User talk:Chipmunkdavis/ASEANplus

References

I have used these (amongst a few others) in Indonesia articles...

• Friend, T. (2003). Indonesian Destinies. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01137-6.
• Ricklefs, M. C. (1991). A History of Modern Indonesia since c.1300, Second Edition. MacMillan. ISBN 0-333-57689-6.
• Schwarz, A. (1994). A Nation in Waiting: Indonesia in the 1990s. Westview Press. ISBN 1-86373-635-2.
• Taylor, Jean Gelman (2003). Indonesia: Peoples and Histories. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10518-5.
• Vickers, Adrian (2005). A History of Modern Indonesia. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-54262-6.

--Merbabu (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, CMD (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Singapore

Please read this warning. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm reading it wrongly but I get the feeling that someone is/are deliberately undermining the GA drive of a certain article mainspace through a slow process of edit warring, adding rubbish and other non-essential/notable elements into it. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  That seems far too complicated. More likely is that certain opinions and viewpoints are being pushed, without much understanding of MOS, especially considering the positive spin of many edits. Hopefully it can be brought up to a GA level, following the GA1 advice, which I paraphrase to "shorter, do as Indonesia does". CMD (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Brunei . Subject: Never mind

Please forget about my previous deleted message okay, peace out! (Toby323) (talk)

That's okay. Remember, if you want to discuss the article, the best place is usually the article's talkpage. Cheers, CMD (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A question about this article "Brunei"

Is "Recognised" suitable to describe English on the info-box in regards to this Section 2 of Article 82 on the Country's Constitution?

Article 82

Section 2 - An official version in the English language shall be provided of anything which, by this Constitution or by any written law or by the Standing Orders, is required to be printed or in writing, and such version shall, in addition to the official Malay version, be accepted as an authentic text. Alevero987 (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's better than 3 question marks, which someone was trying to use. Such a discussion should really be held on the article talk page. CMD (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

singapore

complication is exactly why there needs to be a link to that other page. Change the text if you want but leave the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That was one event in a short two-year period of Malaysian history. I would disagree that it belongs in the main history section, and it definitely doesn't belong in the lead. CMD (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sunnis Muslims in Indonesia

I have added a reliable source i.e.,pew research center and I states that 99% are Sunni Muslims. Read it before making any reverts. http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-sunni-and-shia/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Read the whole article.

Disruptive CN tags on East Timor

Hello User:Chipmunkdavis. You removed my tags on the East Timor article as being disruptive. I do think there is a citation needed because the source now given is a working document of a UN commission and not a document by the Timorese authorities. The document now cited doesn't establish facts on names of countries in official use by these countries persé, specially not when there are conflicting translations in use in other places. Like the constitution of the country in it's English translation. I will not challenge your revert however but I'd be happy to restore, for the time, the source I initially removed as failing, when I got involved in the situation yesterday evening. Thus restoring the source that was there, while not taking away anything that was added since. This for more clarity in the discussion that is bound to follow. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I have now restored the earlier source I had removed as having failed. Just so it can be seen as this is being discussed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

At the very least the UNGEGN source establishes official names used within the UN system. A cn tag next to a citation will be confusing for any user not already familiar with the talkpage dispute, and it is unnecessary to place one prominently in the infobox as well as in the text. If you do not like the UNGEGN source, perhaps you could pick a source you do like from publications of the East Timorese government? CMD (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I won't remove the UNGEGN source. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Starting work at Singapore

This has been long overdue so I am starting work on the Singapore lead. I have set up a talk page section for discussion. Talk:Singapore#POV_and_WP:UNDUE_in_lead. I would appreciate if you could help out. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Singapore

Chipmunkdavis, I have just seen your bold edits, which is fine. Generally, I would agree with half of your removal but will revert/copy-edit others later or next two days, especially those which are sourced. Hope to avoid an edit-war and discuss on the Talk page. I would prefer that you state your stance since too much has gone on in the last few weeks. Is it fine with you? Wrigleygum (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My stance? My edits were made discretely, each with a very short edit summary which hopefully gave an outline of my stance on them. What from them is unclear? CMD (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your summary is quite clear indeed but may be disputed, then we settle it cordially in Talk or RFC, as per WP guidelines to avoid edit-warring accusations. Wrigleygum (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution applies as always, of course. That said, after the RfC on lead statistics concluded they were overdone, you started a new section saying they should be kept because they were in the body. What form of resolutions can you envisage there? Is there a need to resolve your edits which made the original changes to the lead? CMD (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I do have to retire earlier tonight but will have a look at what you're saying, reply tmr. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I see what you are asking. Firstly, I would have objected to the manner RFC closed, right after I posted an update of [Singapore's lead: Specific issues] and immediately after Warpslider changed his 'Comment' to 'Oppose'. Given a few more days, the outcome may have been different. That aside, the RFC closing summary reads "There is broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed, and that the statistics are overdone". What to trim? It will be by Consensus correct? Does trimming refer to just the stats or everything? One editor does not determine that. She bold-removed paragraph-5 with the edit summary "Unsourced boosterism", and my reply in Talk is "..all the statements are sourced in body content - widely acknowledged, not boosterism." -Wrigleygum (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In that case you should raise it with the RfC closer. RfCs are not votes, and are determined by the arguments taking into account wikipedia policy. Stonewalling changes is not appropriate conduct, consensus at its best includes all editors ban it does not have to. The very least that requires is participation, and that talkpage conversation ended when you stopped replying, which is unhelpful. CMD (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

CMD, I think you are referring to my non-response to your reply to "Specific Issues"? On that occassion I saw Lemongirl had extended the RFC from 30d to 60days, so I decided to wait for further response from uninvolved editors. All comments at that point in time came from editors with some edit history in Singapore like yourself and would have some bias. My time is really limited and thought it best to consolidate answers to a single section - that way, others can digest all the main issues before commenting. A substantial reply like you did, then no engagement I admit is frustrating. Although not for the same reasons, see my own efforts at Lee Hsien Loong and early LKY - both times I lost interest (but not forever) as WP does not pay my bills. I did find your reply to the first "Specific issues" draft helpful and addressed most of it in the 2nd update. I think you do still have some bias, which are hard to change so hopefully the pillars can help sought it out soon. I agree RFC is a lot of work and not the best way. Wrigleygum (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

If editing an article creates bias, then there's no hope for any of us. At any rate, I was not referring to that, I was referring to the new section you started after the RfC had ended in response to LemonGirl's implementation, which you titled "Sources". I would ask you to think carefully about bias and where it lies, given your previous statement about deliberately ignoring negative statements in favour of positive ones for the lead. CMD (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note: See this ANI thread. I am sick and tired of this, so I am seeking to restrict Wrigleygum and the other SPAs from editing that page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Singapore talk page

Hi Chipmunkdavis! I've recently opened a discussion on Singapore Talk-page if you'd like to join, you could. Kinda regards. --Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ ^talk 12:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for review

I'm wondering if you are interesting in reviewing the article on Kingdom of Singapura as you have contributed to articles on Singapore before, also the issue is related to the founding of Malacca Sultanate, therefore indirectly connected to Malaysian History. I'm currently inviting reviews for the article - Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Singapura/archive1. The reason is mainly because I believe it needs to be overhauled, but it may not be easy because of the extensive amount that's written already, therefore I would like suggestions (or even edits) that can improve it. The main problem is the uncertainty in the history and what appears to be skewing of the narrative (some points raised in Talk:Kingdom of Singapura). Historians believe that many of the kings may be mythical, but the article is written in a way that is skewed towards the view that they are real. Suggestions or edits would be welcome. Hzh (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Singapore

Singapore, an article you have significantly edited, has been nominated for Good Article. It seems possible for it to become a Good Article, though it needs tidying up. If you are interested in helping out, see the review: Talk:Singapore/GA3. SilkTork (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, sorry I was not around to see this. Thank you for your continued good and professional work on country page reviews. The Singapore page I believe a few years ago was close to if not at GA status, but sadly it has suffered from bloat and the general degradation that country articles go through over time, and you made the correct call that it is not currently at a GA level. Please do ping me again if the process for that article is renewed, or if there is any other country article I could be of assistance with. CMD (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If it is nominated again for GA, and I am requested to do the review, I will certainly let you know. Regards. SilkTork (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

ECP proposal for Singapore

Hello, do you think it would be advisable to seek ECP for the Singapore page for perhaps a month? Considering that it has been targeted by Feiona socks endlessly, it is justified under 'abusive sockpuppetry'. A month long's ECP could act to deter the user and should he or she returns, extended accordingly. Seloloving (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I would certainly support it. CMD (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

In case you have not read WP:OWN

You keep questioning about my view of WP:OWN on a discussion, So I show you the text which might help you understand. Hope you read this.

Actions

• An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include the routine maintenance of article consistency, such as preservation of established spelling or citation styles.)
• An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
• An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
• An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior.
• An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary to edit the article (see the first two comments in the Statements section just below).
• Sometimes a newcomer puts his or her name into the article as the author. Since no one "owns" any Wikipedia content, content should not be signed. The exact contributions of all editors are seen with their names on the page history. On the other hand, when adding comments, questions, or votes to talk pages, it is good to "own" your text, so the best practice is to sign it by suffixing your entry with "~~~~". — Preceding unsigned comment added by NouVa (talk • contribs) 05:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Malay indonesia

do you want to cover the history of Malay in Indonesia, the Malay tribe is native to Indonesia K mm aoak (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We should cover such things, so if you wp:reliable sources on the matter that would be welcome. CMD (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Singapore

I cited a source. Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia, through action in the Malaysian government. So it was against their will. Do you own the article? I thought people didn't own articles on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 747pilot (talk • contribs) 02:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The source did not match your claim in the text. Further, as mentioned the article already covers that information, so it is redundant. CMD (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Dili info

I thought I would continue discussion of this topic on your talk page so that you don't need to keep an eye on mine.

I have in fact recently nominated a number of East Timor articles for DYK. The ones that have already appeared as DYKs are acknowledged on my talk page, and two more have recently been approved. I didn't nominate Tibar Bay, because I took too long to write it to my satisfaction. The German Wikipedia article about the history of Dili (de:Geschichte Dilis) seems to be quite comprehensive, although I haven't looked at it very closely yet. I am able to translate German, but most German Wikipedia articles need significant improvement to comply with English Wikipedia expectations relating to referencing, etc.

More recently, I have added more content to National Stadium (East Timor), created Cape Fatucama, and upgraded Ombai Strait and Wetar Strait. The Stadium article needs some more refinement, but the basic factual material in it is already now pretty much all I have been able to find on the internet. I also intend to expand the two Strait articles further, and an improvement of Timorese Resistance Archive and Museum will be my next task. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem, whichever venue works. I agree on the German Wikipedia, it has great East Timor articles. They have more OR so they can't be translated directly, but I do forgive them given the impossibility of finding a source that says something as simple as "The Bay of Dili extends from the Comoro River to Cape Fatucama". (That'd add really good context to the current Geography section, and it's obviously true from a map, I just can't find it in anything remotely high quality.) CMD (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the source I used for the statement in the Bay of Dili article in English Wikipedia to that effect is a map that doesn't actually name the bay. So it doesn't really go quite far enough. For some reason, maps of East Timor seldom, if ever, name bodies of water or rivers. Maybe that's because East Timor is an impoverished country, and such names are not really important in the overall scheme of things. But like you, I will keep my eye out for a better source. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Dili

Hi CMD

Sorry for not replying yet to your request at my talk page... unfortunately my Wiki time has been dwindling considerably recently, and I'm about to go on vacation. So if you're still interested in my thoughts then, I can hopefully have a look at it in late April. I think your thoughts may be generally sensible from a very brief look. If you do decide to split out History into its own article, don't forget to leave a decent self-contained summary of appropriate length in the parent article. Its a bug-bear of mine when people just leave a section empty with a link to "main article", that's not how summary style is supposed to work, and why we have e.g. Rwanda#History and History of Rwanda as separate entities. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: No problem, as could be guessed this is quite a slow burn. Fascinating that that's your bugbear, mine is the opposite, too much expansion on the summary while the main article is ignored. CMD (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi CMD

If you're still interested in nominating something for DYK, you might want to consider Comoro River, which I started expanding on 6 April. A possible hook might be: "... the Berloi Waterfall forms part of a minor tributary of the Comoro River?" I intend to expand the river article a little bit further, by including some information to the effect that its lower reaches are flood prone. I will do that in the next day or so. Bahnfrend (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bahnfrend: How about adding a small bit of history, such as the very recent date of the second bridge? I think a hook on something like "...that the Comoro River, which cuts through the East Timor capital of Dili, had only one vehicle bridge until 2018?". I have a QPQ done so otherwise ready to go. Also added a link to the CPLP Bridge article from Dili. Best, CMD (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Done. In the next 24 hours, I'll add some brief content about the 2020 and 2021 floods, but you don't need to wait for that content to nominate the article for DYK. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ASEAN

Hi, I think you must see all official language of members of ASEAN. You can see all is putting ASEAN flag in their language example Thai language & Indonesian language article. If it wrong I think you also remove on their article Malayan Law (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If there is no source for it, please remove it from those articles. CMD (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The source same like what I do Malayan Law (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, that source does not seem provide the official languages of ASEAN. CMD (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)