User talk:Chipmunkdavis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please click here to leave me a new message.

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

Please be mindful of proper collegiality[edit]

Hi. On 02:26, 1 August 2023, you stated addressing me in the Talk:Russia#Removal of maps, "The article you referred to in this discussion was Haiti. Making a mass change across a number of articles to see where you won't get reverted is not a strong argument, and can become disruptive. If you want to cudgel someone about civility, do it on an admin noticeboard."

I will follow the steps listed on the civility policy, emphasizing that "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Accusing me or implying that I make "a mass change across a number of articles to see where you won't get reverted" is false and I feel it is an "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" (WP:ICA).

I explained in the thread that my motivation adding the maps was because I felt there was an informational gap that needed to be addressed. For some reason you decided to imply I was just making the additions to see where I was not going to be reverted. Maybe we misunderstood each other? Can you clarify? Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would like to review your contributions per your above advice. As for the clarification, you were arguing for WP:SILENCE on the basis that some edits you made to some articles weren't reverted. I find that clear enough. CMD (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion about "mass change across a number of articles to see where you won't get reverted" is still not true. I was explaining about the addition I made of maps of other countries that they were left alone because per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, in "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." I certainly did not add the maps to see where I was not going to get reverted.
You stated, "Perhaps you would like to review your contributions per your above advice." Can you quote verbatim what contributions are you mentioning so I can see what I may have said or did wrongly that provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could start with reviewing the deliberately antagonistic language used in that question, and work from there towards the somehow repeated again poor appeal to WP:SILENCE on edits that have already been reverted multiple times. CMD (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I simply asked a question following the steps of the civility policy because maybe you did not really mean to state a falsehood about my edits. Maybe you stated, "Making a mass change across a number of articles to see where you won't get reverted is not a strong argument", as a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Then I am wondering what drove you to make such an ill-considered accusation. Was it something I said or something else?
I mean think about it for a moment. You think the question is "deliberately antagonistic language" when it is not. Then why don't you use that same reasoning to try to understand where I am coming from when you apparently state falsehoods about my edits about the addition of the maps. Or do you truly believe I made the effort to make some maps which took me a few hours only to add them to see where I was not going to get reverted? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your question is a classic example of a deliberately leading question, with in-built assumptions designed to create a specific framing to shift and assign blame. If you genuinely want to be civil, I would suggest looking for a way to avoid such well poisoning. CMD (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "Making a mass change across a number of articles to see where you won't get reverted" made me feel frustrated as it doesn't portray my editing accurately at all and it derailed what could have been just a collegial and polite discussion. I don't think it was appropriate at all. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you again to review the conversation from the beginning. You opened in your first post with "I don't think the position of the editor is reasonable", and followed up in your second post with "You are grasping at straws". The idea that I "derailed what could have been just a collegial and polite discussion" with something I said 23 comments in is a remarkable claim. CMD (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sense that you didn't like that I stated that your position was not reasonable or that I wrote "you are grasping at straws". I apologize for making you feel uncomfortable with the way I wrote my opinion. Let's both strike through the parts that made us feel uneasy. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't make me feel uneasy or uncomfortable. What did perplex me is carrying out the discussion as it was, coming to my talkpage with considerable patronising language, and then without irony directly quoting from the civility policy. CMD (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to sound patronizing and I believe my initial post in this thread was objective, respectful and to the point. I tried to keep a respectful tone throughout even though you decided to go in circles about the reason of my complaint to you about the inaccurate comment you made that I found demeaning, frustrating, and uncomfortable.
If I quoted directly from the civility policy it was because I wanted to follow it as properly as possible. A simple reciprocal apology would have been ideal but I understand many people sadly don't care about doing such things. I will move on. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


curprev 19:19, 3 August 2011‎ Chipmunkdavis talk contribs‎ m 2,498 bytes 0‎ moved Motherland (Mauritius National Anthem) to Motherland (anthem) over redirect: Per WP:NCDAB and WP:TITLE undothank

Old move but Montserrat anthem is also "Motherland" In ictu oculi (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no memory of this whatsoever, but presumably that wasn't the case in at that time. The current page has multiple dates of adoption for "Motherland", but all a few years after 2011. The Montserrat website appears to call it a Territorial song, not an Anthem, although it is appearing on the second page of my google results for "Motherland anthem" so not too obscure. CMD (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification to avoid edit warring on Politics of Georgia (country) page[edit]

@Chipmunkdavis: Hello, you reverted several edits which contained many additions and specifications, while also removed some unimportant parts from the text, but you provided only very vague explanation to your actions. Please note that edit warring is prohibited on Wikipedia, might result in block and cooperation is encouraged. I provided explanations for my edits, so please refrain from just reverting and discuss everything on Talk page to prevent edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutoc (talkcontribs) 02:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do, Chip?[edit]

Just wondering about this editor .. Real4jyy.

Answering your question etc. I'm all for reverting, just wanted to know if you were in contact with him/her.

Thanks in advance. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, they haven't responded to my message, so I'm not any more informed on the rationale for the various tags. Best, CMD (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll leave things alone for now, maybe one day you'll get a response. Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. Enjoy your week! Bringingthewood (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in some revisions in Philippines[edit]

Hello CMD. Can you please check the following revisions of Philippines? They appear to include improper synthesis, or the claims therein are not directly supported by the cited sources. Moreover, the text contains detail better included in the child articles, and it has lengthened the article prose size. If possible, could you please revise the content (maybe the previous revisions before these could be restored, or the new claims are further summarized).

Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI[edit]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 August 29#Population of cities Moxy- 19:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected revert[edit]

Fat finger, or what? Bishonen | tålk 21:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Apologies, trying some mobile and clearly not succeeding. CMD (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arghh, mobile. I sympathise. Bishonen | tålk 10:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Disneyland with the Death Penalty‎[edit]

Hi @Chipmunkdavis:, just checking, in your recent revert for the article Disneyland with the Death Penalty‎, a lot of the verbs was changed from past tense to present tense. Wouldn't past tense be more correct since the article is about a topic that happened in the past and is not happening now? Or was the tense just reverted along with other questionable content changes? Any objection for me changing it to past tense? Zhanzhao (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zhanzhao, my edit was a straight WP:BMB revert, I didn't make any nuanced content considerations. I thus don't have any objections to any sort of content edit. Looking into the interesting question you raise, MOS:TENSE states present tense is the default. I haven't made that many contributions to literature articles, so I'm not sure where the nuance lies for straying from the default. Best, CMD (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Chipmunkdavis Thanks for the quick reply! The whole article just reads very oddly now. The very first line of the article in the lede clearly says this is an old writing of his then gets interspersed with present tense i.e. "Singapore, Gibson details, is lacking..." ""Gibson finds....", "The article is accentuated by " which implies its concurrent, the the Synopsis is mainly present tense, then the whole Impact and Legacy, and Critical Reception section goes back to past tense again. Literally the commentators recognize the article as a past one while many parts of the article is written like its an "in-progress". I'll sleep on this for now, just giving you a headsup and checking if there were other concerns. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I had a quick read and nothing jumped out to me. It seems similar for example to Once Upon a Time in China (present plot, past criticism), which I see you touched up recently. That said, I speak from inexperience, so you're probably going to get more helpful answers at the MOS talkpages. Best, CMD (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page stalker here. The use of present tense to talk about the past is perfectly good grammar. The tense is known as "historical present". See, for instance, [1] (as just the first hit among many). It is perfectly good in English, but if you read French history, le Présent historique is even more common. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sirfurboy🏄 Thanks for the input. The problem is that the synopsis is currently presentedas if the author is thinking and narrating in the present - that it is happening concurrently, rather than his thoughts being "immortalized at the point of time of his writing". Hope my explanation makes sense, I can't think of a better way to put it. ----Zhanzhao (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, we've interacted briefly over the years and I always thought you were cool as hell. I'm not sure if you are well-traveled or if you're just clever. I assume the latter. In any case, I've become attracted to Wikivoyage recently because the community is great, you don't feel like you're constantly in the trenches, and there's this sort of liberation feeling where you can write about the world, as truthfully as possible, without the burden of worrying about sourcing or phrasing. It's like a retirement Wikipedia. This is only to say that, the sort of interesting stuff that you're interested in here is the sort of stuff that requires attention there. Africa, for example. So, if you ever felt like contributing there I would ring the hallelujah bell, but regardless I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Hope you're good! Brycehughes (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message Brycehughes! There is certainly a lot requiring attention; there was a recent discussion where someone asked when would slow its article creation, to which I added that we still don't have a culture of Guinea article (nor a culture of Chad for that matter). As for editing, for all those downsides, one thing that sourcing does do is put something in between me and the writing, providing a little bit of self-oversight so to speak. I must admit I'm not quite sure how Wikivoyage works, all the projects have their own quirks. Just having a look, there are no articles for wikivoyage:Makgadikgadi Pans or wikivoyage:Nxai Pan National Park (not that their coverage is anything to shout about), but there is information on them at wikivoyage:Gweta. Anyway, feel free to message on my talkpage there. Best, CMD (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The John von Neumann discussion[edit]

It is beyond me why John von Neumann of all things has so many diehard defenders, but I'm of the opinion that they're well within "disruptive" territory. Besides the stonewalling and the personal attacks, we now have edit warring. At what point do you think an ANI discussion is appropriate to make this stop? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attacks were very poor indeed, but they are a bit too stale for AN/I. As for the edit warring, I would recommend simply walking away from that, it's disruptive but it is what it is. On a wider point, I do not think this should be framed as John von Neumann defending, he's not being attacked (indeed if it is framed around him, surely he merits a better article), and optimistically not looking at it from that angle might help move things forward. Personally, I do not raise items at AN/I much, I would much prefer the GAR is wrapped up as it seems to have reached a natural end. CMD (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'm leaning toward "if it continues after the discussion is closed". And that's a good point about "defenders", though I can't help but think that that's how they see it. Thanks for the second opinion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GAR questions from Clovermoss[edit]

Hi Chipmunkdavis. I don't think we've really interacted but you're listed as someone to contact over at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I've only been involved in writing one GA myself so I'm iffy on how accurately I'd be able to make good decisions surrounding the process. Anyways, my concern is the article about Jehovah's Witnesses. The article is simultaneously tagged for having a reliance on primary sources and listed as a GA. After taking a look at the GA criteria to refamilarize myself with it, would that count as a 2b or maybe even 2c issue? I'm basing that intrepretation more on the reliable aspect than the cited part because obviously there are cited sources. For the possible c issue, I think there may be valid synthesis concerns in combination with that?

Ultimately, I think the easiest way to explain this might be to just illustrate what I mean by overreliance on primary sources. The article has a total of 435 cited references. The Watchtower is a publication that is produced by the religion itself; as well as anything cited to, the Watchtower Society, Insight on the Scriptures, Our Kingdom Ministry, etc. All of those sources combined is 168 of those 435 references. In your opinion, would this situation warrant a GAR? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clovermoss, not a problem to contact me regarding GA. As a general point, GAR exists because articles (and to a lesser extent, standards) change over time, so it is no guarantee of the current article state. This article was promoted over a decade ago, so may have changed since then. I would agree with you that primary sources are a potential 2c issue, as they are subject to editor interpretation such the synthesis you mention, and this is more likely the more primary sources there are. As to opening a GAR, if there are substantial long-term concerns regarding synthesis I would suggest one. However, long-term here is key, a GAR should not be opened on an unstable article. Looking at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses, it appears that there is recently active discussion on both the primary sources topic and on other aspects of the article. Adding your detailed concerns there, including the proportion of primary references, would be a better start than stating them afresh on a GAR. The ideal outcome of a GAR is that issues are resolved, so giving details on the talkpage that editors can work with is a step that may pre-empt the need for the slightly more formal GAR process. CMD (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The synthesis and primary sources have been in the article for a long time so I would say that is the stable version of things. I'd say the bulk of the current content has been there for years apart from some small improvements over time that are probably normal for a high visibility page like that? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but do you mean that if I tried to resolve this issue through bold editing, it would make the article unstable and that it'd have to be stable to remain a GA? Or am I just too tired and not parsing things correctly? I think there's a good chance there's just something that didn't "click" for me when I read your reply. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what I'm trying to say is that GAR is part of a process that should start with raising issues on the talkpage. The stability is a separate point and reflects that reviewing an unstable article is often difficult, which is why both GAN and GAR require stable articles. Looking at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses, it seemed there were quite a few issues recently, which implied to me the article might not be stable. Going back to primary sources, they are mentioned a couple of times in these discussions, and then as the central point in the "Excessive use of primary sources" section. This section however is just the one post, and does not contain your information about almost 40% of references being primary. In terms of a GAR, if you do not wish to boldly edit yourself, it would be preferable for you to provide the detail you posted here on the talkpage, and explicitly raise the synthesis concerns. See for example this talkpage post about issues facing the Rwanda article. One month later, the FAR was opened noting the issues were raised on the talkpage. I hope this is clearer, CMD (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you[edit]

I was thinking about something you said recently. "Encyclopaedic writing and news/journalism writing are different, and have different purposes and conventions." I thought this was a good point and I was wondering if you know of a policy, guideline, essay, etc, which states this. Thanks! IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found it. WP:NEWSSTYLE IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to International Units[edit]

Thank you Chipmonk for making your simplifications. The last user is some sort of highly qualified 'scientist' from USA who thinks that the ancient codes of centuries ago have some relevance to present science and so has been attempting to pervert this page with his high status perspective of whatever it is that he feels makes himself relevant to this world wide standard. He has been abusing his position for many years and so I am thankful to see someone else who has taken the time to correct the confusion that he has caused. Changes were made impossible through his convoluted methods of presenting information, when in fact it is or should be a simple affair with no need to mention anything about the three countries in the world who refuse to accept and implement the standards of the other 180+ nations.

I will support you should you wish to have someone who can take the time to keep these wikipages open and honest. I wish you the best of luck kk (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kk, I am unfamiliar with the editing history of the page, my edits were mostly to fix some obvious tangential items and areas of duplication. Perhaps you can add your suggestions for improvement to the article talkpage? Best, CMD (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest? What?[edit]

I have no conflict of interest. Are you saying that because this account is used within a technology-based business, that we can't update, change, add to, or modify tech related articles? That's ridiculous. Teaminvise (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use an account as a business, accounts are intended to be used by individuals. CMD (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account is not a business account, anyone using this account will be doing so with direct supervision of the account owner, ie. I will be standing behind them any time the login is used; if the login is used by someone other than myself sitting directly in front of the screen. I don't believe Wikipedia has such policies regarding who specifically is sitting in front of the keyboard with the owner directly behind them. If this policy exists, please reference it. The original name I wanted, "Invise" is not available. For reference, IP addresses can edit articles and pages on Wikipedia, and IP address blocks can be purchased by corporations. This doesn't necessarily mean that the corporations themselves are the owner of the changes being made. IP addresses editing articles and pages are a huge part of Wikipedia and are a form of shared account access and a shared system of edits. No further comments will be made concerning this matter. Thank you.

Teaminvise (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned on your talkpage, please see the Wikipedia:Username policy. Having a WP:SHAREDACCOUNT is not permitted. CMD (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for East African Community[edit]

On 30 November 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article East African Community, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 16:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

Hello CMD - noted your 'on review' tag to CABG - but your name is not shown as reviewer? Are you reviewing the article? Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Itzwoz, I adjusted the template as Talk:Coronary artery bypass surgery/GA2 has been opened. I'm not sure why this didn't happen automatically, or why you were not notified. CMD (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I am not the nominator. Noticed on page reviewer is also described as nominator ? Iztwoz (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the nominator named. That said, just noticed this, so together with the on review issue something has gone wrong somewhere. Will have to take a closer look at this when I have a bit of time. FYI Mike Christie. CMD (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a bug; I've put it on my list to fix, though I don't know when I'll get to it. The problem was caused by the nominator not following the GAN instructions; Sammi Brie fixed the nomination manually but omitted the status parameter. The bug appears to be that when there's no status, the bot can't update the status parameter so it goes through the "new review" steps repeatedly, including the notification to the nominator. Thanks for letting me know about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Iztwoz (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I put the link on what seemed the most relevant page (as not my particular area) - and it mentioned a recent (November) change. Jackiespeel (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackiespeel, you put the link on Talk:Tokelau, not Talk:Tuvalu. CMD (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The video mentioned various 'obscure places' and I picked up on one of them :) Jackiespeel (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I see! Apologies if I misunderstood. CMD (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I see you still disagreed with the removal of Noktundo from the List of territorial disputes page by the IP editor. If you have something good to say about the matter, it would be appreciated if you could join the discussion at Talk:List of territorial disputes to help form a consensus. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AP 499D25, this IP has been spamming iterations on this theme of varying coherence for half a year. As seen on Talk:Noktundo where there is already extensive discussion, replying to them is not a fruitful endeavor. CMD (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, thanks for the explanation. I think I'll proceed with user conduct dispute resolution if they keep doing the same behaviour instead of listening to and actually acknowledging the points made by other editors. I think four editors total involved is enough to form a consensus here that Noktundo not be deleted from the list article (or moved to resolved disputes). — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating GA for Penang[edit]

Hey there & good day! I've been working on the Penang article for the past few weeks now & nominating it for GA. I was wondering if you're keen to help in its assessment? Thanks! hundenvonPG (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HundenvonPenang, this is good news. I have enough involvement in the article that I think it would be best for someone else to review. However, a quick look. The sentence/paragraph "Meanwhile, George Town had a population of 794,313..." is unsourced, and a few more sources are clearly absent in Architecture, Sports, and Transportation. There are also a few too many images which some reviewers do bring up, but it is not a GA issue so other items may be more important. I'll watchlist the review. Best, CMD (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! Making the needed changes now. Also trying to unclutter the article by removing photos, though personally I'm rather undecided on which other photos to take off. hundenvonPG (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there @Chipmunkdavis: Need advice/assistance. It appears my nomination of Penang for GA status prompted some IP address to accuse me of basically being a sockpuppet (in User talk:BlueMoonset#Current GAN on Penang). Utterly preposterous! I had zero idea of that last user who did the sockpuppeting, I only learnt of such issues now, and I had made some contributions on other areas too (eg. Oppo phones and Napoleon (2023 film)).
And by that logic, the Penang article cannot be improved and nominated for GA in spite of all the work that has gone in? Certainly this accusation was made in bad faith. Is there any action I can take? hundenvonPG (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no action you need to take, presuming you are not a sockpuppet. Just let it work itself out. CMD (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CMD! And Merry Christmas. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CMD: just a note that a third IP has showed up at my talk page to attempt to raise my suspicions regarding the new Penang GAN, presumably because I was the one who delisted both of the articles back when the original sockpuppetry was finally uncovered a few years after the articles had been passed. Not sure whether you blocked the other two IPs after you deleted the original posts from my talk page, but it seems clear that they're somehow faking the widely variant addresses. Thanks for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: These are all throwaway proxy IPs so they'll keep changing, the simplest path is to just revert and ignore them. Best, CMD (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Will do. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for International Championship Wrestling (Mississippi)[edit]

On 27 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article International Championship Wrestling (Mississippi), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Kamala (pictured), Percy Pringle and the Fabulous Freebirds got their first "big break" in International Championship Wrestling? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/International Championship Wrestling (Mississippi). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, International Championship Wrestling (Mississippi)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]



You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: NOTHING, and this is not because you did anything silly as well. Natsuikomin (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
For your expert input in the Economy of Gaza City RM debate and for being an awesome Wikipedian! gidonb (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Malaysia January 2024 newsletter[edit]

Comments on FA nomination of Knowledge[edit]

Hello Chipmunkdavis, I wanted to let you know that I nominated the article Knowledge for featured article status, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knowledge/archive1. There has been little response so far and I was wondering whether you might be interested in taking a look. If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Malaysia February 2024 newsletter[edit]

Fish head curry revision[edit]

Hello @Chipmunkdavis, I noticed the latest revision you have made on the article, Fish head curry. Some cited sources were removed from after your revision of the article, and your edit summary did not help much. Would like to find out why did you remove them. Thanks Deoma12(Talk) 02:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deoma12, it was part of a cleanup of edits by sockpuppets of a blocked user. A user who has a history of misusing and making up sources to boot, although this was simply a clean removal. I see I missed an intermediate edit of yours, apologies, have fixed that now. CMD (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Small addendum, not a completely clean removal: I did not restore this immediately preceding edit which was close to vandalism. CMD (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signups open for The Core Contest 2024[edit]

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Peer review[edit]

Hello @Chipmunkdavis. Hope you are doing well. Well I and Keivan recently transcluded a peer review for the article William, Prince of Wales. So I thought that you could leave brief comments at the peer review discussion page. I approach you having seen your brief comments at the peer review for Liz Truss. Looking forward to knowing from you. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Malaysia March 2024 newsletter[edit]

Edelman Family Foundation[edit]

Hello @Chipmunkdavis

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]