User talk:Starstylers/archive 1

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]

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:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. 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

• Hi, you want proof? Read this
  WP:SUBSTANTIATE. --Dave1185 (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. 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

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]

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

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

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

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 • autoblocks • 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? Mangojuice^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. –
  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,
  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:

1. User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 12#Elderly Music;
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DOR_%28HK%29&diff=228308720&oldid=227783465;
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DOR_%28HK%29&diff=next&oldid=228308720;
4. User talk:Joseph Solis in Australia#Why do you edit Chinese in Indonesia?
   ;
5. User talk:Joseph Solis in Australia#History
   ;
6. User talk:Huaiwei#Indonesian-Chinese Criminality Facts;
7. User talk:Huaiwei#Debate?; &,

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

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185&oldid=227786634#Personal_Attacks-_prove_it.3F;
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185&oldid=228001051#RE-_comment_egarding_NIC;
3. 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; &,
4. 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

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

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

]

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

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

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]

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 :)

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