User:Yk Yk Yk/Body

One practice which I particularly find not constructive is the unilateral reverting of other users' work, when there is clearly a dispute. (I revert the work of other users (with explanation) when I feel they have made an unnecessary edit (first-time revert only). I don't revert articles back to my version when another user reverts my edits - the infamous edit warring.) Whenever another user disagrees with you, just take the dispute to pages such as this or request for comment, and there will be willing voices to hear both sides out and where legitimate consensus (the entire basis for Wikipedia) can be achieved.

If you end up being the dissenting voice in the final decision, then you know what? Most of the time, it's just name/a line/a paragraph/a block of words in the infobox. Just ignore it and focus on further improving the content of the article.

Many users have expressed their dismay over articles nominated for deletion because they look like crap, not because they meet Wikipedia's criteria for deletion, so I don't have to discuss much here. I also dislike it when some users set their own standards for notability: i.e. they believe they are the authority over what's important in this world and what isn't. I've argued to keep articles that for some reason a certain group of people actually care about the topic in question, yet I am completely uninterested in it.

The entire concept of Wikipedia is to be inclusive. If it weren't, most of us wouldn't even have a voice in determining what stays and what goes. Deletion hawks, don't forget where your privilege derives from!

I've learnt long ago from Malay Wikipedia that if you don't want your blood to boil, don't take your work on Wikipedia personally. Expertise is welcome, ego is not.

There have been disputes (past & present) over the nomenclature of some articles related to Malaysia, for instance:

First Lady of Malaysia (discussion) • Barisan Nasional (discussion) • Menteri Besar vs. Chief Minister • the inclusion of Chinese and Tamil names into articles of Malaysian institutions.

While it is certainly true that each nation has its own idiosyncrasies with regards to

• Use of non-English names in local English media;
• The weight official/national status for a language actually carries (e.g. Malay & Tamil are not exactly widely used in Singapore); and
• How prevalent unofficial languages are (like Chinese and to a certain extent, Tamil in Malaysia),

my stand has always been to use other Wikipedia articles as the baseline when debating whether which nomenclature/names are to be used, and not simply decide that

• English should be used across the board;
• or the contrary: We should only cater to how Malaysian readers think (e.g. piling on Chinese & Tamil names in infoboxes).

Always try to find counterparts for articles in dispute.

For instance, users came to the conclusion to rename First Lady of Malaysia to Spouse of the Prime Minister of Malaysia based on Wife of the President of the French Republic and Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia.

It's Menteri Besar, not Chief Minister; just like it's Taoiseach, not Prime Minister of Ireland.

It's Barisan Nasional, not National Front (Malaysia); just like it's Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, not Republican Party and Tribe of the Irish.

Sometimes common sense takes prevalence:

• It's Yang di-Pertuan Agong, not King of Malaysia, or Paramount Ruler of Malaysia, etc.

The debate over whether to insert Chinese & Tamil names is a balancing act between adhering strictly to official languages in infoboxes (at the moment I can't find any articles which don't, apart from the Malaysia-related ones) and recognizing that these languages are indeed significant in Malaysian society. Some have argued that since names in infoboxes are not actually regulated by Wikipedia guidelines, we are free to flout convention. Opposing views argue that the Chinese and Tamil names are unimportant. I disagree with both views (although far more with the first one).

There are probably numerous practices in Wikipedia that are unregulated too. What makes Wikipedia great is how its users follow convention (through unspoken & unwritten consensus), which makes all articles appear to be organized in a systematic and user-friendly way. (What makes it not so great is the overzealous and dogmatic approach by some "experienced" users which alienate new users or editors unfamiliar with the Wikipedia community.)

Feel free to correct my Arabic transliterations. I self-taught myself to read the Arabic alphabet, but there's only so much you can learn. I can only transliterate consonants and long vowels correctly (although the long vowels ي and و can be confused with consonants). For short vowels, I have to make inferences from other articles with similar words.

Just because something appears a certain way in a news source doesn't mean it's right. Take for example the U.S. media's very awful coverage of British royals, celebrating them as fairytale characters on Earth and disregarding style and title conventions which may mislead its own readers. Duchess Catherine of Cambridge? Come on...