User talk:Chipmunkdavis

Archives

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

Welcome! If you post on this page, I will respond on this page. If I post on your talk page, I will have it watchlisted for the duration of the conversation (and possibly longer!), but please feel free to ping me if I appear to have missed something.

		Season's Greetings
		When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it." (Text on page 17 illustrated in the frontispiece in Juliana Horatia Ewing's Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated by Mary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, very grateful for another yearly welcome. I'm afraid this book was not part of my childhood, I will have to look into it with new eyes. CMD (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I inherited this book from a relative, who may have inherited it from an older relative! Ewing is mostly out of print now. Fashions have changed. Her writing is probably more moralistic than is accepted now, even though she wasn't really by the standards of the late 19th century. Even so every now and then in her books you find some real gems of writing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy new Year Gerda! CMD (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today, between many who just died, Tobias Kratzer on his 45th birthday who was good for an unusual DYK mentioning a Verdi opera in 2018, - you can see his work in the trailer of another one that I saw, and my talk page has a third (but by a different director). 2025 pics, finally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear about a musician who hasn't recently passed away :) CMD (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 others, though: today I have a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who became GA yesterday, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Covermoss, I am always happy to hear about article improvement. It does look rather well sourced, although I note there is a citation to Encyclopaedia Britannica in the lead! I also see "Adherents commonly call their body of beliefs "The Truth"", which doesn't seem to be in the body. That said, I don't think you need to worry about GA status. Thinking about Government interactions and FAC, it might be worth getting some in put from those with much more FAC experience. It is my impression that a list of individual countries is not the best way to get through FAC, as it heads towards "overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings" territory and is not conducive to presenting an overall picture. This is not to say don't flesh it out, just a note that perhaps the fleshing out will identify strands of information that can be put together as a summary, perhaps with details moving to the subpage. CMD (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is that most reliable sources focus on government interactions rather than beliefs (this limited scholarship focus is mentioned somewhere in the article already), so I don't see how this could be an FA without that. What is wrong with a citation to the Encyclopedia Britannica? I didn't add it but I don't see why it can't be there. I already have someone that will help me with FAC when I'm ready, it's just that getting the article in the best shape I can before all that part I'm still working on. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica has a no consensus on WP:RSP, so usually it gets raised if its present and replaced. Good to hear you've got a plan for the FAC. CMD (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like concerns about reliability are about the online version? The one citation is to their print edition. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For FAC, the concern is not reliability per se, but the "high-quality" aspect of FACR1c, hence the preference for secondary sources. CMD (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I take breaks from the topic area on a somewhat frequent basis for my own good, but I'll try to remedy that when I feel ready to go back at things again. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you. I've been avoiding updating some articles following this news. Getting in the way of a Good Topic that news is. CMD (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Specifically see Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard#Minor WP:HOUNDING and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from Chetsford. guninvalid (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis, it seems your signature shows up as "CMD". This can mislead people into believing that is your real username; you should change it as to not give the impression of being the User:CMD; thank you. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 16:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note Yovt. I've had this signature for awhile, it has worked well for me. CMD (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis. Thanks for creating the WikiProject Malaysia Triple Crown. It's good to see more interest in the Triple Crown awards in general. While I'm completely OK with you giving this award out since the person obviously meets the criteria [1], I'm just letting you know in general all awards, including project ones, go through the nomination process whereby someone is nominated (by themselves or others) and someone who is not the nominator checks and gives out the award. Also for future reference you can nominate someone for two awards at once, including with the same set of articles, as would have been the case here where the same three articles quality someone for both the Standard Triple Crown and the new WikiProject Malaysia Triple Crown. I would have approved both had they been nominated together, but people still have to be nominated. Also feel free to process other awards that get nominated. It seems like I'm doing it all myself these days so it would be good to have other people reviewing general nominations. No pressure though. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Damien Linnane, my apologies. I looked around and didn't see any instructions regarding this. The WikiProject listings said to simply add to the list, and as they look like one-offs without what seems to be the advancement progression the standard crowns have, I didn't expect them to go through the same process. I waited until the Standard Crown, which I thought was the more serious crown, to be verified to then add the WikiProject one. Could perhaps the Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Nominations#Example nomination list have a multi-nom example? Let me know if it helps for me to fill out retroactive nomination paperwork. I've not really dealt with the Triple Crown area before, but it seemed an interesting way to support enthusiasm for article improvement, hence my nomination and creating the new crown. I tried to match the low pixel quality of the existing ones. CMD (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Oh it's not a problem at all, and there's no need to retroactively nominate them, I just thought I'd let you know for future reference. To be honest, the WikiProject Triple Crown's just never really took off, and I often forget about them as it isn't uncommon for there no be nobody nominated for one for many months; there has probably been a point where nobody has been nominated for one for an entire year. So it was exciting to see you make a new one. The old ones images were almost all made a long time ago. I'm happy for images to match the exiting quality or to be different, so it doesn't bother me if you change that. Anyway, thank you for pointing out the instructions were't clear. I've made some changes on both the nomination page and the main page accordingly. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Damien Linnane, the information for future reference is taken on board. WikiProject Triple Crowns would require WikiProjects to take off, which is likely the main problem. The intersection of active WikiProjects with Featured content creators? Likely small. Still, I've spent some time poking around thinking about how to make WikiProjects work, and I'll keep this in mind, with proper procedure, as a potential tool. CMD (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Flag changing IP(s) Moxy🍁 05:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CMD, hope you've been doing great! :) I thought I would reach out to you since in past FLNs, you gave really valuable/unique insights and feedback and I have a feeling you might have some interest in this list too. I've been working together with a Ukrainian editor Shwabb on the list List of Ukrainian placenames affected by derussification and its been going well through the FLN process since late February. That said, one thing I've been a bit unsure of is the "Notes" column in the tables. The column is supposed to indicate the official reason for the renaming (either the namesake, it being a restoration of the original name, or having a change in spelling/wording to match standard Ukrainian) but the column feels unnecessarily wordy/repetitive. In the Populated places table, Shwabb put in a test sample of slightly shorter Note entries for the first two oblasts (Cherkasy & Chernihiv oblasts) but I don't feel too convinced that these samples are the best option. What do you think?

One idea I had was just to turn into a "Namesake" column so that it'd include only the names but this doesn't work too well since it doesn't include the name changes that don't involve namesakes. I was thinking that figuring this out might need some out-of-the-box solution or a fresh perspective. Any ideas/suggestions would be really appreciated and feel free to let me know if you have questions or suggestions/comments on other part of the article too. Thanks, Dan the Animator 04:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danttheanimator, I realise I haven't replied for a couple of days. You are right, it's a topic that I would be interested in. I have read the article, spent some time trying to figure out exactly how many specific meanings "placenames" had, and had a few thoughts. I just haven't had the time/headspace to formulate thoughts for the FLN, although I hope to soon. Best, CMD (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CMD and no worries! There's no rush with FLNs and I've been busy with other things too so feel free to take as long as you'd like. In case it helps, I'll probably have a lot of availability in the latter half of next week if there's any followup questions/replies though don't worry if you reply after that. Keep me posted and many thanks for taking the time to look into it :) Dan the Animator 15:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you look at the new article for Tu Le and see if there's anything that needs improving? Much thanks. Travelmite (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Travelmite, thanks for putting together the article. Some notes are that the lead should be remade as a summary of the article, rather than being written on its own. "called for the expulsion of Tu Le for her public criticism of the party and undermining their election campaign" should be preceded by some information on what this criticism was and when it took place. There should be some geographic context for readers, where is Fowler, where is Cabramatta? Best, CMD (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CMD.

There is this edit request in Talk:Turkey#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_4_March_2025, but the IP may be similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dudewithafez/Archive, a case you filed.

Is it problematic to change some of the images in line with the edit request? Bogazicili (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bogazicili, you're absolutely right, that's the same editor. Do not feel obliged to change the images. However, if you feel that an image change is an improvement, you can do so on your own initiative. That would not be a problem. CMD (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, maybe I'll also ask it in WP:AN Bogazicili (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Question_about_edit_requests_and_potential_socks Bogazicili (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for editors who may be able to make some input on the terminology and ethnography of sail types used by Austronesians. I have put {{disputed}} on crab claw sail, as explained on the talk page[2].

Are you an editor who either could (a) make some informed comment on the subject, (b) suggest someone else who can (c) recommend a Wikiproject that might help (I have already posted on WP:SAIL and WP:SHIPS)?

My apologies if you are completely the wrong target for this sort of question. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 23:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just posted on WP:Anthro ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 23:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis, I noticed that you recently created the Fisheries in the Philippines article, even reaching it to GA class, congratulations! Because of this, I believe that you may be interested in helping me out with this. I noticed that there is a great lack of "Fishing industry in COUNTRY" articles, and I have embarked on trying to create these articles, as well as improve existing articles. However, there are hundreds of countries to go through, and so I can't do this on my own. Would you be interested in helping with this? Please let me know, thank you! I have a user page that may guide you here: User:SonOfYoutubers/fishing industry articles in country - Wikipedia SonOfYoutubers (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SonOfYoutubers, thanks for reaching out. The Philippine articles are actually in a bit of limbo due to an recent court case fallout. Anyway, I would be happy to look into it as a long-term project. I did gather a few sources for Indonesia while doing the Philippines articles, but I really burnt out at the time. Is it better to talk at User talk:SonOfYoutubers/fishing industry articles in country? Perhaps as an initial recommendation, filter out the landlocked countries? While places like Bolivia will have relevant info, it might help divide the project into smaller chunks. CMD (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we may talk over there if you prefer. As for filtering, I can definitely do that, and it probably would help make it easier to find countries with most likely relevant info vs. least likely, thanks for the recommendation! You may begin a topic at the user talk if you want. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis! I have a question about this, and you are listed as a GAR Coordinator in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment.

I noticed some major issues in Byzantine Greeks (for example: Talk:Byzantine_Greeks#Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria), its GA nomination was in 2009.

I was thinking about giving a few months to editors in the page to work on those issues, and see if the article still meets GA criteria after then. If not I am planning to nominate it for GAR. Do you think this is reasonable? Any tips for GAR process or nominating the article for GAR? Thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bogazicili, the primary goal of any GAR is to fix the raised issues. If there are already editors working on the issues, then a GAR is not needed. If there is a content dispute, that should go through normal WP:Dispute resolution processes. On the other hand, if editors simply stop working on it due to a lack of interest, and the problems still exist, then if you want to nominate for a GAR please include some details for the reasons behind the GAR in the nomination, perhaps with links to the talkpage discussions. Best, CMD (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is about the neutrality of entire article, so it's too much for WP:DR. Given it's comprehensive, that is why I wanted to give few months to see if the issues would be resolved. Bogazicili (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the size of the issue, DR is the only mechanism to really work through things. I also wouldn't be too harsh on the article, my knowledge on the topic isn't that deep, but as far as I'm aware this is an area of scholarship that has evolved a great deal over the past few decades. CMD (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so there is an outdated POV throughout the article Talk:Byzantine_Greeks#Outdated_or_Greek_nationalist_POV_in_the_article. The article would fail 2nd and 4th GA criteria. I don't have time to fix the article myself. Bogazicili (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an editor who has been involved in this discussion for the past few months, I just wanted to remind you that I was positive to update those parts, as I clarified in my latest reply. I haven't made any changes myself, because (apart from the fact that I am currently a bit inactive in general) you said you would first identify some issues yourself, and then let other work on them. That would do for me. Finally, as I had also mentioned before, after those months pass, a delisting from GA status might still be an option too. Piccco (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's still my plan, I was planning to check source text integrity next, but it's very time consuming. I was also planning to let you know when I'm done and still give a few months before GAR if the issues persist. Bogazicili (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Piccco (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it about the discussion in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Somaliland#Arbitrary_break 2600:480A:4A51:9300:A9:A448:EA88:D431 (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't remember back that far, but that section does have links to a gbooks version, which might have what you are looking for. CMD (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I noticed you reverted the nomination on the Egypt article, and after a quickfail on the Economy of Egypt nomination, I think that was the right call. I had nominated both for a normal reassessment but was referred to the more specialized assessment processes, but perhaps I was a bit overzealous. That said, I did receive some helpful feedback on the Economy of Egypt article on how to improve it.

I’m still quite interested in seeing the main Egypt article improved and eventually elevated to a higher assessment level. Would you be able to guide me toward the appropriate process for its level, or perhaps a noticeboard, where I can request broader input from other editors to help identify and fix some of the issues? Turnopoems (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turnopoems, both of these articles are very broad-scale articles, and those are always the biggest challenges for Good articles. The larger the concept, the more sources there are to reflect, and the harder it is to curate the articles. The feedback for Economy of Egypt seems like it would apply to Egypt as well. The most obvious issues that stand out are the existing tags and the unsourced text. It is expected that a Good article will be properly and thoroughly sourced. There's no real shortcut to this, it requires going through the whole article carefully. A related issue that might affect this though is length, the Egypt article is quite long, and the longer it is the more there is that needs checking and improving. If it lost 3,000 words the later refinements would be easier. In more depth, another clear issue is the quite disjointed text in a few areas. There are many single sentence paragraphs, and single paragraph subsections, which are often evidence of unintegrated text (see WP:PROSELINE). CMD (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful, thank you! I've worked quite a bit on improving lower-assessed articles to C or B-class, but I don’t yet have much experience with bringing articles beyond that level. I’ve already put some effort into improving the Economy of Egypt article based on the feedback I received this morning and will continue refining it until it becomes a much stronger candidate, at the very least. Once that’s in good shape, I plan to turn my attention back to the main Egypt article, which has been a Good article at some point in the past.

Thanks again for your support, really appreciate the guidance! Turnopoems (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Malaysia WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 58 • February 2025 • About the Newsletter
WikiProject Malaysia would like to send all of our members happy Thaipusam 2025. We wish you happy editing in Wikipedia and keep on making WikiProject Malaysia better. Statistics on the WikiProject progress and improvement: Subject namespaces: 37,484, an increase of 2 from last month Articles: 18,742, an increase of 1 from last month Stub-class Malaysia articles: 8,829, a decrease of 2 from last month Place-related articles without geographic coordinate: 983, a decrease of 5 from last month Articles needing infoboxes: 135, a decrease of 2 from last month
WikiProject Malaysia Statistics There are currently about 37,484 subject namespaces attributed to the project, including 18,742 articles. There are 22 featured articles, 95 good articles and 8,829 stub articles. The project currently has 48 active members.
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal
Newsletter written by Chongkian. You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here.

	The Malaysia WikiProject Newsletter
Issue 59 • March 2025 • About the Newsletter
WikiProject Malaysia would like to send all of our members happy Ramadan and Eid al-Fitr 2025. We wish you happy editing in Wikipedia and keep on making WikiProject Malaysia better. Congratulations for Pengkalan Kempas which was featured in DYK (on 1 March 2025). Statistics on the WikiProject progress and improvement: Subject namespaces: 37,726, an increase of 242 from last month Articles: 18,863, an increase of 121 from last month Stub-class Malaysia articles: 8,827, a decrease of 2 from last month Place-related articles without geographic coordinate: 976, a decrease of 7 from last month Active members: 49, an increase of 1 from last month Articles needing infoboxes: 131, a decrease of 4 from last month
WikiProject Malaysia Statistics There are currently about 37,726 subject namespaces attributed to the project, including 18,863 articles. There are 22 featured articles, 95 good articles and 8,827 stub articles. The project currently has 49 active members.
Past Newsletter • Newsroom • Malaysia Noticeboard • Malaysia Portal
Newsletter written by Chongkian. You may opt-out of this monthly newsletter by removing your name here.

This RfA is now closed so I am replying to your question here. As it turned out, I think the crat chat was useful but I think I should not have used a support vote here to try to keep the matter in the cratchat zone. It was no doubt the wrong venue and had more to do with the old question of unbundling some of the tools. It is true that we really cannot judge or be sure whether candidates will limit their actions if they are approved for RfA. I am fine with the result as it turned out. As an experienced user, I should not have made a not fully thought out and spur of the moment comment. I should have realized that I was neutral at best, and again, at the wrote venue. The crats were not going to decide the matter on the grounds of de facto unbundling. And the candidate, no matter how sincere, could not be held to a promise to do so. I think the crat chat was likely anyway and my one vote/nonvote did not push the matter over. At least I hope it didn't since I was on the fence and ok with result. Donner60 (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer Donner60, it's very much appreciated. To clarify, I was not trying to criticise the decision between support and neutral, but to try and better understand where some of the supports were coming from in what seemed a very unusual RfA. Best, CMD (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]