User talk:Johnleemk/Archive2
Deletionist, Acknowledge your pro--Coca-Cola POV
[edit]Hi Johnleemk - must you apologize for the Coca-Cola company? Are they paying you to safeguard their version of history and their safely-guarded brandname? I would not be surprised.
Have you considered that the company's version is NPOV, and that they are not an innocent bystander in the wake of all these so-called "Controversies"? My experience editing with you was so frustrating that I left wikipedia.org. I do not want to have to fight online battles with editors like yourself that simply cut large chunks of articles without trying to neutralize them yourself.
Regarding your reasoning of trying to separate the drink from the company - no offense, but that is a sham argument. History is something that has negatives and positives - but you relegate the negative aspects of Coca-Cola's history to a ghetto article that barely gets updated. Anything that you deem as "controversial" becomes something about "the company". Meanwhile, on the page you say is about "the drink", its ok to display rosy company history, including who founded the company, and its advertising practices. At one point, one of the paragraph explicitly refers to "Coca Cola" as the company and NOT the drink ("In 1985, Coca-Cola,amid much publicity, attempted to change the formula of the drink").
Instead of cutting information completely, Johnleemk, please just neutralize it and incorporate it into the article. You are not the editor-in-chief of this article, so there is no need to cut portions of it without discussing first. Your POV is one of a pro-Coca-Cola activist, pro-institution. Please acknowledge this before cutting - and learn to work with other POVs. I use the word "activist" because it means that actively are imposing your pro-Coca-Cola POV on the article. I respect your POV, but I do not respect your method of deleting those that you find "controversial".
Proposal to reunite contents of two articles
[edit]I propose that either we reunite the contents of the two articles about the Coca-Cola Company ("Coca-Cola" and "The Coca Cola Company"), or completely remove company history, advertising policy, and "new coke" section as it stands in this article. For more background on this proposal, please see: Coca-Cola Company Talk page -Guppy
- I think that's rather far-fetched. Why would he be a "pro-Coca-Cola activist"? The company and the drink ARE two separate concepts, after all. The bad aspects of the drink go to the drink article. The bad aspects of the company goes to the company article. Its for the sake of being encyclopedic and standardised. -- Natalinasmpf 17:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Re: Clean up tag
[edit]Sorry for the wrong tag. Still getting used to the procedures. Anyway, you said peer review instead. Is that appropriate? The information on the May 13 incident need some verifying but thats just not it. Theres a lot more information I think could be added. Just not sure its relevant and really need a good discussion on how to proceed. Posted everything on the talk page. Nobody responded yet and I'm reluctant to do a major editing on a stable article. Any comments on that? --C2Sane 11:12, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Mailing list
[edit]John, please don't write things about me on the mailing list where I can't respond to defend myself, unless what you are writing is entirely uncontroversial. Everyking 16:25, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- John, on the mailing list you wrote: "what is clear is that Everyking refuses to allow others to edit the article". This fundamentally misrepresents the whole dispute, and I don't want all the people on the mailing list reading what you wrote and thinking its accurate. Unless you are willing to describe the controversy in neutral terms, you should only take this to places where I can defend myself and my arguments. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask of you. Everyking 20:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Blocks are not expiring
[edit]I'm posting this message on every admin who has made a block in the last few days. The title says it all really: because of a bug in the new software blocks are not expiring when their time is up. Until this is fixed can you get in the habit of manually unblocking a few everytime you block one. If everyone does this we'll be able to keep on top of things until the bug is sorted out. Note also that another bug is displaying indefinite blocks as expiring at the current time and date. obviously you don't want to unblock those. If you want to reply please do so here Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Have you thought of just going for RfC? In my opinion this is an ideal case for RfC because multiple parties have tried to reason with him and failed. In my opinion Arbitrationi is overkill at this stage and is unlikely to be accepted by Arbcom. His inability to show willingness to bend is bad for Wikipedia in my opinion, but is not a serious abuse. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- My initial reaction was the same, but then I remembered that Autobiography (album) is already on RFC and has been for a month without resolution. WP:RFM went nowhere, and apparently Everyking has declined mediation and invited arbitration on User talk:Ambi. Oh well. iMeowbot~Mw 16:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What do you want from me, John? I can't give up my opinions. Do you just want me to leave? That would be fine. I'm not here for my own enjoyment; these days almost every moment spent on Wikipedia is a stressful one. I'm not willing to continue working in this battlefield atmosphere, where others are looking to shoot me down. Everyking 16:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- And what, if I may ask, do you want me to learn? Everyking 16:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. It looks like everything that needs to have been said already has on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. If the rest of the committee accepts it, I'll give you a hand with evidence. Ambi 01:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Collaboration of the Week
[edit]League of Nations is the new Collaboration of the Week. Please join in helping make it a feature article.
Norman Weiss comments
[edit]Hi there! Thanks for your kind words...but the article is a stinker. I simply cannot verify anything, and it reeks of innuendo. Look at it again. It has nothing substantial in it and what can be added? I really wish you would reconsider. I mean -- how many authors actually AGREE that their own article be up for a speedy delete? When you mess up...well...'fess up and move on. Best regards, allie 17:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
219.93.174.96/27
[edit]Thanks for removing that /27 block, I received an email from an accidentally-blocked user as well. I thought I had it narrowed down as far as it could go, but it seems a lot of people use a few addresses there. silsor 05:26, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
RfC
[edit]Hi Johnleemk, I think the statement of the dispute could use a major trim. Ironic, eh? Dbenbenn 21:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Signpost and FAC
[edit]If you want to write up an article for next week's issue about featured article nominations, that would be great. As you said on the mailing list, part of the virtue of this is that it's actual prose instead of lists. That's the approach I tried to take in this week's writeup on the topic, and as it turned out the actual successful nominations were less interesting than the unsuccessful ones. So if you see something quirky (Longest word in English comes to mind), or that prompts people to reexamine what it means to be "featured", or that has significance beyond just being a potential featured article, that sort of thing is what strikes me as newsworthy. More so than the predictable rejections that happen when the same people keep making obviously unqualified nominations. But that's enough of my opinion; I don't mean to be telling you what to write, so I'll let you decide it for yourself.
Anyway, I think you could do a good job covering this subject (as long as you're not writing about nominations related to Ashlee Simpson, should those come up again; writing an article where you should be quoting yourself is likely not the best way to do objective reporting, so somebody else can handle that). If you could let me know what you've got by sometime this weekend, I'll make sure to include it. --Michael Snow 18:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]I feel the need to direct you to Wikipedia:Edit summaries and Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Edit summary fields are not for holding conversations, nor for levying personal comments, especially accusatory ones. This is because they cannot be edited, and become permanently part of the page history. This can be especially bad when the comments are proved to be unfounded.
Use the Talk pages instead to discuss your reasons for change. Use edit summaries for describing what change you are making.
That all being said, I did propose that exact text quite some time ago on the Talk page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Handling deletion of uncertified RFCs, proving that your edit summary was incorrect, and unjustifiably hostile. I suggest you check your behavior, and start treating other people with respect, especially when they hold opposite views and have shown willingness to discuss before making changes. I posted on the talk page, waited a few days, and then posted it back on Jan 1, where noone has raised any concerns since then.
It sounds like you need to formally gather support for your idea of keeping all RFCs, but until you do that, you should not change the established guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
Singapore
[edit]Hi, I still think the references lack a bit of coverage and general quality, but it seems petty to object at this point. One question I have is what type of legal system does Singapore have? Is it common law, civil, a mix or otherwise? - Taxman 13:18, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
- That article seems to suggest it is at least based on English common law, but is not terriibly clear. My point in asking is that the Singapore main article itself cover that point accurately and with a good source. The article you pointed me to has no references and doesn't cover it explicitly. I think it is an important point about the legal system. - Taxman 19:10, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, I have never seen a criminal court case in Singapore (or that I have known post 1965) tried by jury, the verdict is issued by the magistrate - so that should say something; is that common law? Oh, for the FAC - does this include its child articles, ie. "History of Singapore", "Geography of Singapore", how they are organised and correspond, deriratives, etc. or just the Singapore article itself? Natalinasmpf 23:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Everyking
[edit]If it's accepted (and that appears likely), I'll submit a snipit of evidence from when I first happened across La La on requests for protection. I do believe that you have considerable credibility on this issue, much more than those who sought to delete the song pages, for example. This is a very frustrating case because Everyking is an outstanding editor otherwise.
Incidentally, when my dad asked what Wikipedia was, Beatles articles were some of the things I showed him. Keep up the good work. Cool Hand Luke 11:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
sigh I would have preferred a longer process but I understand your feeling the need to have it arbitrated. I feel sorry that we haven't been able to reach a consensual solution to the problem but I agree that it doesn't look as though James is actually committed to finding one. I hope that he will reconsider my proposal. I think the end will be the same either way, but at least if he voluntarily withdraws, he will be able to make suggestions on the talk page that will be considered with goodwill, and editors who bear him goodwill will try to fit his viewpoint in. If he is banned from the pages, he'll more likely be seen as an interloper.Dr Zen 02:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be glad to give my own oppinion, by the evidence i've seen, I'm really deeply worried by his behavior, there are some more or less biased admins, but he is taking that to another level. GeneralPatton 12:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Reviewed the RfAr, posted a brief opinion. I agree with you but we won't get anywhere insisting on which apologies are most appropriate for past behavior. I hope sanctions (whether voluntary or imposed) can get him to stop inappropriate edit warring and to make him stop turning editorial disagreements into personal feuding in the future, regardless of what happened in the past. I feel these actions have been antithetical to what WP needs from admins. Barno 21:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey John, thanks for the heads up on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision —Neuropedia 00:23, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
Your article
[edit]Hi, I went through and edited your draft for the Signpost about featured article nominations, also adding a few tidbits. If you have any more changes you think need to be made, or concerns about my edits, let me know. Otherwise, I'm planning to run it in a few more hours. If you don't see this before then, well, it's a wiki, so we can always make changes after it's published. --Michael Snow 00:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Greetings
[edit]From a Dutchman in Bangkok Waerth 13:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Image sleuthing
[edit]Greetings. You are hereby invited to become an official Image sleuth. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's good enough for FAC, personally. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've put Singapore for FAC again, in the meantime I think it's time to work on our country, Malaysia towards Featured Article standard. If you have the time, here are some things I think that can be done to improve the article :)
- Addition of photos, some from the existing Malaysia-related articles such as Kuala Lumpur
- Addition of referrences (especially for History)
- Expansion of Miscellaneous topics into topical summaries.
- Possibly, summarization of the History of Malaysia section.
- Mailer Diablo 19:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bank of China (Hong Kong)
[edit]Hi. It's now on WP:FAC. Please take a look. JuntungWu 01:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because of GerardMs disruption and as one who has contributed to meta:End-user image suppression or related articles, perhaps you would like to add your comments, endorsement or otherwise to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GerardM. —Christiaan 15:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You have been informed of this RfC, but oddly enough, it seems that GerardM has not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
End-user image suppression
[edit]John, I wonder if you'd like to take a look at this: meta:Talk:End-user image suppression#Possibilty for censorship
Hi Johnleemk,
I've made some copyediting to the above-mentioned article, using the featured article Cambodia as some form of referrence. Some not-so-significant details may be moved to its sub-pages for further reading instead. Let me know how do you think of the changes. I'm thinking of sending it back to peer review shortly. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I know you are not a Singaporean, but since I noticed you (like Mailer Diablo) have contributed to sg related stuff, why not take a look at the above and drop your comments if you wish? Thanks! ;)--Huaiwei 09:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hello Johnleemk. I noticed you attempted to add the word "city-state" into the infobox, although it was later removed by somebody else. Please take a look of this proposed version. I would like to add the footnote, with the word "city-state", into the infobox. — Instantnood 16:21, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Wikifun Round 5: Stata Center
[edit]Aaargh! That was the picture I thought of too, but I couldn't figure out how the contest picture fit into it. Good job! All in fun, FreplySpang 06:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Kibbutz
[edit]John, You voted for kibbutz to make it as a FA the last time it was nominated, I was wondering if you would like to vote for it again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kibbutz
Dinopup 01:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Issues about school articles
[edit]In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).
I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Current events in Malaysia and Singapore?
[edit]What do you think of collaborating on a project on that, or do you think they can survive on their own?--Huaiwei 18:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
disrupting wikipedia policy vote
[edit]You voted once for the policy at Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Despite a 75% support that vote was rejected by the minority. A new vote has been called with a two week limit at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please take a moment to participate. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 17:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
reducing vfd load
[edit]Hi John,
I would like to inform you of a proposal I've written at User:MarSch/deleteproposal. I think it is similar to a proposal you wrote and I was hoping you'd want to take a look. --MarSch 14:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikifun
[edit]Hi! A new Wikifun round has been posted by me. Seeing as you played the 5th round that was created by me, I'd thought you might want to try another crack at it. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Condorcet Voting for the next Arbitration Committee Elections?
[edit]I wrote this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005:
- I strongly recommend that we should change from approval voting to Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping, a Condorcet method, for the next Arbitration Committee Elections. We can use Andrew Myers' Condorcet Internet Voting Service (CIVS) to count the ballots.
- Already during the last elections, it has been proposed by Johnleemk and Nat Krause to change from approval voting to Condorcet voting. But their proposal came to late. Markus Schulze 20 June 2005
Feature Articles
[edit]If it's any consolation I once had a page sitting ignored on FA for five days, then everyone came along at once. It was (IMO) the best thing I have ever done - Bad news was it failed! I though someone making some comments, even ignorant ones may pull the crowds in for you - wrong yet again! Regards Giano | talk 30 June 2005 09:30 (UTC)
Bureaucrat status
[edit]Apparently due to a bug, you have been granted bureaucrat status. I removed this, and you still are a sysop. If for any reason your bureaucrat status was correct, please contact me or another Steward. Regards, Snowdog 20:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Bureaucratship
[edit]I'm letting you know that I've just nominated myself for bureaucratship for the second time. If you didn't care to know about this, I apologize for the inconvenience. Andre (talk) 02:39, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Bureaucratship
[edit]Hi, Johnleemk. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Bumiputra
[edit]Dear Johnleemk,
I am mightily impressed by the depth of care and even-handedness in your writings. The fact that you are 14-15yrs old is all the more impressive. Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to condescend. Its just that fair-mindedness as an intellectual merit, is rare even among intellectuals (and I don't use this word loosely) regardless of age.
But, as you might well know, as a developed intellect well beyond your years, an analogy is a anargument based on premises and I would have to dispute the premises of the following argument that you had put forward in the 'Talk' page of 'Bumiputra'.
-- "Just look at Singapore. In spite of their being a multiracial society completely lacking in national resources, they are now a developed country. Why? Because the people there are united. There is no presumption that the average citizen is a Chinese or any serious programme giving a particular race special rights." --
I enjoyed the discussion on the Bumiputra policy. Even as a Malay person, I don't agree with it, but as a Singaporean I don't presume to know enough about the socio-political situation in Malaysia for me to contribute to the discussion. But also as a Malay Singaporean, I must say that your Singaporean analogy is misplaced. You miscontrue Singapore as much as many elite Malay Malaysians miscontrue their own country. By which I mean, your portrayal of Singapore conforms to the official line perpetuated by the Chinese ruling elite for the purpose of retaining power, at the expense of both minorities and the poor/working class Chinese. It is the official line that the ruling elite wishes to portray to the outside world but it has little resemblance to how things are here on the ground. Much like the official line given by the Malay ruling elite of Malaysia to the world.
Of course Singaporeans are divided. Race and culture is a real part of life, and only the aspiring middle and upper classes can afford to leave their cultural identity behind and see themselves simply as 'Singaporeans'. Meanwhile, the lower working classes have to deal with race divisions everyday. If we weren't divided, the government need no longer have race quota conditions for the sale of government-built flats, it need no longer retain the Internal Security Act which bans speech on race and religion, and it need not retain segregation in the Armed Forces as I will explain below.
Of course the implicit assumption is that the average citizen is Chinese. Chinese-language advertising has slipped into the mainstream English media. Chinese culture is presented as mainstream and Malay and Indian culture is characterised as 'Malay' and 'Indian'.
There may not be any formal programme of biased distribution, but it is an open secret that the Singapore Armed Forces is racially segregated. For example, Malay participation in the Navy is non-existant, there are only two (at last count) Malay pilots in an Airforce that is otherwise bereft of Malays, and Malay participation in the army is limited to the Infantry and the Guards. There are no Malay Commandos, Combat Engineers, Signallers and Tank-ees, and no Malays save one, above the rank of Major. As a former Lieutenant in the Army myself, I can tell you that I was shadowed by a Military Security Department officer/agent, for the entire length of my 2.5 years of National Service. We are allowed to be the dogs of war, but otherwise not trusted to defend our country.
The situation is not as bad as Malaysia of course, discrimination in Singapore is less pervasive and very subtle. But it still exists and it is still a problem, whether the most of my countrymen are prepared to recognise it or not.
There is still of course the matter of your main argument that development comes from unity. My personal judgment is that the success of Singapore has less to do with its unity than its small size and extremely economically-competent leadership. But this is another story for another day. My only aim is to dispel the myth of a perfectly harmonious Singapore that somehow manages to influence so many people educated persons both within and without Singapore.
Yours Truly,
J.A.B.A.A.
- Thanks for the feedback, J.A.B.A.A. It is always a pleasure to meet someone who can deepen my still rather shallow pool of knowledge. I am glad you have corrected my perceptions of Singapore's unity. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that at least they have the shame to divide the population in quiet instead of blaring it out to all and hoisting banners with slogans like "This keris will be soaked with the blood of the non-Bumis" (as was done at an UMNO general assembly in 1987). Likewise, at least the population there is mostly divided by class, and not race.
- In Malaysia, we are first divided by class, and then the lower class is subdivided into races. So while the tycoons and politicians (regardless of race) ride the gravy train, the rest of the country is left to squabble among themselves for the leftovers, and to divide them — on a racial basis.
- I agree that unity stems from many factors. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that without unity, meaningful development is impossible. While my country dreams about sending a man to the moon by 2020, I, a resident of the Multimedia Super Corridor have not received my phone line six months after moving in. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I hope my comments at Theodore Roosevelt's FA don't bother you too much , it is a great page, but I just hate that info box with a passion. Please don't think I'm trying to bring a TFD discussion to FA, I'm not. I hardly ever vote on FA, and only notice what is there when a page of my own is hanging around, or one intersts me greatly which TR did. Without that horrible box, I would support without a quibble, I was so interested I even followed some of the links - it's fascinating. Giano | talk 18:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, very pressed for time over the next few days (editing jobs). Will try to make time on the weekend. Tony 16:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be some kind of error during registration. I donno whether it's server side or it's my fault. Anyway, try [www.recom.org]. It touches about the same topics as your forum. =) __earth 15:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metrication. The problem is now fixed and I hope you can now support the candidate. Seabhcán 15:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Push for FAC
[edit]What do you think of pushing this sorry excuse for a country's article for FA? I think WP needs to improve on its geography info frankly, about half the geo FAs are about India! The article is pretty comprehensive, and the edit wars have died down somewhat.
- Incidentally, I saw your Bandar Utama article. Do you live there? Cause I do, and it'd be cool to have another active Wpedian in my neighbourhood. Borisblue 16:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sources are generally easy to find for country articles. I'll work on it as soon as my exams are done next week. I'd appreciate any help i can get.Borisblue 17:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Bounty Board
[edit]Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Article source
[edit]I can't find this on the web. Do you have an URL for it or other source where I can read it?
- Guareschi, Roberto (Nov. 5, 2005). "Not quite the Evita of Argentine legend". New Straits Times, p. 21. Jclerman 15:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I got your message. I suggest you insert in the wiki article a summary like the one you sent me so the readers know if they want to search for it. Jclerman 15:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
As promised, I added some print sources (as well as some expansion). I don't know if the FAC requirements are to have each quotation sourced explicitly; the information on recording dates is from the Lewishon book, all the quotes I added are from Anthology. Hope this helps. Jgm 19:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I just changed my vote to support. It's obvious that you've done a lot of work on the article, and I wanted to express both my appreciation for it and my hope that you think it is a better article for having been through this process. Jkelly 23:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Lee Hsien Loong
[edit]Source, yes. Information, no. I see that you have quoted a reference (coming elections) in this article, but there is no meaning to it if the source is stated but there is no information in the article related to the source. Thus I would recommend you to contribute some information about the elections to that source you quoted, otherwise it would be better not to have a "missing info" reference. Thanks. Mr Tan 15:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
You're right to say that, but the title of the reference does not suggest any information avaliable to the article. Even though the article has information about his background, there are no internet sources to back your claim, which is essential for wikipedia as the circulation of New Straits Times is largely restricted to Malaysia. People from other faraway countries would not believe so. Unless you add some information on the election or an internet version of the article linked to this wikipedia article, this would prove shher ambiguity and may be removed by others. Mr Tan 16:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. Do you happen to know what has happened to the PPP official web site? This link is dead and if they've got a new official site somewhere on the web then I can't find it. --Spondoolicks 16:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
FAC
[edit]Hi John. Thanks for your comments on the FAC for shoe polish. If only someone had said this at the peer review stage ;) Proto t c 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and if I've addressed all your concerns, I hope you'll reconsider your vote. Alternately, please also feel free to express any more constructive criticism. Proto t c 16:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
User:clee963's Image
[edit]I've already got one of his images tagged PUI for lack of licence. I suspect there are a lot more from him in a similar state, but I was hoping that he would take the hint on the one example. It entered Phase I on 2005-11-05.
His response was rather strange; he's done a null update on the image, claiming that the image was taken a year later than the previous one (although the meta data conflicts). I say null update because it is exactly the same size and visually identical. I haven't compared the files.
I can't work out if this is simply an English language understanding problem, or whether he is trying to evade the PUI process.
--David Woolley 11:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- You ought to apply the Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images procedure as well, so that the 30 day deletion count down starts now. That procedure is not as aggressive about removing the uses.
--David Woolley 11:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
DYK
[edit]
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
|
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ketuanan Melayu, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
You mentioned you were going to write a new article on it; what is it did you want to include, because at the moment I don't have much to think of at the moment, plenty of historical facts to be included, I was hoping your creation of some "foundation points" to talk about would aid in articulating the other viewpoints as well. -- Natalinasmpf 01:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
DYK
[edit]|
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Social contract (Malaysia), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
|
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Malaysian Malaysia, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Since you have supported me during my RfA, I wonder if you could review and comment on the RfA for Halibutt, the first person I have nominated myself. There seem to be a heated debate and votes of experienced, unbiased editors would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Shoe polish
[edit]Hi John, thanks for your vote of support for shoe polish to become a Featured article. It is now a featured article, so mission accomplished - hooray! Regards, Proto t c 11:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Selected anniversaries
[edit]Hello, Johnleemk! Could you, please, take a look at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/December 2 and perhaps respond if the Einstein's publishing GTR was really on December 2nd 1915? --romanm (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. The emphasis is, of course, on the "December 2nd", since we feature Albert Einstein on the Selected anniversaries for December 2nd. I'm asking you because I noticed that you added Einstein's photo to this anniversary last year. Neither General relativity nor Albert Einstein mention this date, so I'm a little bit worried. Are you sure that it was December 2nd? IMHO we should replace it with some other picture and event in case of any doubt. --romanm (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
DYK
[edit]|
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Badruddin Amiruldin, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Too much M'sia on DYK?
[edit]I think there were six articles on Malaysia in the past week! Congrats on your hard work, but frankly, even as a Malaysian I'm getting a bit bored. Don't you have any hobbies you can write on? :) On a more serious note, could you do something about the intros? The articles themselves seem very NPOV, but the tone on the tagline as it appears on DYK looks like it's taken straight from a DAP website.Borisblue 18:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response: Fair enough, but so far all of the Malaysian DYKs seem to be articles chosen to further DAP's political agenda I'm sure you'd agree? I know well enough from your talk page that you aren't a DAP "stooge" but I still think that the taglines could be more NPOV-The Malaysian Malaysia tagline in particular I'm not happy with (another thing I'm not happy with is that it appeared on DYK for two different days last week! Those DYK guys are sloppy.)
and even if they are NPOV, I don't think there should be too much stuff on the same topic. Imagine the uproar on the boards if every day WP decides to highlight the Iran-Contra Scandal, Watergate, Valerie Plame Scandal and other scandals involving republican politicians. Even if the articles and taglines themselves were POV, it would still come across as if WP were pushing an agenda. I'm not too happy with ketuanan Melayu myself, but I still feel that highlighting the same kind of stuff on DYK is akin to pushing a POV.
- On another note, are you saying we don't yet have an article on Nicol David? That's scandalous, she's like No4 in the world right?? I'd do it myself, but I don't know or care about squash...
Here You Go
[edit]
Ah, so that's where the Malaysia DYKs are coming from! Bishonen was right when she said you rocked. Anyway, congrats on the rfb so far, I look forward to those Thanksgiving promotions ;-) karmafist 01:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
P.S- What's a brickbat? karmafist 01:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Apartheid?
[edit]I don't think that small box in your user page would affect your RFB, but I personally don't think that is an appopriate term to use. I'm not a malay, and I've been affected by govt discrimination as much as anyone. But having had the privilege to meet and befriend actual black South Africans, I personally think it's unfair to use the term "apartheid" in this way. Anyway, do you understand the reason for Ketuanan Melayu? I'm asking this, because I realise that I never really appreciated their point of view until recently, having come from a chinese background- and I'm not sure you do. What really helped me was subscribing to the "Utusan Melayu"- which, IMHO is an excellent exposition of the UMNO POV. I don't know, maybe if you read it with an open mind it'll help you understand better why the malays feel threatened. I'm still opposed to Ketuanan Melayu, but I believe I have now more reasoned and mature (albeit weaker) objections than I had a few years ago.
Any thoughts on this?
Oh, all the best on your RfB btw. Looks like the first few objections have cropped up, but I think you should be able to weather the storm. Borisblue 07:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
RfB
[edit]Johnleemk, I don't think you've seen my comments on my RfB; they're stuck in the middle of the neutral section. Would you mind clarifying some of the questions I have? Thanks a lot. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)