User talk:Ujongbakuto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Ujongbakuto, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 22:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mizuho Group[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mizuho Group 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 an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. West Eddy (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎[edit]

Hello. Please stop removing from the article the lists from the CIA and UPenn, as they are both very useful and widely used, and both include countries not available in the World Bank or IMF lists. Pristino (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I've reverted the CIA update because the CIA updated its list of GDP per capita by simply taking the IMF estimates for 20121, which are based on projections of economic growth released in October 2012. Many of those estimates are now wrong. I suggest waiting until April, when both the IMF and the World Bank will release more solid estimates for 2012 based on actual national accounts data. Cheers. Pristino (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

1 Compare the new CIA data for 2012 with the IMF's 2012 projections released in October 2012: they're both exactly the same. The only difference is that the CIA is rounding the data to the nearest hundred.

Oh, I see. Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Singapore. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Singapore does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, noted. :-)--Ujongbakuto (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Misao Okawa![edit]

Dear Ujongbakuto, please have a look at her talk page. MattSucci (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've replied. :-) - Ujongbakuto (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
For your work on Jiroemon Kimura's 116th birthday! Bearian (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, wow! Arigato Gozaimasu! ^_^ - Ujongbakuto (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wp Japan[edit]

You may wish to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan. It's free! Bearian (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


Stop reverting sourced info edits without checking anything with posts like "seems like vandalism". Do you understand?--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. So, in your case, I'll state clearly that I actually checked the source, and clearly accuse you of vandalism. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
There are 2 seperate edits. 1 is sourced info. the other is out of date tag template. If you think both edits are wrong and reverted it, you should prove it. Otherwise you are vandal.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, here you go: Ujongbakuto (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
It's good that you are learning not to revert the update tag for an out of date table. Now it's time to learn that facts should be found from direct and not some archieve.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? It's you who are in the wrong, and I've reported you to an admin. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
It's good that you learned not to revert the update tag for an out of data table. Now it's time for you to learn that sourced info on wikipedia should not be reverted. Please call an admin to report your own vandalism.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I checked that you didn't notice any administrator about this issue. Maybe it's time for you to learn that "lying" is a bad thing.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's time you learn about e-mailing. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I should have been notified about this complaint. You may not e-mail an administrator and use it as a threat to remove sourced information.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Please show me the rules for that, and I won't do it again. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Using bold letters in a wikipedia discussion is forbidden.--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Please show me the rules for that, and I won't do it again. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, I checked database again. Your numbers were right. so soooory for that. :)--Hakan Erbaslar (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Apologies accepted, and hopefully, this doesn't happen again; we were both in danger of being blocked. :) - Ujongbakuto (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


Hello, May I please draw to your attention that we do not just delete a dead link. If you have not found a replacement source, please put a [dead link] template, but leave the link in place until somebody can deal with it. In this particular case, I easily found a replacement source for the information. Thanks -- Alarics (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, noted. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Repetitive links in Template:Major stock exchanges[edit]

I am wondering about the need of deleting repetitive links in Template:Major stock exchanges. See Template talk:Major stock exchanges. --Mimosinnet (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

add new link[edit]

add new link ,not vandal, what wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

- Ujongbakuto (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Singapore shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, noted. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Please use the article's Talk Page to discuss your concerns with the extensive copy edit recently done on the Singapore page rather than simply reverting. Jaytwist (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think I'd rather not. I also won't revert your latest edits again. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Second Coming, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

very sorry, I honestly didn't notice that the link was in a quote again; I honestly had no intention to repeat the same mistake with a different link. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

need help to create a wiki article on gold leasing[edit]

Ujongbakuto could you please create this wiki article. -- (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I'm qualified. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding List of Investment Banks[edit]

Ujongbakuto, regarding my addition of CSG Partners to the Other notable advisory and capital markets firms along with a reference from Bloomberg Business, why was that deleted? Did you have a reason for doing so or was it just a whim? Did you need more references? If a business does not have an entry on Wikipedia, does that mean it does not exist or it is not formidable, regardless of how significant it may be? If you removed it because the entry has no accompanying article, then should the list page actually be retitled Other notable advisory and capital markets firms with Wikipedia articles? Please let me know...Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"why was that deleted?"
  1. "Did you have a reason for doing so?" Yes.
  2. "was it just a whim?" No.
  3. "Did you need more references?" No.
  4. "If a business does not have an entry on Wikipedia, does that mean it does not exist?" It can still exist without a Wikipedia entry.
  5. "it is not formidable, regardless of how significant it may be?" Unless I'm mistaken, if a business is truly "formidable" enough, it should be "significant" enough.
  6. "If you removed it because the entry has no accompanying article, then should the list page actually be retitled "Other notable advisory and capital markets firms with Wikipedia articles"?" Firstly, there used to be an article for CSG Partners; but it was deleted and you can read the reasons on that deleted page after clicking the link. Secondly, although it's true that I undid your edit "because the entry has no accompanying article", I was just following the policy ("Remove entry for an article that has been deleted.") of Malcolmxl5, who is a Wikipedia:Administrator. Thirdly, another non-admin user, Arjayay, had done a similar removal of entries ("Rm non- notable names - No article = No inclusion") about two months ago, so I'm not the first user to do such a thing. Ujongbakuto (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Private Gold Holdings[edit]

Gold_reserve#Privately_Held_Gold Hope I did well! --Ju52 (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did well, but I made some improvements and corrections. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi Ujongbakuto I'm on lunch break, so just a quick comment:

  • the lead has to be very concise and interesting, so 99% of the info in the body don't need to be here,
  • "Singapore Island", "P Ujong" -- even locals don't use these terms, so..I feel its irrelevant
  • an islet is by definition "a substantially smaller island"
  • cities are all urbanised areas, so for a large city like sg, it’s a given

Also, since you're here daily, I was wondering why all the references has been removed in the lead? I know it looks better and I would prefer it too, but if we are no longer around, wouldn't be too easy for detractors to removed items for having "no sources" ? Cheers Wrigleygum (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. "I was wondering why all the references has been removed in the lead?" Apparently, there's no need for them in the lead. I also wasn't aware of that rule until that edit by someone else.
  2. "99% of the info in the body don't need to be here" 99%??? Are you serious? That would reduce the entire lead section (six paragraphs) to one paragraph and with only one sentence that is one line long!
  3. "Singapore Island, P Ujong -- even locals don't use these terms, so..I feel its irrelevant" If the lead paragraph for United Kingdom mentions the UK's main island, i.e. Great Britain, I think Pulau Ujong (Singapore Island) also deserves to be mentioned as the main island of Singapore in its lead paragraph.
  4. "an islet is by definition a substantially smaller island" Not according to Oxford's definition of "islet", which is "small island"; and Singapore's main island is certainly a "small island", compared to Great Britain, right? But Kusu Island is certainly a "significantly smaller" islet.
  5. "cities are all urbanised areas, so for a large city like sg, it’s a given" No city is 100% urbanised. Some cities are more/less urbanised than others, and only a few can be regarded as "highly" urbanised, such as Singapore.

Ujongbakuto (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Meant to write 90%..but was in a hurry:) The point is, there's info overload on the net and all of us just want to read the most interesting bits quicky, not details, else we skip paragraphs or leave altogether. For example, the demographics in para 4 + 5 seems verbose, I would condense parts of it to "one third of Singapore's resident population are foreign nationals" - it need not be exact. Readers may recall later we have "a lot" of foreigners, maybe even the amount "one third", but not details like PRs, non-PRs, etc.
As I say, I like the idea of an uncluttered lead, but checking around 2 dozen country articles - not a single one is clean of citations, maybe you can find some:). If it's in the article body, extra effort is needed to find them. Wrigleygum (talk)
90% would still reduce the lead section to only one paragraph with only four or five lines. If London and Hong Kong can have at least four paragraphs, Singapore should also have the same, right?
As for references in the lead section, I don't mind having them, but it was someone else who removed them a few months ago, and not even an admin has restored them, so I would just leave it to someone else, preferably an admin, to restore them. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, it was just a guestimate. How did you derive that? I just pasted the content into my editor - word count for the body (sans all refs, infobox, n the large climate table) is abt 5200. The lead has 620 words, so ratio for the lead is abt 12%. Anyway, brevity is the key, more than length concerns. London and New York looks brief, but also cramped with too many citations. I have more interesting materials to highlight and will do some over the weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrigleygum (talkcontribs) 06:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I just realized you meant that only 10% of the content in the non-lead sections should be included in the lead section. Yesterday, I thought you meant 90% of the lead section (620 words, according to you) should be removed, resulting in only one paragraph of 62 words! haha - Ujongbakuto (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi again, 62 words in one para would be really hard:)
I've been looking at the body recently and there are a lot of facts to update.. and even more in sub-articles. Would you have time or inclination to work on it together?
Because we discussed this previously above, I wanted to let you know that I searched again last half-hour and still unable to find an official ref to the mainland being called "Singapore island", much less that its 'widely known as'. So will be removing that and also expanding P.Ujong in etymology, possibly with a bit more history. Best..Wrigleygum (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
sorry, I'll be too busy for the foreseeable future. Ujongbakuto (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, know its a lot of time involved, even for one article. best, Wrigleygum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-free images as icons[edit]

Please do not add non-free images as icons, as you did here with File:International Monetary Fund logo.svg and File:BIS-logo.PNG. The use of non-free images in this manner is not supported by our non-free content policy. If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, noted. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For updating IMF/World Bank data and for keeping the GDP pages vandalism free. Much appreciated. It's generally thankless work, so here's some thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
*blushes profusely* - Ujongbakuto (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

ok, fixed. Ujongbakuto (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary[edit]

Hello. I would consider the edit summary to this edit somewhat misleading. By "minor cleanup" we generally mean organising existing content, fixing spelling and grammar errors, and formatting references. Adding content is not "cleanup".

In addition I don't think the conditions you listed are considered "strokes" as such. Subdural and extradural haemorrhages can lead to focal weakness, but they are not regarded as haemorrhagic strokes but as distinct entities. I have therefore reverted your edit but please feel free to challenge me on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 08:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Subarachnoid haemorrhage seems to be regarded as a form of haemorrhagic stroke. JFW | T@lk 08:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made a change; hope that's better. - Ujongbakuto (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ujongbakuto. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your work on List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Nice job! — foxj 13:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
*blushes profusely* - Ujongbakuto (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)