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

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

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

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

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

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

The correction inserted the country name to maintain a complete description of a location [1]. Please inform otherwise. >g2g886 (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

When you say "they prefer to have province over country", do you mean Chinese speaking communities? If that's the case, I believe I would have a better understanding over it. The Chinese communities used to be extremely China center due to its history; however, today, province, which is very similar to "state", along is not sufficient to address a place within Chinese speaking countries (ie. Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia may have places in Mandarin Chinese language). As a result, "X, city, province, country" can be the full description of a location while for short, the "country" is still necessary for actual identification. "大雪山 (Dasyue Mountain)" for example, the name is used in describing Dasyue Mountain, Taichung city, Taiwan and Dasyue Mountain, Sichuan province, China (they are different mountains). Please refer to [2]. IMHO, country name is essential. >g2g886 (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Im going to pretend you are 12 years old and i will word this in extremely simple English since you clearly failed to understand my last message. First question:

• Why did you reinsert the misplaced texts i told you about on the united nations talk page? Pass a Method talk 21:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because you've decided for some strange reason to insist on doing it along with a bunch of other changes. In addition, you've never pointed out exactly which paragraphs they are. Why don't you take your own advice, and move them manually? CMD (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Second questions. Can you be specific about whats wrong with my version? (p.s. dont give me a vague answer as you did above by using euphemsims such as "other changes" etc.) Pass a Method talk 06:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your writing implies there's a single ambassador for South Africa and Brazil, and that the OIC was the only party to object. You then changed the objective section into a long series of very short subsections, which inhibits prose and looks cluttered. CMD (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would seem that the negative content in this article should be sourced or immediately removed. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editor (assuming IP and new user are the same due to the edits in question) also changed "considered to be one of the premier high schools in the Philippines" to "considered to be the premier high school in the Philippines", so they're not blanking due to source considerations. Did some googling, and found court case in regards to local salaries and a separate case which mentions the 2006 issue as evidence. The source that was already in the article ([3]), seems to be almost a primary source by some involved parties, but covers the second paragraph.

This isn't a BLP, so I don't see why 'negative' content should be excised for sourcelessness while 'positive' content remains. I also don't think we should let anyone edit with the purpose of whitewashing an article. The above sources aren't the best, but 1) there's not going to be professional sources for high school (although for some reason all high schools are notable), and 2) it's more sources than the rest of the article has. Thoughts? CMD (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the detailed analysis! The IP is whitewashing again. I reverted it, but expect more. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, it seem Denmark, which was shown as having legalised same sex marriage, isn't anymore in the new map you edited. Denmark do recognise these marriage. --Aréat (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank goodness someone is on the ball. Should be fixed now. CMD (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

//The laws are to prevent children committing criminal offenses, but most countries with these laws put heavy penalties on anyone giving the alcohol to children, so there's no theoretical way for them to drink it.//

Without intending any insult or condescension, someone old enough to vote, sign contracts on one's own, and join the Army is not a child, and even though I'm now 25 myself, I still don't appreciate the implication that children can vote or join the Army because alcohol law makes it seem that way. Just because voting age and military age (and indeed draft age in the case of males) adults are forbidden from alcohol by an outdated series of laws, this does not make them minors. (For indeed they are not minors.)

Someday the powers that be will grow a pair, and the Amethyst Initiative and Choose Responsibility will finally succeed in changing the law, but until then this is something to consider when commenting. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pentecost falls on the tenth day after Ascension Thursday (40 days after Easter). The sentence above is formally confusing , on its face . This sentence is the last line of the introductory paragraph . I could delve into the formal reasons for this structure/meaning confusion ,but the obviousness of the problem , would argue against any such tiresome chore . The , all too apparent , shoddy syntax , could be easily remedied by the deletion of the parentheses and the addition of 2 words to render the phrase therein as a clausal construct . Well , " eezy-peezy " you might think - if your inner dialogue included late 90's idiom - but , as it turns out , not so . The last time I engaged in this sort of ad-hoc syntactical smoothing for the purpose of clarifying , not changing , a writer's meaning - I believe it was , as basic as, noun-verb number agreement - my virtual knuckles were smartly rapped with a threat to report and then brand me with some odious Acronym . Needless to say , I refrained from reverting , nor did I engage in disputation , for a number of reasons . At this point , I could go on , concerning the distinction between proof-reading and editorial concerns , but I won't -- And I won't alter the confused and confusing sentence that occasioned this overly prolix diatribe .Bjhodge8 (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjhodge8 (talk • contribs)

                                                                                                                                           I posted the above on the ,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecost  talk-page . I think I need some friendly guidance . B

Hi there, I did some digging, and I found out the notorious Georgian sockmaster Satt2, who had a frantic POV to try and push Georgia into Europe and break all its Asian bonds, really had a dislike for you. He created tons of socks over the span of many years all having the same insane obsession, namely "preaching" this Georgia is Europe agenda on Wikipedia. He often created socks with hate names referring to you ("Meurtrierdechipmunk", "Chipmunkmustdie", etc.) as well. Does this all ring some bells, perhaps? Well, he has returned on a new sock and has managed to dodge the bullet for a few months now. Glad I found the SPI case. Considering you had alot of interaction with previous socks, would you mind presenting your opinion here on the SPI case?. Bests and thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your report is very detailed and convincing User:LouisAragon. As you can imagine, the evidence you have posted rings quite a few bells, given the former unpleasantness of dealing with this user that you mention. I was on a long wikibreak until recently, which is likely why I didn't notice this user. I am disappointed that this is all still going on. I will keep an eye on the SPI and will make an official comment if I feel it would be helpful, but frankly you've tied up the case pretty well. If the SPI goes through and the thankless task of removing their edits per WP:EVADE needs to begin, feel free to inform me and I will do what I can to help. CMD (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I haven't really been online since the 11th, so I couldn't give you a response. It's all over now anyways. Thanks for having reverted there where needed. If you need my help, opinion, comment or whatever regarding anything in the future, please don't hesitate to let me know. Bests and take care for now - LouisAragon (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've recently started to help out using the 'citation hunt' page. I need to know the etiquette regarding facially absurd, or, after considerable research, unsupported 'facts' that have been cite-tagged. Should I go ahead and cut the passage or post to talk-page first? Sorry to bother you with this. Thanks.Bjhodge8 (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Bjhodge8, a noble cause. The answer is to be WP:BOLD, while applying your judgement. If something has been cite tagged for awhile, and you can't find any sources about the point in question, there's no reason you shouldn't remove it. Add an edit summary explaining the removal of course. If it has only recently been tagged, or you feel there is merit to the statement even though you can't find a source, it may be worth leaving it for a bit. However, even then if you do choose to remove it (which you can), the worst that will happen is someone reverting it, so no harm done! CMD (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've addressed the concerns you raised for Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Isha_Gramotsavam. Regstuff (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Chipmunkdavis. Do you mind if I set up a bot archive at Talk:Singapore from 2016 onwards? It is easier than the year based archives. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I don't mind. I would recommend initially leaving a very long period of inactivity before archiving if you do it soon, given the current situation where lots of sections are based of previous sections. I only archived up to the RfC for that reason. CMD (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I thought I'd try additional input. I would appreciate your input there, as the only editor who's joined in the discussion from WP-en, and someone (who like Jedi on the other side) is willing to collaborate.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — kwami (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I couldn't figure out how to link to specific version of a map. — kwami (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Nice to see all your work on Native American reservations branching off from the same-sex marriage discussion. The joys of Wikipedia! CMD (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted Yoninah. Is this mentioned somewhere that I've missed? CMD (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been discussed at WT:DYK for a long time. Yoninah (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yoninah: Is there a reason it has not then been added to the supplementary guidelines? CMD (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Sigh.) Another rule? If you'd like you can open an RFC at WT:DYK. Yoninah (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review. It was hard to fix the plot section while in a house that was very loud because of a kid's birthday party, followed by a loud friend's apartment. I apologize if I sounded rude in my comments. SL93 (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem at all. Best, CMD (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright. Thank you. I'll take a look at it. Herostratus (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to push this more, I know it is disappointing for it to be delayed, but really I feel that our work will get barely any clicks at the very bottom of Queue 3, as opposed to being accompanied by an image; so I opened Wikipedia talk:Did you know § Jueteng. My own experience tells me this, as Deseret alphabet is my highest performing DYK clickwise, and had an image. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, seems like there won't be a delay, so....ignore this I guess.......😔😞 Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to worry, I don't think I've had any highly clicked DYKs! CMD (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the catch on that reference in Marcos jewels. I've added the references from elsewhere in the article to cover the forfeiture of all three collections, and the dismissal of the petition over the Malacanang collection (which I also clarified in the text), plus proposals for auction in 2016. I also did a search and added two entirely new references that refer to auction plans in 2014, 2019, and 2020. I tried to address everything in your tag in six edits linked here. Again, thank you for the catch! Yours, Chieharumachi (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chieharumachi, no problem, more eyes on the article is one of the great benefits of the DYK process. It's always good to see useful Philippine material being developed. CMD (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's why I went for a DYK, actually. My colleague said it was a great way to make sure the article gets up to par more quickly. :D I didn't even realize I'd missed those references in that section; I was editing late at night. haha. - Chieharumachi (talk)

Chipmunkdavis, do you plan to return to your review here, or should I find someone else to finish it? Please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies BlueMoonset, I somehow didn't see that ping. CMD (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for helping with the DYK nomination on K-23. Im still new to this, and was wondering how I can check the status on the DYK nomination? Thank you for your time. -420Traveler (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 420Traveler, after your article has been promoted, you can track it on Template:Did you know/Queue (T:DYKQ). K-23 is currently in Queue 4, which is set to appear at 00:00 9 December UTC. CMD (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which specific TC season articles were you mentioning? Noah^Talk 13:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Noah, referring to most if not all at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020, especially the late 20th century ones. CMD (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to your edit summary,[4] that apparently wasn't just another copying from another Wikipedia article, but spinning a section off a main article and expanding that section into an article with more details, while downsizing that section within the main article according to summary style. Please enlighten on the relevant guideline for such edits, given most of these non-contentious and straightforward ones are performed all across Wikipedia without discussions. Thanks and regards. 219.73.29.243 (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spinning a section off is copying from that article. The guideline is the one I provided, which you have used as the title here, WP:CWW. CMD (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proud of my African articles and pleased to see you added them to the 10,000 challenge. My prime driver is gender but its just part of the diversity and equality we strive for. Victuallers (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Chipmunkdavis, I know you had a problem with my recent AfD nominations but I just wanted to say I feel like the quote you have on your page is great and pretty relevant in our disagreement:

"There is a habit among editors to look at how the text of an article changes, rather than what the text says. There is a presumption that if text moves from one POV then it must be moving towards another POV (and so we see opposing POVs waxing and waning rather than seeing it for what it is: a settling at a NPOV)."

That's not meant to be snappy or sarcastic. I just genuinely feel like my WP:BOLD edits are helping build a WP:NPOV and add WP:VERIFIABLE information. Much of the information on the Ora (currency) article was incorrect and not supported by sources. I also personally believe, and you may disagree, that Orania Representative Council fails WP:GNG. I appreciate the engagement but I will say I was a bit perturbed by the immediate suggestion that I be topic banned or worse. If this message feels inappropriate, I understand and feel free to delete and ignore. Just wanted to reach out in good faith to explain why I am doing what I am doing. Desertambition (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sure you are working in good faith, but that does not meant there is no issue. I have no opinion on whether the Orania Representative Council meets or fails GNG. I have not looked into it at all. The problem is, your deletion rationale leaves me none the wiser. It reads as entirely disconnected to GNG, and that is problematic. On the Ora article, you have removed the note of the peg, removed the etymology behind the name claiming that this was inappropriate in Wikivoice, added the assertion that the digital version is a cryptocurrency, among other problematic edits. As with the deletion rationale and notability, your expressed reasoning does not match the actions taken. I cannot understand the reasoning behind this disconnect, and I suspect from the AN/I other users cannot either, but so long as this disconnect remains you're editing is going to continue to run into issues. CMD (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did remove those things from the article because they were not supported by the sources. The articles I read almost always said "Orania spokesperson says..." or "According to Orania..." but the central claims were not supported by the sources provided/other reliable sources. The etymology was in fact a statement by an Orania spokesperson who said Ora "sounds like" the latin word for gold. That is not the same as a reliable secondary source stating the etymology authoritatively. The peg statement is refuted by the Reserve Bank of South Africa and other reliable sources. The dOra is a cryptocurrency and that was supported by sources already present but I could add more if you would like. I truly believe I explained these things in my edit summaries and have edited honestly. I personally do not understand how we came to separate conclusions based on the cited sources. This following statement is meant earnestly as well, it puzzles me as to why you would characterize my edits as vandalism or disruptive when I have stuck by reliable sources, detailed edit summaries, and have been ready and willing to discuss issues on the talk page if they may arise. I believe it's clear many users have a problem with my edits but I make sure to stick by WP:VERIFIABLE information and try to remain WP:BOLD in doing so. Desertambition (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does feel a bit like you are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH. Hopefully you at least understand my perspective a bit more. Desertambition (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A group that names something is a reliable source for why it is named something. The currency is pegged to the Rand, no source disputes this. There is no source stating it is a cryptocurrency, and it is not a cryptocurrency, by definition. I feel you do not understand the topic at hand. The assertion I do not assume good faith is bizarre, given the conversation so far. I note in the AN/I you have apparently asserted similarly with others, so sadly this does appear to be a pattern. CMD (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CMD! I noticed that you're a member of WP:COUNTRIES and you've also been somewhat involved in the past at Henley Passport Index (which is produced by my employer, Henley & Partners), so I'm hoping you might have some familiarity with the subject matter and would be willing to help out with a content issue.

In short, I initiated a discussion at Talk:Henley & Partners#Major changes made without consensus after an editor made several sweeping changes without discussion in mid-March, most of which I considered either WP:COATRACK additions, additions that relied too heavily on a WP:BIASED source, or arbitrary removals of sourced content. Another editor, User:15, wrote that they largely agreed with me and said they would revert the bulk of the undiscussed changes. But then 15 abruptly stopped editing (their last edit was Apr. 5), so the article since then has remained basically unchanged in the non-consensus version - I have not done the revert myself due to my COI. Since then I've been in touch with an editor (Wtmitchell) who is active in articles about the topic of citizenship, who also agreed with 15's approach, but said he was too busy to get involved.

I'm hoping you can read the talk page discussion and, if you agree, revert the disputed changes (1, 2, 3) to whatever extent you feel is appropriate, to allow consensus to be reached properly. Thank you, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responding on the article talkpage. CMD (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking action on this. Would you mind taking a quick look at this edit to the article on the company's founder as well? It was done by the same editor at around the same time as the other edits. Similar removal of sourced content, plus addition of multiple paragraphs of coatrack/POV fork material. Much appreciated, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sarah, I'm afraid BLPs are not an area I go to often. If it helps that page does not appear that negative. Best, CMD (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I reached out to you in the first place because of your connection to the subject matter, but at this point the situation really just requires a level-headed, unbiased editor who knows how to apply WP:NPOV - not necessarily a BLP expert. Plus, you are by now already familiar with the context of the situation and the nature of the edits to both articles. So if you could take a moment to review the Christian Kälin edit despite your reluctance, I would greatly appreciate it. But I certainly understand if you still prefer not to get involved. Thank you, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I wanted to ask about why you didn't consider a redirect for Bricherhaff, I mean Eitermillen was redirected to Contern by a trusted user for the same reasons you proded Bricherhaff, what about WP:ATD?

Also about the article itslef, I agree, it's not good quality and right now it's non-notable, if I can find sources, that could change but until then, we are on the same page. N1TH Music (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no encyclopaedic purpose to redirecting non-notable properties to somewhere else, and there no content within the stub that looked like it was worth preserving in article history. CMD (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ATD states that we should, if possible, use an alternative, regardless of how useless preserving the history of said article may be. N1TH Music (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should use an alternative if it helps the encyclopaedia. Redirects from individual properties to their towns do not. CMD (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not an individual property, it's a legally recognised settlement and I say it should be redirected to the mill directly adjacent to it. If you want proof to it being a settlement, search Bricherhaff on Google Books, I found a directory of settlements in alphabetical order, it isn't a list of properties, it's a list of settlements. N1TH Music (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to like looking at maps, so please look at it on a map and see it's someone's farm. You were blocked for this sort of disruption, and it's really not a great way to come off your block to go right back into it. CMD (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not looking at it on a map, I've been there, I live not far from it, I know it's populated, I know it's legally recognised, I know it's publicly recognised and again, I check google books, there are no maps there and I found a couple sources. I don't know how reliable everything there is but once I can acces it on my computer I will put the information on the AFD and then let everyone decide. N1TH Music (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not uncommon for private property to be populated and legally recognised, this doesn't mean much on its own. I am not sure what you gain or are trying to acehive by continuing with whatever campaign you are on, I can only advise you drop it sooner rather than later. CMD (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you reverted an edit that I made on the Kaktovik numerals page. The change simply reworded the link to the Eskimo-Aleut language family to more inclusively use the actual names of the relevant language sub-families, namely the Inuit and Yupik languages. If you could help me understand the revert, that would be very much appreciated! Thanks! Dowobeha (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dowobeha. The change piped an article title to an alternative name. Generally, it is best to stick to article titles, because the same criteria that make for useful titles (recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency) also mean they will be the most useful terms for readers. This also stops naming disputes spilling off one particular page and into every page using a particular term. If you think the name should be changed, you should open an WP:RM on the relevant talkpage! Best, CMD (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Chipmunkdavis !

I am a fellow wikipedian, and I recently published a new article called Disability in Kenya, because I thought it was primordial to provide knowledge on disabilities in this specific country. This country's norms, perceptions, myths, and policies around persons with disabilities are unique, and as I am particularly close to Kenya, I think this article is valuabe.

But since I am quite new to Wikipedia, I wanted to know if I could get your feedback on this article. I saw that you commented on the Kenya talk page, so I thought it would be great to reach out to you!

Thank you in advance.

~~~~ Zp 2298 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Zp 2298, nice to hear from you. It would be best practice when reaching out for assistance on a specific article to link to that article, eg. [[Disability in Kenya]] becomes Disability in Kenya. I see someone else has already made some notes on the article. A key consideration to remember is that Wikipedia articles are not papers, they do not have a thesis and are not meant to argue a point. Instead, they are meant to plainly provide comprehensive information about a topic. It is helpful when writing Wikipedia articles to make sure everything that is written comes from an external source, which makes it easier to maintain an encyclopaedic tone. Best, CMD (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

When I browsed Lunar New Year page, I saw the first sentence is "Lunar New Year is the beginning of a lunar calendar or lunisolar calendar year, whose months are moon cycles." I kinda suspect if that is correct. Since the pure lunar calendar does not have an intercalation that appears in lunisolar calendar, the date of new year does not aligned in these two calendars. IIRC, the difference will be around 11 days when both of them finished one year cycle. I cannot find and refer you a page of concrete calculation process, but I think the Wikipedia page of lunar calendar and lunisolar calendar are sufficient mentioned enough about the calendar difference. To avoid confusion for readers, I think there should be a better way to distinguish them. There may be some cultures call them as the equivalent, but this kind of case should be addressed separately. I am not sure how to submit the suggestion of this page, so I browsed contribution history and found you might be the right person to explain my thoughts.

Let me know what is your suggestion.

Best Hailaishoya (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Hailaishoya, I am not a frequent contributor to that page. If you have some sources on the matter, please raise them at Talk:Lunar New Year. CMD (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

Thanks for the information. I will check that page.

Best Hailaishoya (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi CMD, hope you're doing well. We interacted several months ago when you took part in a discussion at Talk:Henley & Partners, and I'm hoping you won't mind doing so once more. I recently proposed two content changes at Talk:Henley & Partners#Fixing misleading language in two places. Can you please take a look, and implement my suggestions in the article if they seem reasonable to you? Thanks! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sarah, I am quite busy at the moment, be sure to tag your request with Template:Request edit and it may get dealt with sooner. CMD (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks anyway! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]