User talk:Starstylers/archive 1

28 July 2008: Notice to Editors
This user may be immediately reported to the Administrators without any warnings

This user, Starstylers, also, is currently on conditional parole in response to repeated acts of harassment, personal attacks and acts of incivility against members of the Wikipedia community previously. Any instance of abuse from this user, does not require any further warnings, and can be immediately reported to the Administrators for immediate permanent block next. Full details of the case are documented at this link.

Notify an administrator • contribs • block • block log

I have deleted my private IP as this is a total invasion of privacy irrelevant to Wikipedia and this issue at hand.Starstylers (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HB I

You will need to read carefully about language used in this article - this is an online encylopedia - some terminology used is not appropriate - a good read of WP:MOS would be well worth it - as well as the issue of citations - some assertions you make need citations otherwise someone will revert them as of dubious claims Satu Suro 14:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prabowo Subianto

Yes, a lot of work needs to be done on that article. Very WP:POV language and no references. It might even be better to start again, using only strictly referenced material. --Merbabu 03:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sayogo Hendro Subroto

undefined A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Sayogo Hendro Subroto, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Davidelit 05:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont react like you did its consider uncivil also we discuss the article not the person. In your response you mention associations with these people that could be percieved as conflict of interest. These are some of the etiquette policies theres also dont bite the newbies.
I going to remove the Prod notice but in doing so I will suggest that the article goes through [{WP:AFD]]. AFD is a forumn where article get discussed to help establish that the subject meets wikipedia's requirements during this time it recommend that you edit the article addressing any concerns that get raised. If at the end of the AfD the consensus is to delete then thats what will happen. Anyway if I can be of help please just drop a note on my talk page. Gnan garra 12:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mbak Tutut

Please don't remove "fact" tags without providing the reference. It won't be tolerated. Thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Indonesian Revolution of 1998"

I am happy to raise this issue of the article name with Indonesia editors - I agree, perhaps the name could be improved. Please wait and contribute to the discussions.

In the meantime, will you please improve your act by ensuring you write in a WP:NPOV tone, use reliable references for absolutely everything you add (fugly bali is not a reliable source - it makes wikipedia look stupid), and stop using unprofessional language (ie, "moral masturbation") on talk pages. thanks and kind regards. --Merbabu (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Could you learn to sign - the four thingies up on the left hand side of your keyboard - it would be appreciated - thanks Satu Suro 13:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starstylers. We need to sign out posts on user talk pages and on article talk pages, but, NOT on articles. To sign, all you need to do is to type four tildes " ~ " (ie, ~~~~) and when you click “save page” it will automatically convert to a time and date stamp with your user name. Alternatively, just press the sig button above the edit box and this will give you the same result. If you want detailed info see WP:SIG. --Merbabu (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you don't need to sign edit summaries. Just talk pages like this one. --Merbabu (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about not clarifying for talk items only - theres no big deal about it but after a while on talk pages - automated bots will perpetually follow you like a bad smell thats all :( Satu Suro 23:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nafas enak - its ok now - :) Satu Suro 10:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanganyar Regency

Please don't reintroduce incorrect wikipedia formatting 1 day after it's already been removed. here Please reinstate the heading and section formatting per this change. It's really annoying seeing the same formatting errors and bad English re-entered only a day after it was cleaned up. --Merbabu (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um

I hate to be so pedantic but the astana giribangun was looking like dogs breakfast

References never are located below category labels

& Please note order and location now:-

References
Further reading
External links

Category/stub indicator

Please help by keeping articles laid out correctly, thanks Satu Suro 23:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pak H...

The article is just too long and detailed. I will be working to reduce other sections further (the 'Health Crises' and 'purges' sections are good examples). That 'death' section was difficult to read with many details. Yes, possibly a separate article could be made. I'd suggest more info would be needed - could be quite nice. You put together some good info and references - why not use that as your start and add to it. I can review. The info i removed is still in the history. --Merbabu (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

++me++

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Neutrality_and_verifiability

Tildes

Please do not use tildes (~~~~) in your edit summary. Tildes are only meant for talk pages, like what you're looking at right now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elderly Instruments

Please quit saying that it "reeks of advertising". The article is written entirely from a neutral point of view and is very well sourced -- so well sourced in fact that it's today's featured article. There is no way that a featured article could be shot down as "advertising". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. It doesn't read like an ad to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that we have a difference of opinion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attack on me

A glance at your Talk page indicates that you have been having a bit of difficulty adjusting to the Wikipedia style. First and foremost, assume good faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_Good_Faith). That means that when I point out mere common characteristics, you don't assume that I am stating those characteristics to be the (sole?) reasons for the success of the NICs.

Next is simple courtsey. In our first ever exchange, you made two mistakes, neither of which was necessary. First, you assume that I am of or represent Hong Kong. It is where I live, and that is all. Second, you made a derogatory personal attack (see Ad hominem for more on this flaw).

Finally, you made several simple errors in fact in your post on my Talk page that indicate to me it would be a waste of time to pursue this any further, until you get some basic education in the history of modern East Asia. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle reminder

Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, your recent edits or comments on Wikipedia, did not appear to conform with Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

Ad hominen arguments: The majority of the Wikipedia community is interested in improving the content or protecting its integrity and aspirations against any vandals or trolls. As such, we don't have the time nor passion to indulge in any such unconstructive arguments or 'wikidrama'. Bring your agenda elsewhere rather than here, as it may result in your account being blocked or faced a community ban for disruptive behaviour later.
Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point nor receive a positive response; they hurt the Wikipedia community (everyone here are volunteers), and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.
The tone or style of your edits is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Neutral point of view is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Non compliance of Wikipedia Manual of Style: Please understand and follow our MoS policy in order to contribute positively to our cause here.

As in the Law of Karma, do sit back and reflect whether your recent actions or comments may sully your standing in Wikipedia and your credentials (including your alma mater too), or incur any unpleasant follow-up action by the community later. Thank you. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pse refrain from posting any new entries on someone else archived pages when explicitly mentioned not to do so earlier. This can be interpreted as a rude or provocative gesture, & it may be duly removed or being swiftly warned next. By convention, when a message is posted on a user's page, it's usually replied on the same talkpage later (as it's messy to reply all over the place) unless specifically requested. Seeing that u have been contributing actively to Wikipedia since 23 Sep 2007, I find hard to believe, even stretching my good faith to the seams, that u still possess 'poor understanding' of our policies & acceptable decorum in Wikipedia, despite repeated reminders/warnings by other senior editors earlier. Fyi, your recent tone of edits & comments (doesn't reflect u well & the intended result is otherwise) often triggered alerts on my anti-vandal/troll program which I used to patrol in Wikipedia. Based on similar cases & its consequences I've encountered to date, I still stand by my comments, as it's no different to those posted on your talkpage to date. Based on your 'selective & convenient' response, it's meaningless to repeat myself again. Deep inside, I believe u know we meant earlier. Let time & karma shows who's is right or wrong later. On a final note, I hope u clean up your acts fast & watch your words carefully (It pays to be humble & sincere) if u want to contribute positively in Wikipedia in the long run. As the saying goes: "You may fool most of the people sometimes, but not all the people, all the time". -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Why do you edit Chinese in Indonesia?

Hello, why are you commenting me without proof against me. I didn't alter the truth about the Chinese in Indonesia. What I edit is a wrong spelling and then I corrected it. Please, don't commenting me without proof. Thank you.--Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, some of your recent edits have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dave1185 (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Dave1185 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Indonesia

Is a mess - if your hard work or whatever gets reverted - its in the trying to restore the article after some nuisance vandalism- and from above stay cool in the face of maybe being reverted Satu Suro 09:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so youre still cleaning up ill wait till you have finished to see what the hell has been going on with the article Satu Suro 09:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some deadhead with typical xenophoibic rubbish had preceded you - ill get back to it later - and sorry my javanese and indonesian side of the brain has lapsed today - expect only bloody australian from me at the mo - cheers Satu Suro 09:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well maybe - the big prob with the art is inadequate WP:RS if you ever trip over of throw up any sometime - they might be needed in the yarticle (Sir Less Patterson comes to mind - but i dont think he ever had a word for the Indonesians) Satu Suro 09:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still not on the Wiki wagon

Starstylers, You said You have a pathetic comprehension of history and economics for someone claiming to be an expert. And, There was no personal attack at all- point it out if there was any- I attacked your KNOWLEDGE not your PERSON.

As an exercise in humility, I leave it to the student to explore the contradiction between the two statements.

FYI, you may have noticed that I have not said anything about Indonesia. Why you persist in bringing up that country is beyond me. Is there some personal connection? If so, please stop inserting your personal interests into the middle of my considered opinion. It just makes you look foolish. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Dave1185 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dave1185 (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Indonesian-Chinese Criminality Facts

Kindly leave content discussions in the talkpage of the article in question, instead of initiating debate in my talkpage. This is a community-focused site for a reason.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coloursfest

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Coloursfest, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.colours.co.uk/page_view.html?page_id=29. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Braehead International Arena

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Braehead International Arena, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.glasgowguide.co.uk/events-venues/braehead.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Coloursfest

A tag has been placed on Coloursfest requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dave1185 (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Braehead International Arena

A tag has been placed on Braehead International Arena requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dave1185 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright warning

Image Copyright problem

This is your final warning. If you continue to add content to Wikipedia in violation of copyrights you will be blocked from editing. Do not add copyrighted content from websites or other sources without first obtaining permission to do so. --Dave1185 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Guy Ornadel

A tag has been placed on Guy Ornadel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Dave1185 (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Braehead International Arena, you will be blocked from editing. Do not remove templates from copyrighted articles if there is a requirement for you to put up a hang on sign while you attempt to rewrite it Dave1185 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI on Talk:Singapore Airlines

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Talk:Singapore Airlines, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Please refrain from using weasel words. Also, read up on WP:NPOV & WP:SUBSTANTIATE Dave1185 (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you want proof? Read this proof and tell me if indeed you were framed by someone else. Seriously, I don't think that Huaiwei could have done anything bad to you to warrant such a behaviour from you, eh? Another thing is please stop using weasel words as it hurts the wikipedia community when you do so in articles or talk pages, read WP:SUBSTANTIATE. --Dave1185 (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI on Talk:Singapore

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Talk:Singapore, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Please refrain from using weasel words. Also, read up on WP:NPOV & WP:SUBSTANTIATE Dave1185 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Dave1185, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Dave1185 (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLOCKED

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Starstylers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Cultural differences in use of language, disputation of racism claims, sincere attempts at apology made- some evidence of Wikipedia:HUSH

Decline reason:

I don't see any sincere attempts at apology. Your talk page seems to indicate that you don't have the temperament to contribute in a collaborative environment. See also WP:GAB. –xeno (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment. I saw this Talk page showing up in Category:Requests for unblock, so I checked this user's contributions. The personal attack for which he was indef blocked does appear serious. A previous comment, deleted by the recipient, also lacks charm. I found this earlier edit which looks to me like defamation and a violation of WP:BLP. His denial here of making any personal attacks is certainly unconvincing. I never did figure out what led to his harsh remarks toward Dave1185. Regarding article editing, I looked at just one or two but didn't see any problems there. He did run into a copyright problem but I perceive he was trying to fix it. I would not favor lifting the indef block at this time due to the seriousness of the attacks, and the lack of any clear admission of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unblock and Third Party Arbitration

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

apology and understanding that you will be re-blocked indefinitely upon the next instance of any personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of harass from user:Dave1185- persistent and provocative haranguing regarding edit pages and private discussion not relevant nor of interest to said User- see talk. Provocative comments were indeed made by myself. I did attempt apology and distancing from user:Dave1185 see here (deleted by said user. I do acknowledge some comments may be taken as offensive, and I am indeed sorry they take offence. See further details below.

Evidence of attempts to resolve conflict: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Evidence of harassment and provocation by User_talk:Dave1185 is detailed above in talk.

I quote relevant text pursuant to personal attack blockages from [[5]] "...However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking'' for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project"'. Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". 'Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks..." With respect to the last Wikipedia policy statement I refer to admittedly heated and barbed comments: "

I further assert numerous editors I have had disagreements with in the past devoid of [[6]] and are evidentially devoid of [[7]] with a personal interest in furtherance of this block despite any past conflict with aforementioned past history. Such editors are namely:

user: merbabu User:Aldwinteo user:Dave1185 User:Malleus_Fatuorum

Their detailed collusionary and planned conspiratorial defamtory tactics are detailed below:

[8] [9] [10] [11]

and I quote "but that bugga [sic bugger] was fighting with his own ghost. Cheerio! --Dave1185"

The above clearly demonstrates collusive effort on those above to undermining the consensus approach of Wikipedia and effect an unfair action.

Additionally the Decline reason: "I don't see any sincere attempts at apology. Your talk page seems to indicate that you don't have the temperament to contribute in a collaborative environment" shows less than cursory examination and an obvious attempt at psychological evaluation=- stated beyond the compass of Wikipedia arbitors here"

I wish to resolve this whole sorry issue in a manner as non-emotive and neutral as possible. I am prepared to offer full unequivocal apologies. However, collusion and interference of previous parties indictae in may only be resolved Privately.

I formally request Third party closed-session arbitration. I have contacted User:FayssalF in attempt to resolve this between effected parties only.

Furthermore, the computer is a shared resource therefore:

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Starstylers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

removed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Personal attacks or harassment of other users: d

Blocking administrator: Toddst1 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I'm declining the autoblock review, it's irrelevant, standard collateral damage that is never too severe. As to your main request, I'm still a bit fuzzy on this all. You refer to evidence that you were being harassed by Dave1185, but I don't understand what that's supposed to be. All the edits you seem to have become upset about were warning templates he placed on this page; for instance, [12]. I agree that you tried to extend an olive branch, but it doesn't matter if you can be nice for a few minutes when you're much nastier later. Your apology is noted and is acceptable. You don't need "formal third-party arbitration" and in any case only truly sensitive matters merit any kind of closed review. I will contact the blocking admin; in the meantime: if you are unblocked, what will you take away from this incident, and how, if at all, will you adjust your approach in the future? Mango juice^talk 15:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by blocking admin:

A couple of thoughts here:

I came here after a note was left on my talk page, and I was thinking I might shorten the block.
I don't think it's ever appropriate to talk about anything in other editors' vaginas among other seriously nasty comments in that edit. That was the edit that led me to the block, viewed in the context of the editor implying that other editors are emotionally uncapable and childish.

I am unblocking based on this apology. However, let it be known that you will be re-blocked on the next incidence of any personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do see an offer to make an apology, I suppose now that the user is unblocked, they can fulfill that offer. –xeno (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to his unblock but I will respect the Admin's decision in so doing but I think that a lot of wikipedians are now monitoring him after his "parole". Also, please note of another editor's complaint against Starstylers which was left on my talk page and of all people, his own countrymen finding him a hassle for lack of civility to work with on articles... so don't say that some of us are in cahoot to boot him when it was in fact his own deed and personal approach to editing on wikipedia that had caused his own downfall in the first place. If indeed, you were not trying to chase your shadow, why would you want to fight your own ghost here in wikipedia? FOCUSED! IF you have problems with things in real life, please leave it behind when you edit here on wikipedia! This is not a place for you to vent your anger or frustration when the rest of us are trying to improve on articles. In short, be professional! That is all. --Dave1185 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, prior to his block and thinking that I wouldn't be able to comprehend his lingo, he left a note on another user's talk page calling me a "Bencong" and Singaporean as "Singke-pura", which are loosely translated as a transvestite and prostitute respectively in Javanese slang. Is there a need to do so in the first place? I ask you to review his block because coupled with his earlier remarks to me as contaminated Chinese food, Dicky, Ang Mo and Sarong party girl, he has somehow managed to offend almost all the wikipedians here by using such degrading terms on another user. Besides, he has yet to apologise to everyone of us who were offended by him in his personal attacks to us, which I will list here for all the Admins to review, as follows:

These were removed from my page, now listed for you to read: -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185&oldid=227786634#Personal_Attacks-_prove_it.3F;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185&oldid=228001051#RE-_comment_egarding_NIC;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185&oldid=228047987#What_have_I_done_now.3F - which he claimed he didn't touch the article but I gave him this proof and he zipped up almost immediately; &,
User talk:Dave1185#What now Ms Dave?.

I think everyone will know who this bugga really is after reading through them so have fun reading, Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm appalled by the quick turn-around decision despite the merits of the case, & would like to make some comments here as I'm being dragged unwittingly into this case now. I'm a member of the CVU & a RCP granted with rollback rights, helping to patrol Singapore-related articles for any attacks, esp from hardcore vandals, trolls or troublemakers, as a result of a rash of similar cases encountered in recent time (mentioned below). It's amusing that my previous message to the disruptor was conveniently left out, except for the diffs being highlighted above. Can I stop anyone from posting any notices on my talkpage? Has anyone read the ''Do not disturb' notice' I placed on my talkpage earlier? For the record, I'm known for being honestly blunt & for giving spot-on comments. As such, I'm fully aware that I've attracted quite a following, both online & offline folks, who either follow on my DYK/GA efforts, or watchlisted my talkpage for any occasional 'fireworks display'. As someone who was trained & exposed to criminalogy, penal law & justice, courtesy of my National Service, I make no bones nor hiding the fact of making personal educated predictions on observed cases or in the cases I initiated, or RfC to date. Kindly refer to the earlier open group discussions mentioned on the same talkpage itself, Case 1, Case 2, & its associated links, in order to see the proper context of my later comments in which I was wrongfully accused of earlier. See for yourself why fellow RCPs, including Dave1185 or others, posting notices or messages frequently on my talkpage for advice or requesting my participation at ANI, AfD, GA Project etc, even though I'm currently semi-retired. (I'm currently using a self-designed program to monitor & alert me when offline). As expected by his behavorial profile, even casual remarks & factual comments made by uninvolved editors like Malleus, Merbabu etc, were seen in conspiratorial tone too. Instead of stepping back for a honest self reflection on why he landed himself in this plight - sadly, he see 'spooks' at every shadowy corners now. To rub salt to open wounds, his victims, or even to casual observers, would concurred that he has not demonstrate any sincere concrete actions to apologise to all the parties concerned as a reconcilatory gesture to date. Instead, he switches roles conveniently in his defence to either portraying himself as a 'victim', or as a 'unknowing newbie' (since Sep 2007!), & even had the audacity to accuse almost everyone except himself - respected admins, senior editors, members of CVU & RCPs, and including his known victims, for conducting an unfair 'witch-hunt'. Do such acts demonstrate to us clearly that he has fully learnt his lessons now or his pettiness & double-speak again?

At the gist of the matter, I still stand by what I've said earlier & even now, as they're based on fair comments & factual evidence which are open for all to see & verify. As such, I'm not afraid that my previous comments or edit history are subjected to any further scrutiny by anyone else. Since I'm being regarded by the disruptor as the 'bad guy' now, I would like everyone to know that I'll act on this assigned 'role' with immediate effect. I'll set my program to actively monitor his edits, comments, any acts of sockpuppetry (removed -> PT TELKOM, Indonesia) , COI, or any mischief on a 24/7 basis now, in order to report him swiftly to any of the admins involved here in future. I strongly believe I'll not be alone in doing this task nor will I be surprised if anyone still continue to post me any notices like what Dave1185 or Malleus did, on my talkpage for my info or advice again. As I've mentioned earlier: "You may fool most of the people sometimes, but not all the people, all the time" -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to register a strong protest to this unblocking. This user was warned about uncivil attacks against me as long ago as October 2007 (it's in the archive of my talkpage). Just what do you have to do to get blocked these days? Davidelit (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Davidelit: G'day mate, dun worry, u are not forgotten here. I've seen that classic remarks boasting about his 'weighty' academic credentials just like a kid comparing whose marbles is bigger. His usual habit of making disaparaging remarks to u & other bona fide contributors without any sense of decency or remorse, are too many for anyone to mention earlier, at almost an arm-length long, should all his past indignant victims choose to dig up & display the 'dirty laundry' for all to see here, along with the previous highlighted examples too. After a careful examination of the automated alerts I received earlier, I was totally appalled & incredulous when I saw that these uncalled for remarks & attacks came from someone who claimed to be 'highly educated' from certain renown institutions, which led subsequently to my earlier reminder to him on July 24. For someone who once made a remark about presenting the 'inconvenient truths' to others "with a passion for truthful, objective articles" - ironically - for all to see later, he (or his inflated ego) couldn't faced or handled the 'inconvenient truth' about himself now, let alone shown any concrete action of any sincere apologies made to any of his past victims to date! Tragically on both ways (or mockery to some), regardless of the repeated warnings received and the long history of attacks by the disruptor known to the same admin who was quick to block him earlier, but was also equally quick to unblock him later, at slightly more than a day after, on the same grounds of 'one final chance' again & again, at the expense of his credibility in judgment. I would like to share a similar case in which I've encountered during my patrols not too long ago - a recalcitrant disruptor, who claimed to be a Macau-born Toronto-based brain surgeon. Compare & see in terms of behaviour, the grief & sufferings the community has to endured & his final outcome. That's the main reason why other hardworking patrollers & myself, continue to be vigilant & act against such disruptors (& this chronic dude too) for the common good of Wikipedia in the long run. As the Buddha often said in the Suttas: "As a human being, one is capable of thought & decision-making. As such, do think carefully before one speak or act, in order not to meet & suffer any unwholesome karma that one has to bear later in this lifetime or next" -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy

With reference to your comment on user talk:Davidelit; please be advised that there is NO privacy on wikipedia, and no editor, including you, I or Davidelit owns any pages, including our own talk pages. Please also be aware, in the light of your comment on his userpage, that accusations of wikistalking will need to be supported by the firmest of evidence. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant what I said & will do what I said too. Seeing how the judgement was made with much flip-flopping, I've lost faith and interest to engage, or be sidetracked into another unproductive debate now. Let time or due diligence tell the rest of the story for those who are shortsighted earlier. I'll let this matter rest for the time being - but let this be my final reminder to anyone here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is. See our privacy policy here for details. Now posting your IP was not a breach of that policy however as it wasn't revealed by checkuser but by yourself. Never the less I have removed it from view except by admins. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was still clear on the page where you added it above. I've removed ( not deleted it). Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for doing well since I unblocked you. Please keep up the good work. Toddst1 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istiqlal_Mosque&diff=230344952&oldid=230344747 - now that is weird (please do not reply in javanese) 0 that is not WP:MOS in a million years. I do hope you are ok. Satu Suro 05:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a start a paragraph like that in an article like that should never be there as - it is POV, and it would offend all sides for a start - in at least three corners of the boxing ring - and i think the invisible one lurking in the fourth corner would get you in the solar plexus bfore the other three knew what was going on - yo muncul's - youre heading for self destruct if you try those sort of paras - why not do locations or inert value free items like the unfilled regencies of sulawesi or something, and avoid cats like the plague Satu Suro 06:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets face it your agenda to date has some eds hoping you would go up in a puff of smoke (that you should be so lucky) - and doing an agenda number - and there are not articles to accommodate some of your issues - youre in no mans land - if you want to apply an idea into articles - you have chosen some which simply have NPOV sticklers foaming at the mouth - and I have a project management agenda of mine where i would rather be tagging for assessment rather than delve into stuff that some eds creep in - maybe you would be happier battling the malay centrists - with their perception that the whole of south east asia comes from malay sources - that would test whether you could hold your tongue in the face of instant blockng. Nah you delve into issues that we really dont have articles for. Maybe you should try finding one that fits. But beware youre on the precipice - dont push yourself unless you really want to. Satu Suro 06:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message received not yet digested - off again - will try to respond to re the indonesian project over a day or so or even later real life has stuck her pretty little face around the corner :) Satu Suro 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pancasila

As I stated in the article Talk, I have no problem with those terms being used, provided a clear definition is given of what the difference between them in the context is. But they are too vague and controversial to simply use them without explaining the meaning. --SJK (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was away at the time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cinema_of_Indonesia - If you want to stay unblocked I would strongly suggest you refrain from repeating all that somewhere else if you are still capable of that. One thing to be poetically various ...ist manner in your attitude and spray, another to stay free of the prying eyes wondering if youre going to slip up on your shirt tails or entrails or slander trails or what. Take it easy - if you can - when you sit in front of a computer keyboard, and gag your mouth, and put blinkers on - it might help :( - and ask for help :) Satu Suro 04:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could just stay away from the invective and try to find time to edit/contribute - with refs - I would be interested - but hey we all have our bad days (with or without hair) cheers Satu Suro 13:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is something about your writing tone that never gave a slightest clue you were female (sic) - as for your alun alun - it is looking good - and havent looked at military of indonesia yet - too distracted by off wikipedia things to dig through my resources for further refs for alun alun - it looks good though Satu Suro 04:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe ahem pardon the assumption there was a suggestion of menstruality so to speak - but hey the average Australian knows nothing about ketoprak or cross dressing in javanese popular culture - there are probably at least a thousand barry humprhies a la dame edna everages in java and they probably know nothing about him/her as much as he has probably never seen it himself being a melbourne boy :) Satu Suro 12:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proboscis Monkey

Actually my only edits were to disam British and Dutch on the page. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]