User talk:Starstylers

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts. (Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (see: block log · contributions · current autoblocks)

/archive 1Click here for new addition: [[1]]

Hello Starstylers, I suppose you will agree that culturally speaking, "Malay world" is "the world of the Malays" and, geographically speaking, it is those areas home to the Malays. A broad, inclusive definition of "Malay" is "people [who] speak the Malay language and adhere to Islam as their religion, they are regarded as Malay" (Sakai, Minako, “Reviving ‘Malayness’ - Searching for a new dominant ethnic identity”, Inside Indonesia 78: Apr-Jun 2004). There is no need to refer to Austronesians and prehistory. :-) As for "Nusantara", it is a Javanese phrase taken from a 16th century epic, the Pararaton, meaning "outer islands" (i. e. in relation to Java). It cannot be a substiture for "Malay world", Djoehana (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully completely disagree.

Hello again, I appreciate your being respectful although I am not personally involving myself in the debate. I prefer to quote people who are recognised as scientific authorities. :-)

The term "nusa antara" existed long before the Pararaton- it is merely that the West bases its' scant knowledge of Indonesia on the few documents it claims to have discovered- yet there are many thousands more manuscripts in the Pustakaan Kerataon, many of which predate this and Empu Tantular.

No problem. Kalau naskah tersebut bisa dibuktikan lebih tua dari Pararaton, dengan sendirinya, itu membuktikan bahwa istilah "Nusantara" lebih tua dari Pararaton. Ini bukan masalah "West's scant knowledge of Indonesia" : ilmu bukan "West" atau "Nusantara", ilmu ya ilmu. :-)

I quote from Kamus Pepak Basa Kawa (2008 Mulyono: Pustaka Widyatama): nusa: pulau= island. antara- outside. There is also nusa Jawa (islands external to Java). Nusa Madura (outside of Madura). Nusa hutan (beyond the forest). Nusa and Antara are derived directly from Dewanegari and Sanskrit- which of course predates the 13th C Pararaton. The concept of islands outside Java and external territories obviously a concept well known prior to the 14th C from the existent of trans national Majapahit, Singasari and Sriwijaya.

Itu yang saya maksudkan : "Nusantara" itu paham yang "Jawasentris". Lagipula, apa hubungannya dengan "dunia Melayu"?

I also completely disagree with you re Islam as a determinant of Malay or Malayness.

Itu orang Melayu sendiri yang menganggapnya begitu kok. Sama dengan orang Minang (saya seperempat Minang) : Minang itu Islam.

The Malay world is a racial world.

This is your definition. But then a first thing would be to define what you mean by "race". A second thing would be to define what "Malay" means. My understanding of "Malayness" from what Malays themselves say, is that it is based on the Malay language, Malay culture (tari Zapin, rebana drum etc.), the history of Malay kingdoms (Melaka, Johor, Riau, Siak, Martapura, Kutai, you name them).

Due to unfortunate Western emotional over sensitivities about unfortunate racial realities, I understand this is almost a total taboo (read Orwellian thoughtcrime) to use race as a characterizing feature.

It's not a taboo, it's a scientific fact : if there is such a thing as a biological race, it is the human race, that's it. There is no way you can biologically trace boundaries between humans because gene composition defer from one individual to the other, even within the same population.

But in context- in the Malay world as it were- it is not. We are emotionally mature enough to comfortable state the obvious that Austronesian= Malay.

You may have your own definition of Austronesian. But the term was coined in the 1930's by a German linguist, Otto Dempwolff, to designate a family of languages spanning from Madagascar to the west to Easter Island to the east, and from Hawaii (and now Taiwan) to the north to New Zealand to the south. So Austronesian is a linguistic, not racial, concept. Malay being just one Austronesian language amongst 1,268, it simply can't be equated with Austronesian. :-)

It was the ignorant English colonials who supposed we were "Malayalam Indians" and due to genetic British refusal to admit error- the erroneous term stayed.

I am ignorant of this ignorant English fact. What is the connection with the concept of an Austronesian language family?

AS you well know the Austronesian race has not changed despite the altering religions of Animism, Buddhism, Hinduism- yet the race was the same- the Malayness remained.

There is no such thing as an "Austronesian race", as explained above : it is a linguistic concept. If you're talking of biology, Austronesian-speaking people are quite diverse. See for example “Traces of Archaic Mitochondrial Lineages Persist in Austronesian-Speaking Formosan Populations”, PLoS Biology, 5 July 2005, “A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular Southeast Asia and Oceania”, American Journal of Human Genetics, no. 68, 2001 and “The Impact of the Austronesian Expansion: Evidence from mtDNA and Y Chromosome Diversity in the Admiralty Islands of Melanesia”, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 25, Number 7, 31 March 2008.

What of the many Catholic and Protestant indigenous Indonesians: they are not 'Malay'?

If they are Malay, they are Malay. If they are Javanese, they are Javanese. If they are Manado, they are Manado. :-)

I quote: "Malay’ was often used to refer to the people of Riau, where the Malay language is believed to have originated. Yet ‘Malayness’ is a broad and inclusive ethnic category shared by numerous groups across Malaysia, Singapore, Borneo and Sumatra as well as Eastern Indonesia. For the New Order’s museum curators, the problem was that Malays could not be identified with one particular place in the archipelago." Where are her sources?

You don’t need specific sources to know that the Malay language is spoken in the above areas. :-)

Taman Mini is not even a museum- merely a theme park to attempt to make learning fun.

OK, but that’s not the point. Di Indonesia, yang menganggap dirinya Melayu itu orang Deli, orang Riau, orang Jambi, orang Banjar, orang Kutai. Tanya mereka lah!

Rather poor even for an Australian academic- would you not agree?

No, I found the article interesting because it tells of a phenomenon in Indonesia that touches not only Malays but just any suku i. e. the claim for the recognition of the identity of many groups. Another manifestation of this phenomenon is the creation of new provinces and ‘’kabupaten’’ based on ethnic identity.

Sorry I somehow was logged out. À la prochaine mon amiStarstylers (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya, sampai pembicaraan ini diteruskan. Salam hangat, Djoehana (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Hamas. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. WackoJackO 14:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if some of the material from Engdahl came from his book or one of the two articles which are cited. It would also be useful if you could clarify this for other editors and readers by adding a ref tag.

Thanks,--76.214.104.121 (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article 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; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with 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 organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. It has been noted on several occasions that your edit to this aforementioned article are deemed to be of unconstructive and unrelated nature despite the spat you put us both through last year, your incriminating evidence is still lodged on my discussion page, mind you. So, my suggestion is that you stay off the page of Singapore to avoid me tagging you a third time with a hidden agenda issue (COI) which is very apparent for all others to see here on wikipedia, and which I will report you to the admin if you continue to behave in such a sneaky conniving way. Dave1185 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, use of the HTML break tags, and other HTML tags, should be avoided when there is a wiki equivalent (see here. Since the break tag simply creates a new paragraph, instead of using a break tag just hit the return key. Also, be careful that the sources you cite actually say what you claim they do. This comment mainly relates to the grosgrain article, where you took books that mentioned grosgrain in passing and took that to mean all sorts of things-you had

Grosgrain (pronounced /ˈɡroʊɡreɪn/) or also gros-grain, and rarely gros grain (meaning coarse in French perhaps relating to the basic simplicity of the taffeta weave) is an article of fabric, most commonly a ribbon of silk, satin or nylon-like man-made material fabric woven via taffeta weave method which resulting in either an entirely smooth fabric with low pearl-like lustre, or of distinct transverse ribs.

and cited it from a source that said:

While the taffeta weave produces either an entirely smooth fabric, or one with a distinct transverse rib as in gros-grain, the twill weave forms diagonal lines on the cloth, running either from left to right or from right to left.

The only thing this source is saying about grosgrain is that it has a distinct transverse rib, nothing more. It doesn't say grosgrain may be smooth, nor that it comes from the French, nor anything about ribbon, satin or nylon. There was another, similar, case in the grosgrain article, and I can't check the sources you used for the selvage article, so I can't see if there are more. Please be careful not to misrepresent the source.

Also, you want to make sure that you cite the source after the period or comma, if there is one (see here for examples). It makes everything look nicer. And if you are citing the same source more than once, you can name it so it only appears in the list of sources once.

Don't take this as a completely negative commentary-I'm trying to help you become a better editor, and I can sometimes be rather brusque. Loggie (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grosgrain, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Bodging page is looking really good now. Blackash (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To properly nominate a page for deletion, please follow these steps. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Starstylers, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Papua Conflict - a page you tagged - because: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline, design, and history all have tons of uncited info that could be challenged and removed. ^TheWeak_Willed 11:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was. I am simply helping to make wikipedia a better place. If you don't like what I do, revert my edits. I don't need to be bothered right now by something that little. ^TheWeak_Willed 11:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give me an article and I'll check it out. While wikipedia isn't censored, I'm sure some of those articles aren't notable. ^TheWeak_Willed 11:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your new article Etienne Aigner. Nicely constructed article. But I'm puzzled by all those interwiki links, most of them going nowhere… Are you going to write all the Etienne Aigner articles on the other language wikipedias, or should we trim down the iw links? Cheers -- Hebrides (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are unacceptable. I note your talk page warnings from admins. No single wikipedia editor is that valuable to wikipedia that they can be allowed to continue in such a manner. You would be well-advised to take a lot more care. --Merbabu (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - re Kopassus, you would also be well-advised to re-read the POV policies and be careful not to include it. I have also seen people banned for consistently getting it wrong. --Merbabu (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Starstylers. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a caution about extensive editing of a controversial article (Zheng He) without discussion in the TalkPage. Not nice. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean by "extensive editing," which should be accompanied by a discussion and effort to reach consensus in the TalkPage. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(cur) (prev) 00:07, August 31, 2009 Starstylers (talk | contribs) (59,967 bytes) (→Diputation of Claimed Ship Dimensions) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 23:54, August 30, 2009 Starstylers (talk | contribs) (59,466 bytes) (→Modern study of ship dimensions) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 23:34, August 30, 2009 Starstylers (talk | contribs) (57,448 bytes) (→Menzies controversy) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 23:33, August 30, 2009 Starstylers (talk | contribs) (57,451 bytes) (→Menzies controversy) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 23:30, August 30, 2009 Starstylers (talk | contribs) (56,963 bytes) (→Zheng He and Islam in Southeast Asia) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 23:28, August 30, 2009 Starstylers (talk | contribs) (56,767 bytes) (→Zheng He and Islam in Southeast Asia: edit of disputation section) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 23:11, August 30, 2009 Starstylers (talk | contribs) (53,996 bytes) (→Zheng He and Islam in Southeast Asia: edit of disputation section) (undo)

Please stop putting the <br> formatting into articles. It's not necessary and renders the page poorly. If you want a new paragraph, hit return twice (novel I know). --Merbabu (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testing

With reference to the Zheng He article, could you please familiarise yourself with WP:SYN. With reference to a lot of your editing (for example at Kebaya), continual misrepresenting of sources that you present to justify your edits is grounds for permanent banning from wikipedia - I have seen it done plenty of times. From my extensive wikipedia experience, I have come to see that these things will be sorted out one way or another, sooner or later, and with or without your cooperation - just a heads up for you. As for your comments directed to myself and User:Davidelit at Talk:Japanese occupation of Indonesia, please know that you won't be able to influence or sway me with ultimatums or demands (and please try to stay on-topic on talk pages). --Merbabu (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starstylers, over recent days your talk page discussions are contain a number personal attacks(I have removed some) these do not make for good colaborative works please direct your comments on talk pages to the subject itself and not other users. Also I recommend you aquaint yourself with article ownership and WP:NPOV, not following these policies will see your account blocked. Gnangarra 03:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also please ensure you sign all talk page comments with ~~~~ so that others know who made the comment and when thanks, Gnangarra 03:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Starstylers. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Davidelit (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Reasoning;

• This user was under a prior warning about personal attacks, Ownership of articles at the time the WP:AGF was give even in the absence of an actual appology for the comments. in the last month this user has been reported to WP:WQA here but closed as stale even though there the issues were onging, and have continued. Tis is unacceptable and makes editing impossible for other editors.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Gnangarra 06:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]