Chipmunkdavis

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 explain this to me

I do not understand why you reverted my edit on Talk:Nauru or Talk:Canada,while it is probably within the range of talk page use,it was not related to those articles, the thread on Talk:Nauru I removed because it was related to the article Nauru 19,not the Article Nauru,and the thread on Talk:Canada I removed is because it was related to the article Canadaland,not the article Canada UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 03:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

also in Talk:United States I removed an uncivil comment,that happens on wikipedia when comments are not civil, am I wrong? UnsungHistory (Questions?) (Did I mess up?) 03:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not revert your edit on Talk:Canada. There is a point where discussions are removed but both of those threads did not get close to that point. Uncivil comments are not usually removed no, and the one you removed was not even uncivil. Please stop trying to moderate talkpages, it takes some time to become familiar with the norms here. CMD (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution history,I see you to have removed comments and threads,thisfor example,that is what I was trying to do UnsungHistory (Wrong Edit!) 02:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not what you were doing. A clear difference for example is that the comment I removed was random gibberish, the comments you removed were about article development. CMD (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@UnsungHistory, I'm going to try being blunt again: you are a comparatively inexperienced editor. If you are not yet sure what the distinctions in the rules are generally understood to be, then please refrain from enforcing those rules and just observe what others do instead for now, and ask about things that might be real problems first. Remsense ‥ 论 02:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article nominee

Hello, I recently nominated the article Le langaige du Bresil as a good article under the Language and literature subtopic, though I believe it could also fit under World history. Since you have not "contributed significantly" to the article, you might be able to review it according to the criteria. I would like to know if, having the necessary skills for this, you would be willing to do so. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Noted RodRabelo7. I am not full of time at the moment, but I will keep it in mind for the next time I look at GAN. Fear not someone will look at it at some point. Best, CMD (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you

Is my reasons at Talk:Israel#Tag not clear or out to lunch? Should I remove the tag over tryng to move forward in improve the section? Is this just a case of one of us or both of us exhibiting mind-boggling stupidity. Moxy🍁 18:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind...going with Wikipedia:Avoiding difficult users to much effort for any change.SORRY TO TAKE UP YOUR READING TIME! Moxy🍁 20:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Join the talk

Why did you undo my writting? Plz join the talk and tell me why Im qwert0617 211.213.219.100 (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already posted on the talk. If you are them, then you will see your message saying it was finished. CMD (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Million Award for East Timor

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring East Timor (estimated annual readership: 1,170,000) to good article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Propose to create page of block discussion in noticeboards

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Propose to create page of block discussion in noticeboards. JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 21:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Girl Crazy infobox poster

Why can't the public domain poster be used? Jorge906 (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's currently used in the article. At any rate, the posters are clearly the same design and have the same copyright info, it is unlikely their copyright is different. How did you figure out the copyright on the poster was not renewed? CMD (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Because it doesn't state it was. I also contacted the owner on where I found the poster and he said it's copyright was not renewed. Jorge906 (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

So can I please revert it? Jorge906 (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The copyright from the movie was renewed, per an ongoing discussion on Commons. As I noted, both posters will have the same status, which may or may not be affected by the movie copyright renewal. Further, the poster is already in the article. CMD (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Only the restoration of the film's copyright has been renewed. But the copyright for the poster has not been renewed Jorge906 (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have a source for that that would be of great help in the discussion. Either way, that would also apply to all the posters, not just one. CMD (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I emailed from the owner of the website "The Judy Room" who is Scott Brogan (where I found the Girl Crazy posters) and he said all of the posters, magazine ads, lobby cards; etc copyright's hasn't been renewed. So they are in the public domain. Jorge906 (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That is certainly a possibility. If so, that would as stated apply to the existing poster as well, so there isn't a public domain poster and a non-public domain poster. CMD (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

But the one that was uploaded as fair use was mistaken as fair use Jorge906 (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If true, why not fix that? CMD (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Fix the fair use one? Jorge906 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Per your information the posters are not fair use but public domain, so they can be fixed to state that. CMD (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll export it commons Jorge906 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

About your comment on an IP address' puffery, there was a longstanding issue surrounding this? As you did mention that none of this is new. hundenvonPG (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There isn't anything definite, as these are IPs and so harder to draw links between, but the history of Merdeka 118 and List of tallest buildings in Malaysia for example have a lot of IPs that various tall building articles. It is likely at least some are the same person. That said, there's little that can be done with this, you'll need to do the normal dispute resolution processes. CMD (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I see.

Well, some have told me to let the ANI case to "play out", but there have been a couple of ANI cases previously that "played out" with zero resolution.

It's been 24 hours and quite frankly, this case appears to be headed the same way - nothing. Considering other dispute resolution procedures, but said IP address is persistently WP:HOUNDING and it is sad that ANI has yet to take action on such behaviour. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It is difficult to get action on AN/I when an issue has both content and behaviour components. Best to do the normal WP:3O and discussion out of the way to isolate the behavioural aspect. CMD (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah... I have just opened a WP:DRN, seeking for more consensus. Hope this works. hundenvonPG (talk) 08:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Did USA really recognized North Korea?

In recent months, I saw several concerns from other Wikipedias than enwiki that:

1. How can Mongolia became a UN member state? Was that meaning that Taipei (UN seat holder before 1971) recognized Mongolia? North & South Koreas, just like Eastern & Western Germanys, they are bunded and sold.
2. A country that can participant in UN, is related with P5 that whether they vote oppose (aka. veto) the recommendation of UNSC, but unrelated with whether members of P5 recognize that country, or otherwise we don't need votes, we can just count the statements from "ministry of foreign affairs" of UNSC member states. Even one day United States recognized Palestine as a country, US representative can still veto the UNSC recommendation, so that Palestine still can't be a UN member. In 1991 when North and South Koreas joined UN, China even didn't recognize the South Korea, but why South Korea can still join?
3. United Kingdom, Netherlands and Norway were stated in 1950 to recognize government of the People's Republic of China as China's legal government, and de-recognized Taipei regime. But originally these 3 countries all oppose Beijing's claim to replace Taipei's seat in UN, claim that Beijing should suspend their plans to join UN, or both to join UN each other. Thus they didn't establish diplomatic relations until 1954, when Norway decided to support Beijing instead of Taipei, and both UK & NL, which were semi-established whilst still ambiguous on China seat in UN. So far, during 1950-1954, were they recognized PRC government or not?
4. During voting of the 2758 resolution, how much of states established with Taipei supported Beijing, some were even keeping ties with Taipei, after the vote, for several years, then how do we count these countries? Were they bi-recognized (i.e. recognize both PRC and Taipei govt)? Or just de facto recognized Beijing?

Which looks like doubting why enwiki removed United States, France, Japan,... from the North Korea entry of the List of states with limited recognition. I'm not sure how to answer these doubts properly, so I need your helps on inputs. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the quandary correctly—I would reject the notion of de facto recognition as a contradiction in terms—whether or not lack of recognition means a lack of relations, the concept of recognition ceases to mean anything at all if it becomes anything but explicit. There's not really a lens I can imagine where the US recognizes the DPRK, say, because it all hinges on the stuffy formality that likely correlates with material shifts in relations as well. Remsense ‥ 论 09:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Remsense. In 1961 the ROC did not vote on the Mongolia admission, see United Nations Security Council Resolution 166. North and South Korea joined together through United Nations Security Council Resolution 702, which passed without a vote. As these show, relations and politics are complicated. The China and UN-related questions presume a direct link between recognition and UN votes. They presume a relationship between recognition and relations. Neither of these are the case. As Remsense notes, the essence of recognition (in the modern world) is formal. Recognition is needed for diplomatic relations on a formal level, but relations can occur informally. However, a lack of recognition does not stop one state engaging with an entity they do not accord formal recognition, and conversely the presence of formal recognition does not create the certainty of engagement. CMD (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems the common sense position that the US does not formally recognize the DPRK, but the two clearly have diplomatic relations, and particularly debacular ones at that Remsense ‥ 论 09:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There are relations between their diplomats for sure. One of the issues with using the plain term "diplomatic relations" to have a narrow formal meaning perhaps, or more likely the purity of the ideal of international relations bending to accommodate reality, as it often does. "Does X recognize Y" is an extremely narrow question with an extremely narrow answer. "Does X have a relationship with Y" is a similar question but with an entirely different scope. CMD (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by an IP

Hello, Chipmunkdavis.

The User talk:185.146.112.192 is engaging in disrupte editing. Neither does this IP provide sources and is POV pushing. And this IP has been warned multiple times for this on his/her talk page including by yourself.

Kindest regards, Moroike (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Moroike if they are continuing to be disruptive, you can ask for intervention at WP:AN/I. CMD (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Moroike (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)