User talk:Chipmunkdavis

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

Issues in some revisions in Philippines
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).


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&diff=1169811722&oldid=1169786551
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&diff=1172197392&oldid=1171184226

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

Changes to International Units
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)


 * 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)

Nominating GA for Penang
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Hey there 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). 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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks CMD! And Merry Christmas. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Will do. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Rock around the clock
I saw you comment in the edit history. It could be worse. Somehow I hit 158 (see here). I'm going to have to make a conscious decision to get up at the crack of dawn to finish. Have a userbox. --evrik (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much evrik, well-appreciated, did not know that userbox existed. I don't think I am going to actively try to achieve more, although the GA review one seems a good long-term citizen plan. Now, how to get another i into Niue Nukutuluea Multiple-Use Marine Park... CMD (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hah! When I discovered the page, I had already achieved five. With a little focus I completed four. I'm going to finish four more, and I'm done. Maybe. :-) I may never complete the clock one. --evrik (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hi Chipmunkdavis. Thank you for your work on Asphendou Cave petroglyphs. Another editor, Aszx5000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Aszx5000 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Chipmunkdavis, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts on a GAN
I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the GAN for Botswana and whether it's ready. I'm reaching out to you because you did the article's peer review for the nominator a few weeks ago. They've also nominated The arts which I'm not too sure about, and they've received several complaints on their talk page about their reviewing, including one from myself and apparently one from you. I've also spoken with about the editor's activity at GAN as he worked with them at WP:GANMENTOR. Sorry for roping you in like this, but I still have concerns and I'm wondering if they're justified. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out, no need to apologise. The nominator is enthusiastic about improving Botswana-related articles, I have not encountered them on more general topics like The arts so don't have a comment on that at the moment. I did raise that talkpage question you mention, and also recently I think caused a withdrawal at Featured list candidates/List of general elections in Botswana/archive2 (although I was trying to be specific on improvements that would integrate the current text, with the caveat I'm not very experienced at FLs I don't think it was beyond improving to pass). These are two separate domains however, we might have issues with reviewing, but that doesn't necessarily mean issues in writing.Specifically on the Botswana article, I meant what I said about it being better than many country articles. The main Politics section for example looks at a first read as very well done. While not all of my points were actioned (not that they all have to, of course), substantial improvements were made in response to my PR. There are comments I would still make regarding weight and MOS:PARA, but I wouldn't say it's a rushed nomination. (I have not evaluated GACR2 at all mind.) Are there any specific concerns I might help look into? CMD (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Botswana article, I can only speak to the History and Politics sections. I'm the one who wrote the politics section, and it wasn't in great shape until I redid it by summarizing what I wrote on the associated child article. And like I said at the PR, I'm working on History of Botswana and the main article's history section seems way off. I edit regularly in this area and have interacted with this editor a few times. My concern is more that they might be biting off way more than they can competently handle as a brand new editor (even I wouldn't be bold enough to nominate one of the project's most core articles like The arts at GAN), especially given their history with reviewing, and the fact that their last GAN was justifiably quickfailed. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 19:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're asking me if they're being very bold and perhaps over-enthusiastic, I agree. There is an obvious pattern with many nominations, consistent with the nomination statement at Featured list candidates/List of general elections in Botswana/archive2 and the opening of Peer review/Botswana/archive1. The editor has also spent a lot of time reworking WikiProject Botswana, unfortunately otherwise a dead project like many are. On GANs, there has been some clerking that is feels unusual (eg. Talk:Bath City F.C./GA5). I also took a quick look at the Botswana nomination when it appeared, given that history. That said, I don't want to damp down too much on enthusiasm, I have not seen any particular issues regarding POV or similar (perhaps you know more?), and they are pleasant and collaborative. Do you have any particular paths forward in mind? The user has not responded to my talkpage question, so I feel a bit unsure of personally pursuing that there. CMD (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the DCWC!


Welcome to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, Chipmunkdavis! The contest is now open for submissions. List your work at your submissions page to earn points. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:


 * Got open nominations? List them at review requests.
 * Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
 * Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
 * New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
 * Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you good luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators:, , or. (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Maritime SE Asia versus Island SE Asia
I understand you to be inviting comment on how Wikipedia differentiates the terms Maritime Southeast Asia and Island Southeast Asia. I had a discussion on this at (it has a bit of a slow start on being clear on what it is about). The conclusion I have made is that, outside Wikipedia, there are those working on the region that use ISEA and Maritime SEA interchangeably. There are others who do not, including Peter Bellwood and most who work in the biology and prehistory of the area. (You will see there is a derivative study of usages on a linked page, but that rather petered out.)

It seems to me that it is not Wikipedia's role to fix this terminological muddle, however disappointing it may be to see the precision of the English language subverted. The problems arise in the world outside Wikipedia. But I never really reached a conclusion to the discussion linked above. I would be interested to know your view on this. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 07:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi ThoughtIdRetired, I am not looking for comments on how Wikipedia differentiates the term. We have neatly sidestepped the issue, using Maritime Southeast Asia for the cultural/human space, and maintaining Malay Archipelago for the geographical archipelago (which also has its fair share of synonyms), thus never needing to use the term Island Southeast Asia. What I am looking for is sources on the terminological muddle. For whatever issues the previous source had, it is better than what has seemingly replaced it, which is an issue. CMD (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Noted. Island Southeast Asia seems to be the preferred usage in sources covering the subject areas of interest to me (early seafaring, biodiversity, etc. – because it is important in those fields to differentiate between islands and the coast of mainland Asia). I've just mentally flagged it as an issue in Wikipedia where I'll just go with the flow – because the sources I've seen, taken as a whole, show no consistency. I did try to find sources that had definitions; I contacted a few authors directly (e.g. Bellwood who was crystal clear on his own usage (always "ISEA" but including Taiwan) – but Watson Andaya never replied). Just out of curiosity, are you happy with the way Maritime Southeast Asia handles the terminology at the moment? ThoughtIdRetired TIR 10:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the current presentation there is great, but on the other hand it's not a well-developed article at all. I am not that familiar with seafaring scholarship, but regarding biodiversity I anecdotally agree with your experience that Island Southeast Asia or the traditional Malay Archipelago specifically exclude the mainland. CMD (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding revert changes in India bhutan relations
Hi I noticed u reverted the changes I made on india bhutan relations. Them reasoning u gave was *seems sourced and no improvement* I want to say, I find removal of unnecessary information as improvement as well.because when I was reading that article it all seemed so irrelevant to the india bhutan relations. For example the mention about electricity prices from 4.32 to 4.11 and other random day to day news. It was all cluttered Also I removed 1972 row - reason no event actually took place to have a new column under 1972.

And no I'm not sourced MangoHuman (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This does not feel like an accurate summary of the edits in question, which removed quite broad information about the changes in the relationship between the two countries. CMD (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dili
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dili you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cambalachero -- Cambalachero (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Sacred Cod
Sacred Cod has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Cpotisch (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)