User talk:Malbear

Blank for now!!!

Correctly refactoring Talk pages

I noticed you've recently refactored this page as well as Talk:Education in Malaysia. It's considered bad manners on Wikipedia to remove discussion without explicitly linking to it. If you don't do so, some people misconstrue you as trying to hide something. For your own talk page, you don't need to archive the discussion (but a lot of people do so), but can just place an external link to the past revision on top (i.e. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Malbear&oldid=6094931 Archive 1]). However, for Talk pages, this is not advised, since if the page accumulates a long history, eventually older revisions become unretrievable (WP:VFD and WP:VP have unretrievable histories). Therefore, instead, archive the Talk through cutting and pasting the older discussions and saving them on a subpage, such as Talk:Education in Malaysia/Archive 1. Thanks. =) Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ILO

The syntax in your recent edit at International Labour Organization is just confused enough that I'm not absolutely sure I understand what you are saying. You wrote:

The ILO hosts an annual conference to which every government may send two delegates and one delegate representing the employers and workers organizations in the country.

I'm guessing you mean:

The ILO hosts an annual conference to which every government may send two government delegates, plus and one delegate representing the employers and one representing workers' organizations in the country.

But maybe you mean:

The ILO hosts an annual conference to which every government may send two delegates, one each representing the employers and the workers' organizations in the country.

Could you please edit to one or the other of these? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Having listed this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (which, by the way, you might be interested in taking a look at) I have been planning to expanded the International Labour Organization for quite a while, and seeing something happening here made me adress the issue. I have rewritten and expanded this substantually, so you can consider the question above as taken care of. However, you are of course much welcome to review what I've written and further expand on the subject. Alarm 19:46, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for responding so quickly to this. However, in handling comments on your talk page, there are a few things you might want to keep in mind for the future, in order not to cause confusion or even irritation.

First: Please, do not remove discussions from your talk page, at least not so rapidly. (Just as Johnleemk told you, it's generally considered bad manners.) As you can see, I've reverted the text you removed in order to answer here. Please do not remove it again at once.

Second: Please, do not just copy an entire discussion from your talk page and paste it to mine, at least not without indicating that you've done that. In doing so, you made it look like the first comment ("The syntax in your recent edit ...") was referring to my edit, while in fact it was referring to yours. This can be confusing to anyone else reading my talk page.

That said, I'd like to reply to the comment you added on my talk page about the ILO article. In case you did not notice this, we were two different persons leaving comments on your talk page. The first comment above are from Jmabel. He was the one asking you to clarify the meaning of the article. Later, I added the second comment (the last paragraph), saying I had already taken care of what Jmabel was asking you to do. Since you posted your explanation on my talk page and not on Jmabel's, I'm not sure if you understood that. (It's perfectly understandable, since the formatting was a bit confusing. I've cleared that up so it's easier to read.)

What I wanted to tell you with my first posting on your talk page was that I've already rewritten the ILO article and explained how the voting system works in more detail. And as you will notice if you read the new version of the article, what you're saying in your answer on my talk page is actually wrong. As is explained on the ILO web page about the conference each member state sends four delegates in total. Two of these represent the government, one represents the workers and one represents the employers. (This also means that the government delegates do not form a majority, as you seem to suggest. In fact, to pass a convention, it would theoretically be enough if all the worker and employer delegates voted for it, together with one single governement delegate. However, such a thing has never happened, as far as I know.) But you are nevertheless quite right in observing that a lot of member states that vote for a convention at the Conference still do not ratify it. I have tried to incorporate this into the new version of the article, using an example.

As I said, you are welcome to review what I've written in the article and further expand on the subject. Alarm 20:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Your spam

Please don't spam Talk pages with personal attacks on another User. If you have a problem with the VfD listings, discuss them on the appropriate VfD pages. RickK 06:03, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

By the way advice is usually given by telling a person what to do. Telling what not to do is just telling me what not to do. So?. So stop doing it. RickK 06:08, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

the question above is how stakeholding members who are a subset of the said community can be notified without use of the talk page - as I suggested, at the VfD pages. Anyone intersted in the articles will see the VfD listing on the pages and can link to the page. You are making an unacceptable personal attack all over Wikipedia. RickK 06:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Your request for advocacy

RE your request for advocacy regarding User:OneGuy and a number of articles regarding religious freedom in Islamic countries:

You've actually been involved in WP for a longer time period than myself, so I am sure you have become familiar with the Votes for Deletion process by now. VfD is an open process by which a user objecting to an article presents it to the community for confirmation. This is entirely within each user's powers to attempt. Out-and-out deletion can only be performed by admins, and that comes with numerous conditions. So, a VfD is an invitation for others to assess the appropriateness of an article for Wikipedia. More often than not, an article or its content survives the VfD process. It appears by looking at the public record that the articles you were concerned with were all maintained, only under different names.

This does not appear to have been a dispute between you and another user, only a difference of opinion. The methods used by OneGuy (that is, to list articles on VfD) was the appropriate process.

You of course were entitled IMO to stir up support, in proper channels, for the articles up for deletion and invite other users (who have a known interest in the articles or topic areas) to vote to save them. You should be sure that you do this only on User_Talk: pages (not on User: pages as you did with User:Johnleemk [1]), and it is strongly advised that you refrain from comments about other users that are inflammatory, exaggerated, or otherwise damaging. Personal attacks are strongly frowned upon in WP and they are often a major part of a mediation or arbitration dispute. This would include exaggerated and accusatory phrases such as "muslim revisionists".

I wish you well in your work on these potentially important articles. Feel free to contact me to discuss any further matters related to this issue.

- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 22:52, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC), Member's Advocate

Image:Malbear05GardenAirport.jpg

Howdy, would you please add a source/licence information onto the file? Thanks, Scriberius 16:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD nomination of AirAsia Flight 104

I have nominated AirAsia Flight 104, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirAsia Flight 104. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Russavia (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Malbear! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,097 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Fong Kui Lun - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Khoo Swee Chiow - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)