User talk:Towaru

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello towaru! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Towaru 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Attribution • Neutral point of view • Notability Conflict of interest • Autobiography Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Citing sources • Footnotes Image use policy • Copyrights • Fair use External links • Spam • Vandalism Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry What Wikipedia is not • Deletion policy The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Hi Towaru, I wanted to apologize for accusing you of sockpuppetry yesterday. Hindsight's 20/20, and I realized it would geographically be pretty hard for a person in Malaysia to be a sockpuppet of a Pakistani. I was quite the angry mastadon yesterday, and I apologize. VirtualEye has a history of using sockpuppets (User:Jesus Fan and User:Checkmeout101), and has been repeatedly blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Please realize that the comments I made yesterday were not directed towards you, but rather towards who I believed at the time to be a sockpuppet. Anyways, I hope you enjoy the rest of your time at Wikipedia. --Hojimachong^talk 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No sorry needed by you, it was I who overreacted. --Hojimachong^talk 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: pro or con?

Political, religious and racial views shouldn't be relevant when editing (I certainly don't!). But as I have stated, many of them are rather reactionary when touching racial, religious and political issues in Malaysia. As much as the country has its problems, there is no justification to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Malaysia Today, blogs or YouTube, perhaps, but not Wikipedia. I'm not fond of the way both the pros and antis duke it out here like that. - Two hundred percent 01:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You input

Talk:Muhammad/images#Original_Compromise_found is required at there. Please help us in reaching this compromise. Wassalam. -- ALM 12:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Bumis

hi towaru. can u tell me where did u get the definition of "bumiputra"? is it really contained in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia (Article 160) ? Is that the exact text written in the constitution? I think u need to make it more clear where the definition came from. Because if it really came from Art 160 FC, then why mention again "as stated in Article 160 (2) of the Federal..." in the so called text? Unless u got the definition from somewhere else. BTW, i tried looking for a legal definition of bumiputra over the internet but i cannot find any! quite surprising. kawaputra 03:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 4 the info. i think we should include in the article the fact that it came from "Buku panduan kemasukan ke institusi pengajian tinggi awam" ("Guidebook for entering into public higher learning institution")<---?. because the definition may only apply in the education sector. it might not apply in other fields eg: banking, loans, mortgages, definition of a "bumiputra company", etc.

There is also an issue now that different institutions in country have different interpretation of "bumiputra", which is not helpful. kawaputra 11:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I found the full text of the constitution! The thing is, it seems that the Federal Constitution never mention the word "bumiputra". u can try and check. but where do they mention it? Maybe Article 153..

Anyway, Article 160(2) only defines what is "Malay" and "Aborigine".Arts 152-160

Article 161A(6)(a) defines "natives" of Sarawak; Art 161A(6)(b) defines "natives" of Sabah. Arts 161 - 161h

but they never define "bumiputra". but i think u can still include the definition u got from the "buku panduan", but just state la that it is from the "buku panduan". kawaputra 12:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

we'll help each other to get the most accurate definition (if there is any). we must also beware, maybe the link i gave u might be outdated. why is it different from the definition in the "buku panduan"? anyway if u got the full citation of the buku panduan, i think that would be useful: full title, publisher, author, year, which university, etc. is there any english translation? kawaputra^tok2me 13:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

that should be ok. i will create a citation in the bumi page based on what u gave me. so it should look something like this:

• "Buku panduan kemasukan ke institusi pengajian tinggi awam", Program Pengajian Lepasan SPM/Setaraf Sesi Akademik 2007/2008, Bahagian Pengurusan kemasukan Pelajar Jabatan Pengurusan IPT Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia.

or u can do it? whichever lah :) kawaputra^tok2me 16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quran

If you're going to ask TharkunColl to read the Qu'ran here, I suggest you should read the Bible, to avoid being a hypocrite. --71.197.149.164 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Does that mean that after reading the Qu'ran, their criticism would be "more acceptable" somehow? And by the way, all versions of the Bible are more or less the same, just with some words switched around, much like I assume the Qu'ran is (I cannot be sure, I only own an Arabic version with English descriptions of the verses, since apparently Arabic is much more descriptive). 71.197.149.164 18:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I was trying to point out that though Muslims see the Qu'ran as perfect, using a verse (or Sura, I think that's what they're called) from the Qu'ran won't be considered appropriate "evidence" if historical studies by other scholars exists, whether they be Muslim, Western, or any other group, according to WP:ATT and WP:RS. And I don't know what made you think I feel "unsatisfied" with you, because that's certainly not the case, I was trying to help you build your arguments into something a bit more valid. And if you're trying to defend the validity of Islam, making an argumentum ad hominem to TharkunColl probably isn't the greatest way to advance your views. Thanks for reading, 71.197.149.164 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)