Note: All messages left in this talk page will be replied in this page. This is to prevent fragmentation of discussions, for the purpose of future references. Thanks.
It was created because the rapidKL website was so hideous and was hard to read. Nowadays, its better but still not user friendly. I always keep in mind that one day someone will question the existence of these bus routes, and it may not be appropriate accordng to Wikipedia's many policies. However, I insist that we have it, and maybe making it a lil more simpler, that is, having the table, but less "Via" destinations. I found that those destinations have increased significantly over the recent days.
If the conditions warrant the route table to be removed, then do it. As long as there is an external link to the bus schedule from rapidKL website. --Zack200713:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good Job with all the additions and motifications on the transportation pages in Malaysia. Without you, it will be left stagnant and stubbed. I am pretty busy nowadays so if I have the hands, I will help you and others. Thank you so much k. You deserve a tap on the back. :D --07:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack2007 (talk • contribs)
I don't really need praise. I just want to encourage people to get off their lazy butts and start contributing shit. I'm not expected to keep this up forever because I have a life too. But thanks anyway. I have to admit it, with last week's Barnstar and now this, I'm flattered. It's "pat", not "tap", btw. :D - Two hundred percent10:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I notice that, on September 9, you created a substantial number of cross-namespace redirects to "Education in X" categories. I initially encountered only one such redirect and was planning on nominating it for deletion (at WP:RFD), but decided to discuss the issue with you directly after noticing just how many redirects were involved (about 50). There are two reasons I think such redirects should be deleted.
Firstly, cross-namespace redirects are generally discouraged and frequently deleted (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Precedents). Secondly, and more importantly, the existence of these redirects discourages article creation. Take, for instance, the template at the bottom of Education in Africa#External links. A redlink is essentially an invitation to create an article, whereas people have to click a bluelink in order to realise that it's a redirect. This is especially true of links to articles on lists of topics by country. These lists are used by many for article development (i.e. to see what articles still need to be created) and a bluelink that is merely a redirect to a category gives the illusion that an article actually exists, thereby decreasing the likelihood that someone will see the need for and try to create the article.
Thank you for your concern, Black Falcon. The prime motivator for creating these redirects was preparations to replace {{Education by country}} with continental templates for coverage of all countries rather than a selected fraction (I left a comment at Template talk:Education by country earlier voicing my opinion on using cross-namespace redirects). Given virtually all red "Education in..." links have not been attended to for a long time (and probably won't for quite some time due to systemic bias), a redirect to an existing category listing related topics could serve as a temporary linkage to at least something rather than nothing. I also functioned under the perception that those who intend to replace any redirects in the future with articles would be aware of how redirects work.
Working under the idea that perception is important, however, I can see where you are going with your explanation. I was planning to finish off with remaining continents, but with consensus ruling against this sort of redirects (one of reasonings is to be friendly towards mirror), there are solid grounds for me to stop and have existing redirects deleted. You may list all of them for deletion whenever you see fit. Thanks again for bringing this up. - Two hundred percent02:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for having not answered for so long, but I have absolutely no idea how I can help. This speech that you speak of is sourced from a Singaporean organisation, which country it is based in also acknowledges Malay as a national language. Lee Hsien Loong is also Singaporean, so the entire issue falls under Singapore's jurisdiction. I have no knowledge of Singapore's copyright policy since I deal more specifically to Malaysia-related articles, but you should have better luck asking anyone affliated with Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board. Sorry again for my belatedness. - Two hundred percent (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Working Man's barnstar
The Working Man's Barnstar
I, Acs4b, hereby award you the Working Man's barnstar for all your diligence and hard work by improving Wikipedia's poor coverage on Malaysia-related articles. Congratulations! Keep up the good work and please don't stop contributing to Wikipedia! Acs4bTCU11:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KTM/Malaysian photos
Hi there
I'm just back from a holiday in your fine country, and I've got a few photographs to share (pd-self). I've uploaded a few (check my contribs at commons), but I'm not sure how to name the others.
Would you like me to email them to you? You can upload them and find a way to fit them into articles, categories, etc. You can manipulate them anyway you like, as long as the images remain public domain. Looking forward to your reply, cheers. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. Your suggestion is a viable, although it's equally effective if the original images could be uploaded to Commons (renaming not necessary), licensed under PD, and allowed to be plucked by me for improvements. Will need to do a bit of deletion later when I replace the old images with edited ones, but it should work out well.
Was a nice holiday, heh. :) I'm perfectly happy with uploading at commons, as I have done already. The main problem is that I don't know how to properly name some of these photos because I only have a vague idea of where they were taken. Perhaps I can just give them very generic names "KL 1.jpg" and you can tag them for renaming later. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of bogged down with work at the moment. But I can give a few pointers.
The first four shots are of the recently completed Tanjung City Marina off Weld Quay, Georgetown, including the historic Church Street (Ghaut) Pier (linked directly to shore).[1] It's apparent the end of the Church Street Pier facing the sea was either demolished in place of new structures or augmented into the additions.
The fifth shot is presumably remnants of the Tan Jetty, Lee Jetty, or both, southwest from Chew Jetty and Lim Jetty.[2] Both jetties were apparently demolished for some coastal development, perhaps involving land reclamation. There was a local newspaper report on their demolition and the uncertain fate of the remaining jetties a year back.
Based on these assessments, the present names are fine by me. It's the descriptions that require expansion.
Visually, the first two and the last two shots are fine, although the first shot is somewhat awkward with a single pillar in the foreground partially blocking the view of the marina. There are no severe tilting, which can't be said with the third shot (Will work on that later. It's a bit late now). The last four are perfect for cropping from the top and bottom to trim out the sea and sky, good as panoramic versions of the original (which can be retained alongside the panoramic versions).
Hello, based on the total votes collected in December, our collaboration of the month will be ♦ Mahathir bin Mohamad ♦. Please feel free to make improvements on the article, or comment or give ideas on ways to further improve the quality of the article. Thanks. kawaputratorque18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed it. There was a cut-and-paste move that got deleted after the original article got converted to a redirect and moved to a third location... sheesh. The talk page may be lost forever though, as it was forked off in many directions. east.718at 14:00, January 3, 2008
Hello, I would like to ask you for help. We are having problems determining whether Malaysia recognised Kosovo as independent state. Here is a statement from Malay Ministry of foreign affairs and I would like to ask you to clarify to us if this is formal recognition, or something other from that. Please answer [[3]]. Thanks in advance, 92.37.123.179 (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You placed a tag on Campro engine stating that there was suspected copyright violation. Would you please clarify which part of the article you suspect? I randomly tried several sections of text and they didn't match any text in the article you linked to. Thanks. PhilosopherLet us reason together.22:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 9 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Makkal Osai, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I accidentally keyed "enter" in this latest edit before finishing my edit summary[4]. I was meaning to say that "The purported "Malay name" is not any more historical than "Pedra Branca". Pedra Branca is used in Malay in Singapore, and should be the only Malay name to appear in the article. Alternative names used by foreign countries are about as relevant as inserting a German name for Hainan Island in the Hainan Island article.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given Pedra Branca was part of a long running dispute between Malaysia and Singapore, the names of the lighthouse used by Malaysians are as relevant as the those by the Singaporeans to at least deserve a mention. By cutting out the names altogether implies bias in favour of Singapore. However, I'm ready to reword it for a more compromising tone to imply the use of the Malaysian names in a historical context if need be. I have to admit I was a bit brash myself when going ahead with a near-complete revert of that edit. - Two hundred percent (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the lighthouse is indeed operated by Singapore for over a century, a point the Malaysians has never disputed despite laying claim to the island, it is only natural that the article's naming bias will be in favour of Singapore, whether before or after the ICJ ruling, and even if the ruling results went the other way (provided, of course, that Singapore remains the lighthouse's operator). If it can be established that the lighthouse name used by Malaysia is as well established as that of "Horsburgh Lighthouse" for the over 100 years it was in operation, as opposed to its use in recent times only as a result of the dispute, then the later is not worth mentioning. In fact, I sense it appeared in the article prior to the ICJ verdict only because an alternative name of "Pedra Branca Lighthouse" was mentioned (which itself isnt exactly cited or well-known either).--Huaiwei (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WRT your edit to the 2008 baby milk scandal#Malaysia section, it seems that our readings of the source are not the same... what is your take? My interpretation is that it is one and the same company (and not a namesake), but S'pore sources the plastic-bottled milk from China, whilst Malaysia manufacturers all DL branded products in its own Malaysian factory without dairy sourced from China. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the newspaper articles, the company elaborated little about whether it was affiliated with the Chinese company or not, but clearly claimed its plants in Malaysia wasn't responsible for manufacturing the tainted product in question. The M'sian Dutch Lady was also quoted in the article as stating its milk packaged in boxes are safe, and its products are not sourced from China (it claimed its milk are manufactured in M'sia (with no raw materials from China) or imported from New Zealand, Australia, and the Netherlands).
I also stand corrected on the fact that both companies manufacture milk in plastic bottles. A visit to its official site didn't just confirmed it, but also indicated the tainted milk was in fact manufactured under the same brand, but did not elaborate which affiliate was responsible for manufacturing the tainted milk (The milk bottles bear the same logo, but feature completely different designs). This answers why the M'sian Dutch Lady's managing director unusually claimed the tainted Chinese "Dutch Lady" milk was an "isolated case". Whether or not M'sia's bottled Dutch Lady milk is tainted is very much unknown, but the Chinese Dutch Lady milk is stated not to be sold in M'sia. - Two hundred percent (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As references, the portions of The Star's articles on Dutch Lady Malaysia's stand are provided, emphasis in italic:
Dutch Lady Malaysia managing director Hans Laarakker said no Dutch Lady Malaysia products had raw materials sourced from China.
“Milk products sold in Malaysia are manufactured in our factories in Petaling Jaya, or imported fully-packed from countries like the Netherlands and New Zealand,” said Laarakker.
Dutch Lady Malaysia manufactures and distributes milk products ranging from infant formula, growing up milk powder, UHT (ultra high temperature), sterilised and pasteurised milk as well as yoghurt products.
As for the withdrawal of Dutch Lady’s strawberry-flavoured milk in Singapore, Laarakker said it was an isolated case where the milk, packed in plastic bottles, was tested and found to contain melamine.
He added the particular strawberry-flavoured milk in plastic bottle was the only product from China.
Laarakker, however, reassured the public that strawberry flavoured milk packed in boxes were safe to drink.
Dutch Lady Milk Industries Berhad's managing director Hans Laarakker said within Dutch Lady Malaysia, there are no Dutch Lady products or dairy raw materials sourced from China.
Dutch Lady Malaysia manufactures and distributes milk products ranging from infant formula, growing up milk powder, UHT (ultra high temperature) milk, sterilised milk, pasteurised milk to yoghurt products.
Laarakker stressed that the company’s milk powder was mainly sourced from the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand.
“Whatever is being distributed within Malaysia is manufactured within our factories in Petaling Jaya itself or mainly imported fully-packed from countries like the Netherlands and New Zealand.
“On this score, my message to all Malaysians is a strong assurance that Dutch Lady Malaysia’s products are safe and fit to consume,” he said Tuesday at a press conference here.
Laarakker also urged consumers to start reading labels on every food item for self-assurance and to check where the products originated from.
About the withdrawal of Dutch Lady’s strawberry flavoured milk in Singapore, Laarakker said it was an isolated case, where the strawberry flavoured sterillised milk in plastic bottle was tested and found to contain melamine, as it was produced in China.
He explained that the particular flavoured milk packed in plastic bottle was the only product from China and sold in Singapore for the past 20 years without a problem.
He however reassured that strawberry flavoured milk in boxes were safe to drink and 95% of Dutch Lady products in Singapore came from Malaysia.
“As a precaution, all sterilised products from this factory in China have since been withdrawn from the Singapore market.
“For similar reasons, all sterilised milk in plastic bottles from the same factory in China has also been withdrawn from the Hong Kong market even though their testing did not reveal any contamination,” he said.
Laarakker also said he was aware of all the e-mail and short message service (SMS) circulating among the public about contaminated milk, including Dutch Lady brand of sterilised milk, and he believed the messages started from Singapore.
He urged consumers to visit www.dutchlady.com.my or call 1-800-88-1191 for further clarification.
I'd noticed that some of the templates I've customized for subdivisions of Malaysia/states of Malaysia have been TfD-ed by the people here in Wiki. Would like to thank you for taking up the time to engage in discussion with them. I'm sorry have been very busy with work and some personal issues to contribute much to the malaysian wiki efforts. BTW I'd be happy to provide any help if possible just drop a message on my page and I'll see what I can do.
Done. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 03:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
(not mine)
