkish Cypriots, ..."

Famagusta Gazette - "that Turkish Cypriot and Turkey’s authorities are carrying out a wide range “brain wash campaign” portraying the Greek Cypriots"

Greek Reporter - "no solution to the Cyprus problem is possible, without the return of Morphou to Greek Cypriot rule."

Hope that answers your question :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It appears to me then that semantics are also a mixed bag there, but that "Turkish Cypriot" refers to those that live in Northern Cyprus, as in the Turkish Cypriot authorities note from the Famagusta gazette. Interesting the Famagusta Gazette is putting down Turkish Cypriot authorities. Anyway, by those sources, I suspect that when describing ethnicities Greek and Turkish by themselves are better. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)