The owner of this account is suspected of
abusively using multiple accounts.
(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets) |
This user has been
blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks) |
/archive 1Click here for new addition: [ [1]]
Hello Starstylers, I suppose you will agree that culturally speaking, "Malay world" is "the world of the Malays" and, geographically speaking, it is those areas home to the Malays. A broad, inclusive definition of "Malay" is "people [who] speak the Malay language and adhere to Islam as their religion, they are regarded as Malay" ( Sakai, Minako, “Reviving ‘Malayness’ - Searching for a new dominant ethnic identity”, Inside Indonesia 78: Apr-Jun 2004). There is no need to refer to Austronesians and prehistory. :-) As for "Nusantara", it is a Javanese phrase taken from a 16th century epic, the Pararaton, meaning "outer islands" (i. e. in relation to Java). It cannot be a substiture for "Malay world", Djoehana ( talk) 20:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Hamas. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Wacko Jack O 14:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if some of the material from Engdahl came from his book or one of the two articles which are cited. It would also be useful if you could clarify this for other editors and readers by adding a ref tag.
Thanks,-- 76.214.104.121 ( talk) 17:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Singapore, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. It has been noted on several occasions that your edit to this aforementioned article are deemed to be of unconstructive and unrelated nature despite the spat you put us both through last year, your incriminating evidence is still lodged on my discussion page, mind you. So, my suggestion is that you stay off the page of Singapore to avoid me tagging you a third time with a hidden agenda issue (COI) which is very apparent for all others to see here on wikipedia, and which I will report you to the admin if you continue to behave in such a sneaky conniving way. Dave1185 ( talk) 18:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
In general, use of the HTML break tags, and other HTML tags, should be avoided when there is a wiki equivalent (see here. Since the break tag simply creates a new paragraph, instead of using a break tag just hit the return key. Also, be careful that the sources you cite actually say what you claim they do. This comment mainly relates to the grosgrain article, where you took books that mentioned grosgrain in passing and took that to mean all sorts of things-you had
and cited it from a source that said:
The only thing this source is saying about grosgrain is that it has a distinct transverse rib, nothing more. It doesn't say grosgrain may be smooth, nor that it comes from the French, nor anything about ribbon, satin or nylon. There was another, similar, case in the grosgrain article, and I can't check the sources you used for the selvage article, so I can't see if there are more. Please be careful not to misrepresent the source.
Also, you want to make sure that you cite the source after the period or comma, if there is one (see here for examples). It makes everything look nicer. And if you are citing the same source more than once, you can name it so it only appears in the list of sources once.
Don't take this as a completely negative commentary-I'm trying to help you become a better editor, and I can sometimes be rather brusque. Loggie ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 05:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the Bodging page is looking really good now. Blackash ( talk) 07:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
To properly nominate a page for deletion, please follow these steps. Thanks, MrKIA11 ( talk) 19:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Starstylers, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Papua Conflict - a page you tagged - because: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW ( Talk) 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Timeline, design, and history all have tons of uncited info that could be challenged and removed. The Weak Willed 11:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Just read your new article Etienne Aigner. Nicely constructed article. But I'm puzzled by all those interwiki links, most of them going nowhere… Are you going to write all the Etienne Aigner articles on the other language wikipedias, or should we trim down the iw links? Cheers -- Hebrides ( talk) 05:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Your comments are unacceptable. I note your talk page warnings from admins. No single wikipedia editor is that valuable to wikipedia that they can be allowed to continue in such a manner. You would be well-advised to take a lot more care. -- Merbabu ( talk) 20:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
PS - re Kopassus, you would also be well-advised to re-read the POV policies and be careful not to include it. I have also seen people banned for consistently getting it wrong. -- Merbabu ( talk) 20:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Starstylers. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This is what I mean by "extensive editing," which should be accompanied by a discussion and effort to reach consensus in the TalkPage. DOR (HK) ( talk) 03:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please stop putting the <br> formatting into articles. It's not necessary and renders the page poorly. If you want a new paragraph, hit return twice (novel I know). -- Merbabu ( talk) 14:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Testing
With reference to the Zheng He article, could you please familiarise yourself with WP:SYN. With reference to a lot of your editing (for example at Kebaya), continual misrepresenting of sources that you present to justify your edits is grounds for permanent banning from wikipedia - I have seen it done plenty of times. From my extensive wikipedia experience, I have come to see that these things will be sorted out one way or another, sooner or later, and with or without your cooperation - just a heads up for you. As for your comments directed to myself and User:Davidelit at Talk:Japanese occupation of Indonesia, please know that you won't be able to influence or sway me with ultimatums or demands (and please try to stay on-topic on talk pages). -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Starstylers, over recent days your talk page discussions are contain a number personal attacks(I have removed some) these do not make for good colaborative works please direct your comments on talk pages to the subject itself and not other users. Also I recommend you aquaint yourself with article ownership and WP:NPOV, not following these policies will see your account blocked. Gnan garra 03:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Starstylers. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Davidelit ( talk) 04:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. Reasoning;
The owner of this account is suspected of
abusively using multiple accounts.
(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets) |
This user has been
blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks) |
/archive 1Click here for new addition: [ [1]]
Hello Starstylers, I suppose you will agree that culturally speaking, "Malay world" is "the world of the Malays" and, geographically speaking, it is those areas home to the Malays. A broad, inclusive definition of "Malay" is "people [who] speak the Malay language and adhere to Islam as their religion, they are regarded as Malay" ( Sakai, Minako, “Reviving ‘Malayness’ - Searching for a new dominant ethnic identity”, Inside Indonesia 78: Apr-Jun 2004). There is no need to refer to Austronesians and prehistory. :-) As for "Nusantara", it is a Javanese phrase taken from a 16th century epic, the Pararaton, meaning "outer islands" (i. e. in relation to Java). It cannot be a substiture for "Malay world", Djoehana ( talk) 20:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Hamas. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Wacko Jack O 14:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if some of the material from Engdahl came from his book or one of the two articles which are cited. It would also be useful if you could clarify this for other editors and readers by adding a ref tag.
Thanks,-- 76.214.104.121 ( talk) 17:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Singapore, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. It has been noted on several occasions that your edit to this aforementioned article are deemed to be of unconstructive and unrelated nature despite the spat you put us both through last year, your incriminating evidence is still lodged on my discussion page, mind you. So, my suggestion is that you stay off the page of Singapore to avoid me tagging you a third time with a hidden agenda issue (COI) which is very apparent for all others to see here on wikipedia, and which I will report you to the admin if you continue to behave in such a sneaky conniving way. Dave1185 ( talk) 18:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
In general, use of the HTML break tags, and other HTML tags, should be avoided when there is a wiki equivalent (see here. Since the break tag simply creates a new paragraph, instead of using a break tag just hit the return key. Also, be careful that the sources you cite actually say what you claim they do. This comment mainly relates to the grosgrain article, where you took books that mentioned grosgrain in passing and took that to mean all sorts of things-you had
and cited it from a source that said:
The only thing this source is saying about grosgrain is that it has a distinct transverse rib, nothing more. It doesn't say grosgrain may be smooth, nor that it comes from the French, nor anything about ribbon, satin or nylon. There was another, similar, case in the grosgrain article, and I can't check the sources you used for the selvage article, so I can't see if there are more. Please be careful not to misrepresent the source.
Also, you want to make sure that you cite the source after the period or comma, if there is one (see here for examples). It makes everything look nicer. And if you are citing the same source more than once, you can name it so it only appears in the list of sources once.
Don't take this as a completely negative commentary-I'm trying to help you become a better editor, and I can sometimes be rather brusque. Loggie ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 05:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the Bodging page is looking really good now. Blackash ( talk) 07:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
To properly nominate a page for deletion, please follow these steps. Thanks, MrKIA11 ( talk) 19:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello Starstylers, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Papua Conflict - a page you tagged - because: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW ( Talk) 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Timeline, design, and history all have tons of uncited info that could be challenged and removed. The Weak Willed 11:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Just read your new article Etienne Aigner. Nicely constructed article. But I'm puzzled by all those interwiki links, most of them going nowhere… Are you going to write all the Etienne Aigner articles on the other language wikipedias, or should we trim down the iw links? Cheers -- Hebrides ( talk) 05:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Your comments are unacceptable. I note your talk page warnings from admins. No single wikipedia editor is that valuable to wikipedia that they can be allowed to continue in such a manner. You would be well-advised to take a lot more care. -- Merbabu ( talk) 20:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
PS - re Kopassus, you would also be well-advised to re-read the POV policies and be careful not to include it. I have also seen people banned for consistently getting it wrong. -- Merbabu ( talk) 20:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Starstylers. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This is what I mean by "extensive editing," which should be accompanied by a discussion and effort to reach consensus in the TalkPage. DOR (HK) ( talk) 03:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please stop putting the <br> formatting into articles. It's not necessary and renders the page poorly. If you want a new paragraph, hit return twice (novel I know). -- Merbabu ( talk) 14:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Testing
With reference to the Zheng He article, could you please familiarise yourself with WP:SYN. With reference to a lot of your editing (for example at Kebaya), continual misrepresenting of sources that you present to justify your edits is grounds for permanent banning from wikipedia - I have seen it done plenty of times. From my extensive wikipedia experience, I have come to see that these things will be sorted out one way or another, sooner or later, and with or without your cooperation - just a heads up for you. As for your comments directed to myself and User:Davidelit at Talk:Japanese occupation of Indonesia, please know that you won't be able to influence or sway me with ultimatums or demands (and please try to stay on-topic on talk pages). -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Starstylers, over recent days your talk page discussions are contain a number personal attacks(I have removed some) these do not make for good colaborative works please direct your comments on talk pages to the subject itself and not other users. Also I recommend you aquaint yourself with article ownership and WP:NPOV, not following these policies will see your account blocked. Gnan garra 03:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Starstylers. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Davidelit ( talk) 04:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. Reasoning;