User talk:Chipmunkdavis/ArchiveMalaysia

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=548&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=53&pr.y=13

Latest 2010 statistics stated here. Didn't reply, i aren't familiar with Wiki processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fookjian95 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. Confused me at first too. Point 1: After every talk page edit, place ~~~~ after your entry, and your name and the time will automatically be assigned. I will give the link to Begoon for now, he's better at this formatting source stuff. Don't worry, sooner or later someone will post a Welcome to wikipedia entry on your talk page with links to all the relevant guidelines. But for now, welcome on board! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I would need your support though on my previous amendments cause that i previously tussled with Begoon. Fookjian95 (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)fookjian95[reply]

It's very rare you'll "tussle" with anyone on wikipedia, one always has to assume the other person is acting in good faith. Also, on wikipedia the standard english isn't British English, but whichever english is the most appropriate for the article in question (Don't know the link to that policy, sorry). Happy editing! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Malaysia you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Malaysia for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without an author, the photograph's origin (and hence whether it is covered owned by the Crown) might come into doubt. One thing going for it as a Crown property is that the IWM page states it to be "official photograph", but in what sense? The point of view would imply that the photographer was more likely a Japanese or local, unless it was a UK personnel hiding behind these "Japanese troops mopping up", which seems unlikely. The collection states it to belong to Mr Desmond Wettern, a renowned naval correspondent but I doubt he is the photographer since it is very unlikely for him to be in Malaysia in 1942 to cover this story personally. It is more likely he obtained the photograph somehow, whether at that time (smuggled) or later (bought, found, or given by the government from wartime loot). Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed out "What would the correct course of action be here?" If the author and copyright cannot be determined, then a wise course of action would be to not use the image. If you wish to use it, then the best thing to do would be to contact the IWM and ask if they are able to supply any further information on the image (what they put out on their website tends to be the basic skimpy data). Alternatively, old UK or Japanese newspapers might have published the photograph with information on authorship. Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

One good turn deserves another, so I will hopefully be able to have a look over Malaysia over the next few days (assuming time permits...). Like you I am not a professional copyeditor but I'll see what I can do! Good work.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous revision, you've mistakenly duplicated the Subang Jaya and Kuala Lumpur population (1,553,589). I'm just correcting the figures for you. I took the figures from the same source as you are [1]. Cheers. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 09:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(: Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 10:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors. I have started on your request, but I am only online on and off for the next few days. I will complete the entire article by the end of the week, or weekend. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, plenty of time. Thanks very much. I'll try sort out the politics issue before you're done! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. Thanks. - SMasters (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Adam Carr. He rewrote the latest edition, discounting all those minor edits. __earth ^(Talk) 06:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on helping promote Malaysia to GA status! You've done an amazing work on it. Thanks so much! Bejinhan talks 06:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's definitely not done yet, but I'm off to work on something else for awhile. Have a good christmas! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were a lot of wrong information in this page, all altered by an IP and it is very strange that nobody revert them after more than two months. If you see no red link in that version because they linked most of them to "Malaysia" ! Monphi (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have my apologies Monphi (sorry, can't type in non-latin scripts!). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

welcome friend.Monphi (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

I hope 2011 proves to be a good one for you and yours.

And congratulations on getting GA status on Malaysia. Onwards and upwards... hopefully this is the year I can finally make some progress with Rwanda. As so often happens, "real life" events have ended the surge I had on the article up to October, but I hope to resume again soon. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was almost a month ago, but I've only just noticed that Malaysia was promoted to GA. Congratulations, and great work! Keep it up! Nightw 12:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mix Malaiur and dvipa. Both are different subject. The second term is more of indian mythology origin, should not be included. i would welcome western sources because indian authors about history are very unreliable. e.g. hindutva propaganda--Wangond (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC) here is a source:http://books.google.com/books?id=FRQwAQAAIAAJ&q=malai+etymology+tamil&dq=malai+etymology+tamil&hl=en&ei=spuhTYqMIIaS4gaW4Jj0Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwATge--Wangond (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

last warning. the etymology of malaysia has nothing to do with sanskrit. a sanskrit work mentions malayadvipa, that doesn't mean the word originated in sanskrit. understood?--Wangond (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Stop edit warring to get your point across and back up your statements with evidence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I notice from the 'view history' that you can edit the page Malaysia. Can you change the mistake near the bottom: Asean Rail Express is not the name of the railway line, but rather of a the freighter service run along that line. The line itself, as far as I'm aware, has no name. Icarus^talk

I'm sure you could edit the page yourself if you wanted! In lieu of this, I changed it from "railway line" to "railway service", as really it's the connection provided by a single service that is the notable thing about it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would've done it, but it's semi-protected and I'm not yet well-enough established on the English site. You might want to clarify that Asean Rail Exp. is a freighter service. The passenger service doesn't go all the way through, you have to change trains in Butterworth. From KL-Butterworth is operated by Malayan Railways (KTM), and then from Butterworth-Bangkok is by the State Railway of Thailand (SRT). I don't think the routes have names. The only one that does go through is the Eastern and Oriental Express, that's also a passenger service on that line. Icarus^talk 20:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you're a fairly active user who contributes to Malaysia-related articles so I thought I'd run this by you: I intend to take the Karpal Singh article to good article status, so any help and suggestions are welcome! I'm about to submit it for peer review. - Yk³ talk · contrib 04:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, sorry for the late reply. Yesterday I was quite busy and did not get a chance to go online in the evening, so I did not see your request. Congratulations on fixing that problem, and I am glad that Religion in Malaysia has been approved (it is now in Prep 4). Hopefully the DYK script will help you in the future. Keep up the good work! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to http://wayback.archive.org/web/ and entered "http://www.time.com/time/asia/2003/mahathir/mahathir961209.html" into the search box and clicked "latest". One thing: check you don't have "http://" twice; it is easy to do that since one is there already. Zero^talk 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I don't know why you are constantly deleting one word. Secondly only you are objecting about Malaysia's constitution being secular. I asked you to give a source but you didn't. Where exactly does it say in Malaysia's constitution thats it's secular? Mentions to Islam appear over and over, and a few of the Prime Ministers have said Malaysia is an Islamic state.

Also why are you deleting my sources? Those were reliable and you'll notice similar stuff appears on other countries' pages as well. I will be reverting your edit again soon, so don't be surprised. TelusFielder (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're aware that the constitution is not a reliable source on its own nature. Nightw 00:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I give a source if you don't start a talkpage conversation (which should be held at Talk:Malaysia and not here)? I've done my best, linked you to a section of Religion in Malaysia with tons of sources on Secularism and the debate on it, as well as given two in the last edit summary.

As for the other information, it's WP:UNDUE and against WP:LEAD guidelines. It's reliability has nothing to do with removal. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted the exact quote from the constitution where it says religion will not alter politics. On the other hand the constitution mentions Sharia courts, Islamic laws being made for every state and so on. That doesn't seem secular to me at all. And honestly saying freedom of religion is protected by the constitution sounds MUCH better that seomthing thats ambiguous. TelusFielder (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As directed to you by Night W, I'm afraid that if I made my own interpretations of WP:PRIMARY sources that would be WP:Original research, and thus highly discouraged on wikipedia. All I can do is point you to the wide body of secondary sources which discusses Malaysia's constitution and discusses whether it is secular or not. The current statement is not ambiguous. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not understanding. If there is a debate on whether or not the constitution os secular, then calling it a "secular constitution" anyways means you are ignoring other views. If we JUST say 'constitution' insteatd of 'secular constitution', it sounds MUCH better and MUCH more neautral. So please do not revert my edit. TelusFielder (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, there isn't much of a debate over the constitution. The debate is over the country as a whole, and over where the constitution applies. I won't revert your edit for now, as there is a point here, but please remember that justification for edits to articles should most of the time go on the article talkpage, not my user page. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, by the looks of it, Smilingfrog seems to be cherry-picking/stalking your edits on both Singapore and Malaysia... want me to raise this issue on ANI or take it instead to another Adminstrator for his/her non-involved third party opinion? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is now under full page protection after I've discussed this with an un-involved Admin who is also monitoring the situation, do use the talk page to discuss things with the Frog, you have our backing on this. If that doesn't work, buzz me again. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the header for the article Culture of Malaysia. I do think there is a wave of immigration from Indonesia to Malaysia. Else how do some cultural from Java ended in Malaysia? But it's your page. I'm just trying to help the public to have an understanding. Javanese and Malays are two distinct ethnics. If there was never a Javanese migration/interactions, then what the Indonesians are saying is true. That Malaysians are copying their heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosa lilian (talk • contribs) 00:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chipmunkdavis,

You seem to be showing Wikipedia:Ownership of articles on a few articles including Malaysia. I was also quite concerned about you showing signs of [wikihounding] me for a bit when you [reverted these edits of mine on the Singapore article)] on 16:29, 5 December 2011, which is just minutes after you reverted four of my edits [revert 1] [revert 2] [revert 3] [revert 4] on the Malaysia article. The four reverts you made against me on the Malaysia article were just 1-2 hours outside the 24 hr window period ([Please note the 3 revert rule here...and please note that any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.]). But you seem to have stopped and I think that is a good thing. I appreciate you not edit warring, breaking (gaming) [the 3 revert rule (any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.)] and [wikihounding]. Many thanks,Smilingfrog (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that editing an article I've made numerous edits to and have had watchlisted for ages isn't wikihounding don't you?

You also realise that an edit war can not be made by one person alone don't you?

You should also realise that a very good example of gaming is making a bold edit and edit warring it back in while warning the other editor of 3RR.

You may report me as you wish. While I have no doubt made mistakes in conduct (being a human and therefore not perfect), I am happy to explain my actions to a wider forum if that is what you desire. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take it the wrong way, this is not a confrontation. I do not intend to make you 'explain your actions to a wider forum', I was just concerned about your actions.

Editing the Singapore article, an article you claim to have watchlisted, is not wikihounding (WP:HOUND) by itself. But reverting four of my edits ([revert 1] [revert 2] [revert 3] [revert 4]) in a row in the Malaysia article within nearly 24 hours, and then within minutes, heading over to the Singapore article, which you have not edited in many weeks, to revert another few of my edits [here] would be wikihounding. And you seem to show Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

As for the 'edit war', the first person to revert the other's edit (spark it off) was you with this [edit]. I was not the one started the edit war and I was the one who started the discussion over the disputed edit to reach a concensus[| here], and have posted most in the discussion. If I wanted to edit war, I wouldn't have started the discussion, much less post so much to attempt to reach a consensus, would I?

Anyway no hard feelings. I appreciate you stopping what you were doing back there. Many thanks, Smilingfrog (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits on pages I have watchlisted, especially on pages for which I am a major contributor, and especially for the most recent edits on a page, is in no way wikihounding.

A revert is not the start of an edit war. An edit war starts when someone reverts a revert. Whether one starts a discussion is irrelevant to whether one is edit warring. Edit warring while discussing is still edit warring.. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chipmunkdavis. I am somewhat concerned about your remark above "I'd love to do a revert to the pre tiny paragraph pre bad prose pre puffery version, but having had possibly more conflict in that article with Smilingfrog than others I wouldn't like to do it till I have accommodated any possible improvements to justify this. I cannot deny bias. However, if you reverted that would no doubt be far more acceptable..." Unfortunately this looks dangerously like an attempt to avoid the consequences of your action by getting another editor to do it for you as a proxy, in fact something akin to meatpuppetry. I don't suppose that is how you intended it, but I suggest you think carefully, and avoid doing anything which might give such an impression. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• IF I may, I'm "guessing" that Chipmunkdavis was just thinking out aloud and since we're both established editors, I can understand his frustrations at Mr Frog (since the articles are stabilised at GA or sub-GA class levels, Davis's been trying to get them up a notch or two) so there's really no need for meatpuppetry. Otherwise, I would have naively done it without him even asking but no, I did nothing of that sort. May I also remind you that Mr Frog is no angel either, he broke the cardinal rule of 3RR by edit warring (blind reverts mostly, check them!) with someone (two, in fact) whom he has had disagreement with in the past. So long as Mr Frog behaves himself, I think I speak for me and Davis when I say that we will not be even remotely interested in his eccentric behaviour. So there. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the background Dave, I was indeed thinking out loud. Wihtout going over what Dave has already said, my basic thought process was that if I was looking at another editor in the same situation I am in, I wouldn't approve of them making the kind of edit I was thinking about making. A similar spirit if you will to WP:INVOLVED. That was all I was trying to convey (and the situation is now even worse in that respect as I've been accused of ownership). I was basically trying to ask for a second opinion on the action from Dave (an established editor who has also edited Singapore) while at the same time explaining that I didn't think I could make such an action myself, if that makes sense? I wouldn't expect most editors, let alone Dave, to make a massive content edit if they weren't behind it fully, and I believe that Dave would have had thoughts along similar lines beforehand. I am not trying to avoid any consequences, I was (and am) trying to avoid the creation of an action that needed consequences. Does that explanation make sense? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does make sense. I was 100% sincere when I wrote "I don't suppose that is how you intended it", but I thought it important that you realise that there was a danger of it being taken that way. I am aware that you have both found Smilingfrog's editing frustrating, but it is essential to make sure that you don't allow yourself to slip into patterns of editing that could backfire against you. I think that Dave has, unfortunately, allowed himself to be dragged down into problematic behaviour, and I hope that he can back away before it is too late. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you pointing it out, and also do see how it could easily be taken that way. I took note of your adminshop warning on Dave's talkpage, and have clarified with another admin that there is already a first admin involved, and I am not seeking action. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may like to read my comment at User talk:Zscout370. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I don't want to be editing Singapore at the moment, and Malaysia is being discussed, I hopefully can avoid asking for admin action anytime soon. Thanks for clarifying the Zscout issue, and tell me if my behaviour steps out of line again. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to respond to Dave1185 on the 'edit war' with Chipmunkdavis's issue. I think it is worrying to me that he is making more personal attacks through accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence i.e. WP:NPA#WHATIS even after being warned by James and even after promising (for the second time over a few months) that he will lay off it. He accused me of breaking the 3RR but I have never made more than 3 reverts on the article within 24 hour, as can be glanced from the article's edit history [here]. So another baseless accusation. Chipmunkdavis however has reverted four of my edits [revert 1] [revert 2] [revert 3] [revert 4] on the Malaysia article just 1-2 hours outside the 24 hr window period, and then within minutes, heading over to the Singapore article, which he has not edited in many weeks, to revert another few of my edits [here]. I think it is clear who stepped over the 3RR here as well as showing clearly wikihounding (WP:HOUND). So Dave has been leaving edit warring tags all over my talkpage as per WP:HUSH but of course, he has not left any edit warring tag on Chipmunkdavis's talkpage since they are good buddies. And I seem to be their target as of late.

As far as I can recall, the entire incident began like this. I edited the official scripts of Malaysia to Rumi and Jawi from Latin [here]. Because the Malaysian constitution itself states Rumi and Jawi are official not Latin. My edit was reverted by Chipmunk for the first time [here] who states 'Rv, the Latin alphabet is official, not Rumi'. I reverted him for the first time [here] stating 'rving ya. constituition states clearly rumi script is official. see discussion'. And he reverted me for the second time [here] stating 'Rv Smiling. Undue, pointy, and just plain wrong'. I reverted him for the second time [here] just stating 'rv' and immediately started a discussion on the article's talkpage to point out the constitution does state rumi is official not latin [here]. He did not reply but reverted me again for the third time [here] without stating anything 'Undid revision 464217988 by Smilingfrog'. I reverted him for the third and last time [here]. A few minutes after this, Chipmunk made his way to Singapore and reverted one of edits [there]. I was still at the Malaysia article and I realised that this looks like a difficult edit and an edit war looks possible, so I left it alone and went to edit another part of the article [here] by removing a non-neutral source and line from the article to improve it. Barely 5 minutes after I made the edit, Chipmunk came back to the Malaysia article again and reverted me for the fourth time on the same article [here].

Look at the discussions outcomes at Malaysia talkpage for the first disputed edit [here], after quite a bit of explaining from me, Chipmunk seems to agree that Rumi is the official script of Malaysia now and that Latin and Rumi scripts are slightly different, hence it is not apt to write 'Latin' in place of Rumi. Which is a change from what he states when he reverted me twice. [first revert] -- 'Rv, the Latin alphabet is official, not Rumi'. [Second revert] -- 'Rv Smiling. Undue, pointy, and just plain wrong'. In May 2011 he also stated [here] -- 'the official script is Rumi, which is basically the Latin alphabet. The Jawi script article is oversimplifying'. Anyway, no matter what happens, I accept the general consensus for that, as per usual.

For the second disputed edit, I started a discussion as well on the Malaysia talkpage [here] and the general consensus provided from an administrator and another editor was that I was right in removing the source and line. Chipmunk has gone on to state that WP:NPOV does not apply to the source etc etc which I think I shall not comment about.

If you read the section just above this on his talkpage [here], I approached him just telling him I am slightly concerned about him breaking WP:3RR on Malaysia and his WP:HOUND behaviour by reverting my edits in Singapore, hoping to resolve it amicably. He defended himself by stating I was the one who started it and that he was not wikihounding me by reverting my edit at the Singapore article (an article which he has not edited for a month) just minutes after reverting 3 of my edits at the Malaysia article, and later going back to the Malaysia article yet again within minutes to revert another of my edit. I respect his right to defend himself and I did not respond after that as I don't see a need to aggravate the situation. But personally I did not accept that explanation as it was clear to me it was WP:HOUND.

I am just writing to explain my stance. Dave1185 has been accusing me of this and that and everything under the sun as per WP:NPA#WHATIS for a long time now. I would just note that this latest accusation is after he was warned by JamesB to stop it. So, lets hope he really intends to stop harassing me. As per WP:DENY, I don't think I will be replying to any of these issues anymore, especially to any stuff coming out of Dave1185. My only purpose of replying is to explain my actions over this 'edit war' with Chipmunk. You can defend yourself etc, it is your right to. I have no malice, and I certainly do not wish to get Chipmunk into any trouble. I just wish for peace, and I just wish for Dave1185 and Chipmunk to leave me alone and I just wish for them to not be vindictive. Merry Chirstmas one and all. It the the season of peace, so cheer up and lets stop this stupid bickering from now on. I've made mistakes, you've made mistakes, let's shake hands, and move on like men. Many thanks, Smilingfrog (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I didn't realise my four reverts were that close (and actually forgot the fourth one related to the first three), so I apologise for that. I also made a mistake in my summary "Rv, the Latin alphabet is official, not Rumi", I meant to say "Rv, the Latin alphabet is official, not Jawi". Blunder, again I apologise for that. In the second edit summary, the Undue and pointy notes were about your edits on religion, not about Rumi and Jawi.

To be clear to any third reader (and to be clarify for us both): The conversation you opened was not just about Rumi, but about Rumi and Jawi. Your characterisation of that conversation being just about Rumi is incorrect, and once again, your edits weren't just making Rumi official, but making Rumi and Jawi official.

I stand by my denial of hounding, and by my comment that an initial revert is not an edit war, but a simple part of BRD (If either of these positions is incorrect, someone please tell me and explain why). I also deny that Dave and I are a team who set out to get people, we simply discussed an SPI and its implications.

Again, if a third party sees anything I have done as wrong (other than the two silly mistakes I mentioned above), they should inform me. Sooner rather than later, so I don't make similar mistakes again. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My last point. You seem to have misunderstood the WP:3RR policy. Making 4 reverts against an editor on the same page within roughly 24 hours, regardless of whether the reverts are related, is considered breaking the 3RR. WP:3RR -- An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.

Also, [BRD-NOT] -- * BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. * BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD. Anyway, this is already water under the bridge. Lets shake hands and move on. Merry X'mas to you! Smilingfrog (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it perfectly, hence the apology. As for BRD, I didn't revert using BRD as a reason. Both reverts had completely different reasons. I suggest you learn the spirit of the policies before quoting them to me. Merry Christmas. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at this in the new year. Remind me if there are no edits by say Jan 5th. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't around to help with this. I had it on my to-do list. Didn't realise it would be closed so quickly. It's still on my list, and I'll help with Johnbod in the next few days. Hope you had a good Christmas. Nightw 02:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is a great topic, as a Malaysian myself I've been witnesses many Malaysian who are not able to speak Malay language or even read or write. I do not agree Malay language being labelled as " Malaysian" or " Malaysian Language" even though it is a standard language, people can labelled it as Standard Malay or so on, If you categorized Malay as Malaysian Language, Man! as a Malaysian myself i can even hardly speak the language or read it even.

Please, DO NOT reverted my edits as you did on it. — NZscout  04:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the header for the article Culture of Malaysia. I do think there is a wave of immigration from Indonesia to Malaysia. Else how do some cultural from Java ended in Malaysia? But it's your page. I'm just trying to help the public to have an understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosa lilian (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You said you always welcomed my opinion, so I'm going to offer one, even though I think it's different to yours.

I think the Malaysia lead is better without that word. Most of my reasons are similar to those you've discussed with others, like: "why have it there if it's controversial?" or "it's just an opinion that it's secular", so I won't go into them in depth, except to say that I actually think they are enough of a concern not to include the term in the lead.

But, here's one aspect I wonder if you've considered. It read:

• "The secular constitution declares Islam the state religion while protecting freedom of religion."

But to me, that feels something like:

• The secular constitution contains this non-secular statement:...

Maybe a clumsy way to express it, but the main point is that I come away from that sentence wondering what a secular constitution is doing declaring any religion the state religion. I think there's enough potential confusion just there to make it unwise in the lead. I also think anything done to try to "fix" it would be likely to make it more clumsy and unnecessary.

Anyway, that's all this is, my opinion, and they are cheap. Begoon ^talk 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of my greyer decisions, and you're right, I hadn't considered it exactly along those lines. I had thought the contrast was quite interesting, and I thought not that confusing, but if it is... Another user has removed i (justifying it on my talkpage I see now that I view history). If secular isn't there, I think the paragraph would work better with the preceding sentence on multiculturalism and that sentence moved to the beginning of the paragraph. I'll definitely mull it over, and I suppose with two more opinions against consensus may be tilting against me. I don't have any great deal of time for a great deal of actual article work before early february anyway. Thanks for the opinion, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. I just noticed it going back and forth in my watchlist, is all, and thought it would be wrong not to share a perspective you might have missed, once it occured to me. Turns out I might have been right, so I'll put that down as my one for the week. Consider yourself priveleged, I've got little else right this week :-) Begoon ^talk 12:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything specifically I can help out with on Malaysia? Is the to-do list on the talk page still relevant? Otherwise, I can look into addressing Johnbod's comments on the FAC page...? Nightw 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be doing much until February due to real life unfortunately, but thanks. The to do list is not fairly relevant anymore, with it mostly being done or unnecessary. Johnbod's comments should be addressed, and a few citations are needed as one was removed from the article. What I'd appreciate from an outside view most is a look through Biodiversity with a mind to making it more concise by removing undue information. That may apply to Culture too, although less so. Hopefully that'll mean Economy can expand. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you read the biodiversity section? Never favour the economy at the expense of the environment! But seriously, to me it looks like all quality information, though could probably be condensed through style; I can see a few sentences that could probably be merged. I'm look into the sourcing now. Nightw 13:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hye, how about it? Is it ok ?? :) — иz нίpнόp  09:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still separates them from the geographic areas they're in. Recolour the actual areas to be yellow and green, and shift the legend for federal territory to a new column, which should also include a note that blue font is for states. The font colour for West and East Malaysia in the legend should be changed too. CMD (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shift the legend for federal territory to a new column?, mm, you mean like Alaska and Hawaii on this map??. I hope you can shows some maps for examples. — иz нίpнόp  10:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the pictures, just the legend, so that there will be two columns, one for the geographical divisions (East/West), and one for the political (States/Federal territories). I can try myself, when I have more time. CMD (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reply to the message that you have left on my talk page.

I have read through both articles and found out that the first article did not mention anything about Jimmy Wong relying on the fact that his grandmother is a Kadazan, i.e. a native in order to obtain his native certificate. Unfortunately, both his parents were classified as Chinese and therefore he is deemed by the Sabah state assembly as 'not having a single drop of blood' of the natives, which in my opinion, is not entirely correct as if his grandmother is a Kadazan, then Jimmy Wong would at least have 1/8 of his blood being native blood. The second article expressly stated the above fact. I am unsure as to the mistake that I have committed in the article, but feel free to make any amendments you think is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristalyamaki (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is very sensitive issue regarding the Malaysian language, malaysian language is clearly a language spoken by malaysian, if you wanna refer it to Standard language of malaysia you can invent the new term in Wikipedia called Malaysian standard malay or what ever you want, but when you talk about Malaysian language, this consist of 28 Million population of Malaysia. Malaysian itself are the language and the culture. i think i agree that each of us as malaysian speak diversify language, Malaysian language does not inclusive of just Malay only. because if you think that way, it is very sensitive to other races. i hope you take note on this, and thank you for your time. and hope fully my issue will be addressed soon by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.135.45.24 (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Malaysian language" is singular. It refers to just one language, and is not about a people. The other languages of Malaysia are described at Languages of Malaysia, where "languages" is plural. CMD (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Indigenous language of Malaysia? are that clearly been ignored? for example, Chinese language , consist of many dialects. There are many Malaysian who does not even know how to speak Malay as well, therefore i would like to address this, there is no such thing called Malaysian as a language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.36.97 (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As CMD has said, all the langauges spoken in Malaysia can be described in Languages of Malaysia, but, Malaysian language (Bahasa Malaysia) is a separate topic with its own article. This is a perfectly reasonable distinction and adequately catered for on Wikipedia. I don't think this is too difficult to understand. Please do not keep reverting to your preferred version, or you will be blocked. Instead, use the article/s talk page/s to try to reach an agreement first. --Merbabu (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as an Indigenous people of Malaysia, i disagree that "Malay" language are to be called as "Malaysian language". I do not care if you are threatening me with such statement. All i care about is to get the right information not by the facts you see. if you like the term so much, u can create a new pages called " Malaysia national language" but not "Malaysian Language" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.36.97 (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refrain from baselessly applying general stereotypes to specific editors on my talkpage (and for that matter, on all of wikipedia). No article belongs to Malaysians, or anyone at all. CMD (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please tell me why you deleted my contributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmbarrow (talk • contribs) 12:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Your contributions were unfortunately made without sources, which is against the wikipedia policy of WP:Verification. Contributions should be backed up with WP:Reliable sources. Also, keep in mind that each page is focused on a topic. Sabah should be just about Sabah. Comparisons belong on other pages, such as States and federal territories of Malaysia. Good luck, CMD (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following your kind suggestion of adding a fungal component to the Malaysian wildlife page, this is a quick note to let you know that I've finally started to address this. I began by revising the biodiversity section on the Malaysia page. There is a new checklist of Malaysian fungi recently published, and I am hoping to use the information there to fill the gap in the Malaysian wildlife page.Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revising the Malaysia page, or any country page, is not a good way to start address wide coverage problems. You've made a section that was already quite long even longer, and given every paragraph its own header, which is quite overdoing it. As for the added Fungi information, aside from the first paragraph, the only useful information about Malaysian fungi is that they haven't been very extensively studied, something that could be said in just a few words. If you create a paragraph from one source that is as long, or even slightly longer, than similar paragraphs, there's clear balance issues. The detail there is far too undue for an article summarising all of Malaysia.

I support adding information to various wildlife pages, but if you're forcing information into places it shouldn't be just to try and reach a certain amount of information, that's a sign the information shouldn't be there. Keep it concise and clear. This is far more helpful to the reader than a slew of tangential information. The reader of the article Malaysia doesn't need to know for example, that Fungi are found in different habitats and that they carry out ecological services for the planet (we don't mention anything like that for other groups of biota). Such information belongs on the Fungi page. Fungi are less studied than animals and plants, and as wikipedia is based off other sources, that is something that is likely to be reflected in its pages. This needs to be changed in the real world, not wikipedia. Cheers, CMD (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind and helpful comments. After reflexion I will try to improve the Biodiversity entry for the Malaysia page. You have mentioned balance issues. Balance depends on point of view. Devoting most of a webpage to the cultural and other activities of humans (who are, after all, just one species) and cramming the whole of the rest of life with all its myriad species (on which we humans depend) into one small section entitled Biodiversity doesn't seem very balanced to me. Biodiversity is much more than just vertebrates and flowering plants. Virtually all of the animal text is about vertebrates (a small group), with no mention of molluscs, nematodes, sponges, arthropods other than insects or a whole raft of other huge invertebrate groups. That isn't balanced. Fungi are a whole biological kingdom. It is unbalanced to omit them. The section on fungi deals with only the two most speciose groups of fungi - the fungal equivalent of arthropods and nematodes - that surely gives it some internal balance. It is unbalanced to omit the other biological kingdoms too - bacteria, chromistans and protozoans. Unfortunately writing about them is above my pay scale. It is relevant to discuss which fungal groups have been explored in Malaysia - work on Malaysian freshwater and marine fungi, for example, has been exemplary with the discovery of wonderful organisms, some apparently endemic. It is also relevant discuss the unknown where that can be done meaningfully. In Malaysia it can be done meaningfully, because the recent checklist of Malaysian fungi specifically identified unexplored habitats. You are surely right about good places to begin. Unfortunately, when there are very few people interested in editing Wikipedia for a particular topic with so much to do, there is no good place to begin. The ethos of Wikipedia, to be an encyclopaedia which is neutral and balanced is admirable. At present, its presentation of fungi, which really are important, has the neutrality and imbalance which come from absence. In the country where I live, it is common for people to dismiss Wikipedia as inaccurate, but it's also common knowledge that everyone uses it as a first call for information. If you want to change the real world and resources are limited, Wikipedia is not such a bad place to begin. I mean that as a compliment to Wikipedia!Middgeaugh-Botteaugh (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your point of view, unfortunately, is different from the way country articles have been set up. Wikipedia is written for a human audience, based off the way other sources write. Sources dealing with countries talk much more about human activities than to wildlife. Countries are after all a human creation. Wildlife don't particular care about political borders. The animal text, and other text in that section, is based off the sources used. As wikipedia is a tertiary source, it reflects the real world, rather than seeking to change it. Malaysia is one <50kB article. While Fungi deserve mention, an exploration on how they could be studied does not belong on it. Why not ask around at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi, they may know areas that could be used as good starting points. CMD (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, I think you need to check out this. Is Malaysian Africans been considered as one of Malaysian ethnics?. I didn't found any sources for this. I think this article should be deleted as the article with the same title has been previously deleted but the user create it again. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 06:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an ethnic grouping I've ever seen, at least under that title, and as you noted not one google is throwing up any immediate results for. I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, but it doesn't meet our notability criteria, and the one purported source looks terrible. Any sourced information that comes up post-deletion should be added to Demographics of Malaysia, which currently doesn't mention Africans at all. CMD (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 07:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done + I do some improvements based on the old discussion. :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 16:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chipmunkdavis, Can you explain why you revert my edits, please? Sharing is caring :) 175.137.227.3 (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're rearranging the entire page, removing a few sections and a large amount of text in the process. Could you elucidate more on what you are doing? CMD (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check these sources because some are dead links and some don't even show the information related about the statement. The book source cannot be found at Google Book Search online database. I don't think that these sources should be included in the article. Thank you for co-operation. Alexey88 (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

If a link is dead, place {{dead link}} after it, leaving ^{[dead link]}. This allows other users to see they are dead in the article, and try and improve them. Regards, CMD (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know which section that you think should not be removed. Alexey88 (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from your recent edit in article Malaysia, where you have deliberately removed Ethnic Malays link with "Malay" as well as the historical term Tanah Melayu from the etymology section, I may conclude that you have a serious Malayphobia or anti of anything "Malay". You should learn to accept that Malaysia evolved from a Malay polity known as Tanah Melayu which in turn took its name from an ethnic group called "Melayu". Its pretty simple. Why make it so difficult? Why pushing up for the Tamil origin theory of the word, when there is clear description of the origin of the word in native sources? (i.e Malay Annals). Ø:G (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources for the administration I could only get are mostly on PDF format. ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]).

I hope this little information can helps. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ ^ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 04:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please include reliable reference (based on credible research) that states Malay later moved there, and if this is true, please state when did the Malays moved to the area of present day of this country-Malaysia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfindest (talk • contribs) 14:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You want a source about Austronesian migrations? I don't think there's evidence for specific dates, but this paper notes a consensus towards an Austronesian arrival into Southeast Asia around 4000-3000BC, and this paper estimates they settled the Malay Peninsula itself anytime between 2000BC and 500BC. CMD (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your deletion of my changes to the Malay=Muslim sentence in the Malaysia page, I have had to rely on the primary source i.e. the Malaysia Constitution's article 160, as the sentence I replaced was plainly wrong and was causing confusion amongst the public, as many rely on Wiki for their research. If you dislike what I did so much just delete the original sentence so that it at least does no harm. Relying on a secondary source is well and good but if it is wrong, then as a responsible editor, one has a duty to correct and not blindly follow the rules, which in any event I have read and saw that it allows for exceptions to be made. Have a nice day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbl2020 (talk • contribs)

We are not allowed to interpret primary sources ourselves, this is not excepted per WP:V. CMD (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you have done. It's a lot better and appropriate for a general page on Malaysia and more importantly it is not wrong. Wrong information on such an important matter is not going to do wikipedia or the country that the page is about any good. So thanks for your time in making the changes and digging up the new secondary source.

On a side note, not to be splitting hairs but if one is citing the ingredients of a definition from a reliable primary source that can be verified by any educated person (which is allowed), is that considered interpretation? I have extracted the relevant bits of the policy below for your easy reference and the edification of future readers of this post.

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbl2020 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is not straightforward and descriptive however to list a bunch of ethnicities which aren't mentioned in that part of the constitution. CMD (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got another one for you - from Religion in Malaysia, which relies on the primary source and is wrong. The constitution doesn't say that all ethnic Malays are considered Muslims.

All ethnic Malays are considered Muslim by Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia.[28] . Jump up ^ Constitution of Malaysia:Article 160 (2)-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbl2020 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sort of does. If one has to be Muslim to be Malay, then if you're a Malay you must be Muslim. I've reworded it to make it clearer. CMD (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a user put the two more version of the Malaysian coat of arms from 1965–1988 in the Malaysian coa article and just realise this user was right. If we calculate back, there will be three times modification to the coa on 1965, 1982 and the last one on 1988 due to the separation of Singapore on 1965 and twice changing of the coa of Sabah and Sarawak in 1982 and 1988. So, if we calculate from 1988, that means the copyright would be free for another 24 years. What your opinion now? Should we just use the coa from its original publish date on 1963? :( — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 11:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1963–1965

1965–1982

1982–1988

1988–present

This is something I hadn't thought about (and they shouldn't be used on talkpages in the meantime, to be safe). We would need to ask on commons. It may be worth using an older one on the Malaysia article, and using the current up to date copyrighted one (if that is what commons decides) on Coat of arms of Malaysia, with a non-free-use rationale. Actually, if commons decides the current one is copyrighted it may have to be reuploaded onto en.wiki, as I don't think that's allowed to be hosted on commons. At any rate, we should fix the Malacca tree, whose shape in the 1963 and 1988 ones is wrong [14]. CMD (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've just invite someone from commons to see what their opinion. Yeah, the 1963 and 1988 version will be fixed and upload in the svg version later while waiting for them to give some suggestion. — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 12:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were the changes to the CoA completely new, or were they taken from other existing flags and emblems? Our versions aren't traced any more, they use disparate elements from other files and some are original, so there's no issue of it being a direct derivative work.

Given that the argument put at the village pump says that so long as the individual elements on the arms were pre-existing (as is true for the 1965 version, supposedly), there's no problem. If they were brand new when they were added to the CoA, then we might have a problem, but I'm not enough of an expert. If in doubt, take it to the village pump as they have people with a lot more knowledge in the area than me! NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 16:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Nik. For the 1963 and 1988, it was taken from some existing emblem like this (1963) and this (1982), while the Sarawak coa was taken from the Sarawak flag (1963) and the one in 1982 coa was not been uploaded yet but it might be taken from here. The 1965 modification only made a few change by changing the Singapore coa to a hibiscus flower. I'm also thinks that the 1965 coa still not using the Penang bridge because the bridge was only opened in 1985. As Chip has stated at the first, the three coa from 1965, 1982 and 1988 might still in the copyright, but I don't know if the commons can approved it. Should we ask to the village pump again Chip? — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 00:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe it right, we should just use the copyright license at the moment. — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 12:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the List of leaders of Malaysian states under your watch list? That page was neglected until recently. Some entries were up to 2 years or even more outdated. 112.198.90.235 (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added it after I saw your post on Talk:Malaysia. CMD (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had previous deleted my post in Kuala Lumpur which I had since reverted. You commented that there were "over-emphasis" without explaining further. However based on your input, I had cleaned up the introduction section and introduced a new sub-heading "Ranking As A Global City" to place the relevant articles under one headings.Escravoes (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation that the data was "unsourced and undue. Military already covered in detail" was wrong as firstly, the sources are already provided (within Wiki itself! and the websites of the security forces) and secondly, "military" is NOT covered in the "Malaysia" webpage but in a separate webpage "Malaysian Armed Forces" and the "Royal Malaysian Police" while your explanation for your deletion of my post in the "2013 Lahad Datu standoff" was because that it was "not due to the Islamic insurgencies of Thailand or the Philippines" is irrelevant because nowhere was there any reference in my post that the incident was due to "to the Islamic insurgencies of Thailand or the Philippines."!Escravoes (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Escravoes, military is currently covered in the Foreign relations and Military subsection. As for sourcing, sources need to be on the page the text is on. Regarding the Lahad Datu standoff, you specifically put it in a sentence regarding Islamic insurgencies, writing "There are fears that extremist militants activities in the Muslim areas of the southern Philippines and southern Thailand would spill over into Malaysia, as it did in the 2013 Lahad Datu standoff when 235 seaborne Philippines militants attacked and killed 10 Malaysian soldiers and police officers and 6 civillians, with 56 fatalities on the militant's sides.." CMD (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis, Regarding your frequent persistent rollbacks on Malaysia, you had had stated that I had specifically put it in a sentence regarding Islamic insurgencies, writing "There are fears that extremist militants activities in the Muslim areas of the southern Philippines and southern Thailand would spill over into Malaysia.. where you commented that The Lahud (sic) Datu standoff was not due to the Islamic insurgencies of Thailand or the Philippines.

The statement There are fears that extremist militants activities in the Muslim areas of the southern Philippines and southern Thailand would spill over into Malaysia is NOT my statement and I did not wrote that line. as you had wrongly accused me off, when you wrote that The Lahud (sic) Datu standoff was not due to the Islamic insurgencies of Thailand or the Philippines.

That line referred to the "extremist militants from the Muslim areas of Phillipinnes" which was from where all the 2013 Lahad Datu standoff attackers came from!

It was stated in several references in the 2013 Lahad Datu standoff that the armed militants were indeed extremist militants from the Muslim areas of Sulu Province of the southern Philippines. But nowhere did any reference to the Islamic insurgencies of Thailand or the Philippines was mentioned in my statement, but you wrongly and mistakenly inferred that it was and hence your rollbacks!

However after your persistent rollbacks I had reverted the incident as follows: The Philippines has a dormant claim to the eastern part of Sabah, which burst into global spotlight from February 11, 2013 to March 24, 2013 when 235 seaborne militants from the Philippines attacked Lahad Datu, Sabah, ended after more than a month of battle, with 6 civilians and 10 Malaysian security forces personnel killed and 56 militants dead, resulted from a long-simmering unresolved territorial claim by the heirs to the Philippines Sulu sultans to eastern Sabah (the former North Borneo), Malaysia. (with inline citations included to BBC)

There is again no reference "to the Islamic insurgencies of Thailand or the Philippines."

Again your persistent and disruptive rollbacks on Kuala Lumpur's "Global And Regional Rankings" reflected your partiality on NPOV issues. I had referred to the WP:ONUS and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE to understand issues in recent Malaysia-related edits that you referred to and I am pleased that my comments fulfilled both criteria well. "Global And Regional Rankings" are directly relevant to the article and I cannot understand why you persisted and insisted that it is not. Escravoes (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Escravoes: If you are so obsessed to add those kind of spammy rankings [15]. Why don't you give a try to add similar rankings like that to other popular city articles of Manila, Jakarta, Portland and London etc? Let's see whether you get reverted from those countries editors for the same reason or not. As for the Malaysia article, you separate those single words of territorial dispute into many paragraph which is not necessary for GA articles as it have been included in one paragraph. Herman Jaka (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Jaka It is unfortunate that you consider rankings of Kuala Lumpur quoted on Reuters, Tripadvisor, Daily Mail, The Huffington Post, several major Malaysian newsmedia and even mentioned specifically in a major global tourism conference in Kuala Lumpur as spammy rankings

As for the Malaysia article, I separated "those single words of territorial dispute into many paragraphs" to provide inline citations, which helped to improve content and facilitate cross-referencing and verifiability.Escravoes (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Escravoes: The website are not a spammy things. But the way you put along all those gargantuan (huge) rankings is not necessary for every city articles in Wikipedia which would be considered as spamming. Moreover, you put it before the history part which is not necessary to have its own section. Again, for Malaysia article, there is no need to separate it like that even if you provide additional citation. Herman Jaka (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Jaka, Thanks for now admitting that my paragraphs are NOT 'spammy rankings. Much appreciated.

Your earlier "warning" to me of vandalism under threat of "This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Kuala Lumpur, you may be blocked from editing without further notice" was uncalled for and premature.

I am at lost what you meant by "gargantuan (huge) rankings" as you put it, which you claimed I was so obsessed with. But if it is gargantuan because the rankings are "global and regional", then they are meant to be as such - both global and regional rankings and perhaps gigantic.

But in fact they are very reliable rankings from good reliable sources including the Financial Times, Reuters, Tripadvisor, which you should not have considered as Spam in the first place and kept reverting disruptively. If you had disagreed with me placing "rankings' before "history", then you or Chipmundavis could have constructively re-positioned the paragraph, rather than outright deletions, which you did several times. I had however re-positioned the "ranking" paragraph after "history"

Again, for Malaysia article, I separated "those single words of territorial dispute into many paragraphs" to provide inline citations, which helped to improve content and facilitate cross-referencing and verifiability. Escravoes (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined speedy deletion of the Kuala Lumpur Marathon draft and I have moved it to Draft:Kuala Lumpur Marathon. You indicted you wished to incorporate material from that draft to the main article, so I have not tagged the article for deletion. Be aware that I did tag it with an Articles for Creation tag and it will be deleted in six months time. Safiel (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might don't like to Ask you this Sir but It didn't not work out well on Incident page That User Chio Bu is likely to keep Blaming Me about Dewan rakyat. Firstly, some user on Early March saying GPS is a Allied parties on Perikatan Nasional without a Sources. But Actually GPS is Under Perikatan Nasional by some Sources. Then On May 2020 A User Chio Bu is Trying to Repeat the Unregisted Users did. I trying to tell him about the truth but he still didn't trust me. Please sort it out ok. I love to help wikipedia but that user never let me to do it. Please... Mr. Samerkov (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Samerkov. What other editors will see when they review your conversation on the incident page is both of you accusing the other person of various things, and neither of you taking responsibility. What you said to me about sources is something that you should have put on Talk:Dewan Rakyat after my warning. Instead, you reverted again. To sort it out, my advice to you is the following: 1) Stop editing Dewan Rakyat, for the moment. It is not a critical issue if Wikipedia's counting of Malaysian politicians is slightly outdated. It will be fixed eventually. 2) Disengage from Chio Bu, on the incident page or elsewhere. Clearly your conversations are not productive, and bickering does not make either of you look good. 3) Read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Don't accuse other editors of being WP:NOTHERE repeatedly without very good evidence (which you have not provided), and do not accuse other editors of being liars. Quite frankly, if I were you I would edit my latest post on the incident page to remove all personal attacks before someone replies to it. If you do not adjust your behaviour so far, I suspect you will be sanctioned in some manner. Please take the time to read through the links in the Welcome message I left on your talkpage, they are very helpful for understanding how Wikipedia works. If you have any specific questions you can ask me, or see the other options under the Getting Help section. CMD (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i was really don't want revnting on Dewan rakyat since Chio Bu using me into admistration. Otherwise i would be nailed by them. Also, I didn't accuse other editor but only user chiu bo. User Sisuva and User Quidtul save my edits. Personally for now i will be hiatus since i afied everyone is on me. Really thank you Sir CMD.Mr. Samerkov (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dear chipmunkdavis, stop reverting photos and edits on ‘Culture of Malaysia’ page.

Karemwikieditor (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karemwikieditor, as I mentioned in the edit summaries, the new pictures are causing WP:Sandwiching and you are removing a WP:Featured picture. Pictures should also not be the main source of information, as the text should be able to stand by itself. CMD (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sorry but I hope the article "Malaysian language" change name to "Standards Malay" because this standard using in Malaysia, Brunei & Singapore Malayan Law (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the policy for article titles can be found at Wikipedia:Article titles. If there are high-quality WP:Reliable sources showing a change in name, we tend to follow them. CMD (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About official language in Malaysia is Malay not Malaysian please see this https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/nasional/2018/06/441594/perkara-152-perlembagaan-persekutuan-jelas Malayan Law (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding languages, here on English Wikipedia we generally title by English language names, unless no English names are available. CMD (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Malayan Law and @Chipmunkdavis, there is a good case for renaming the Malaysian language article as Bahasa Malaysia. Viz:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.418.219&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110857092-010/html?lang=de

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41493626 Pakbelang (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep reverting my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kititto (talk • contribs) 22:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2021/12/15/ma63-amendments-passed Kititto (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That source clearly lists the 13 states. CMD (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring

please state your citation. Kititto (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He added that the Bill proposed to amend Clause 2 of Article 1 of the Federal Constitution to state that the states of the Federation comprises:

(a) the states of Malaya, namely Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Melaka, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, Perlis, Penang, Selangor and Terengganu; and

(b) the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak. Kititto (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it was changed on 1976 to thirteen states, which took so many years to revertback to 3 equal partner. Kititto (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

three entities: Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak Kititto (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert wikipedian, why not you change the obsolete facts yourself? Kititto (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is fake information dude :-( kititto. barat west & Europe Don't know about Malaysia Malayan Law (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least, we must set the information correct. Otherwise, fake news will prevail. Kititto (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clause 2 of Article 1 of the Federal Constitution to state that the states of the Federation comprises:

(a) the states of Malaya, namely Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Melaka, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, Perlis, Penang, Selangor and Terengganu; and

(b) the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak. Kititto (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in short: the states of the Federation comprises 1. the states of Malaya, 2. Sabah and Sarawak (Borneo states).

Cannot read English? Kititto (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Individual interpretations of WP:PRIMARY sources, especially legislation, is not a strong basis for very high-level changes. In any case, there was no change in 1976 to thirteen states; the country has had thirteen states since Singapore dropped off in 1965. CMD (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Don't change flag again that why Singapore still have in Malaysian flag Malayan Law (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, although it's officially regarded as representing the federal territories now. CMD (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1063940346&markasread=236605313&markasreadwiki=enwiki

if my edit doesn't meet the wikipedia requirment, please do update the latest progress and give a clearer picture to the readers, and don't revert without proper reason! Kititto (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thevibes.com/articles/news/23727/federal-constitution-cannot-be-amended-regarding-sabah-sarawak Kititto (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also, why do you insist to put Pakatan Harapan back in the article, and not adding other political parties or coalition? Kititto (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Now I understand why wikipedia cannot win the academic recognition. Because full of people like you!

Kititto (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name, States and territories of the Federation 1(2) The States of the Federation shall be Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Sabah, Sarawak, Selangor and Terengganu. | changed to | (a) the states of Malaya, namely Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Melaka, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, Perlis, Penang, Selangor and Terengganu; and

(b) the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak. Kititto (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name, States and territories of the Federation 1(2) The States of the Federation shall be Johore, Kedah, Kelantan, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Penang, Perak, Perlis, Sabah, Sarawak, Selangor and Terengganu.

| changed to |

(a) the states of Malaya, namely Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Melaka, Negri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, Perlis, Penang, Selangor and Terengganu; and

(b) the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak. Kititto (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can you reflect this change in wikipedia Malaysia? Kititto (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the constitution does not appear on the Malaysia article. Have you looked at WP:PRIMARY? CMD (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I talk about fact, which is not correct on wikipedia. Not intent to argue with you about how wikipedia works. Kititto (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way Wikipedia works is aimed at best reflecting WP:Reliable sources. That is a key component of editing here. CMD (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bro Please using true information about officially language of Malaysia. Article 152 already said official language is "Malay" not "Malaysian" please bro using true information. http://www.commonlii.org/my/legis/const/1957/12.html https://m.malaysiakini.com/news/504604 https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2019/01/450208/our-constitution-and-human-rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malayan Law (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malayan Law, this is already covered in the article. CMD (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still writing "Malaysian" at Malaysia article, please change to "Malay" bro. Please using same from article 152 the constitution of Malaysia Malayan Law (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is the name of our article on the language. CMD (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please using "Malay" bro not "Malaysian". See the constitution of Malaysia please Malayan Law (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our two articles on the matter? I'm actually quite interested in the situation, but simply saying a certain name appears in the constitution is not helpful. CMD (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems kind of trollish, I brought up an official name in the Malaysian constitution, then you responded to it, and then suddenly this account pops up. --Donald Trung (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Never mind, the above account is much older. Malay and Malaysian are two different concepts anyhow with Malaysian being the standard language of Malaysia and Malay being also used outside of Malaysia. At least as far as I know. --Donald Trung (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different concepts, but what those concepts are called is a real-life issue. CMD (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So? Do you go User:Donald Trung Singapore & Brunei? They official language also using same Malay standard like Malaysia but article about Singapore & Brunei Said official language is Malay. The standard using at Malaysia, Singapore & Brunei is same dude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malayan Law (talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Indonesian language is also a version of the Malay language and it uses a different standard and has a different vocabulary. "Malaysian" is less ambiguous and the "Malay language" already explains this. --Donald Trung (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So why Singapore & Brunei official language is said Malay not Malaysian ? They using same standard malay language as Malaysia. About indonesian language I already know that is also Malay language but not standard Malay like Malaysia, Singapore & Brunei using. You can see constitution of Indonesia it say official language is "indonesian" not Malay. Malaysia, Brunei & Singapore constitution said official language is "Malay"(Standard Malay). I hope you know that, Malaysian language never became official name at Malaysia if article 152 constitution of Malaysia still said "Malay"same like Singapore & BruneiUser:Malayan Lawtalk — Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support renaming the Malaysian language article as "Bahasa Malaysia". Pakbelang (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pakbelang: This old conversation is probably not the place to raise this, I suggest bringing it up on the talkpage and pinging those involved in previous discussions on the matter. CMD (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. Thanks. Pakbelang (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]