User talk:Drrumbowe

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, 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 discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! SatuSuro 11:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

House of Bendahara
Hi there! I noticed that you are the author of many articles--such as Tun Mutahir etc. Like to work with you on these fields--great work youve done.

Nevertheless, allow me to add in alittle something--while it is correct to provide a 'references" section at the bottom of each article, wikipedia's policies and guidelines mandates that articles would strongly recommend the use of footnotes and Citing_sources. I sincerely believe that we can complement each other on our shared field of interests.

Pls do not hesitate to drop by whenever youve any queries. Good luck!

Warm regards Mr Tan (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of source (Tun Sri Lanang)
Dear Drrumbowe,

I have removed as it violates the policies and guidelines of wikipedia.

Wikipedia defines reliable sources as academic books, newspaper articles, academic journals amongst others. Blogs posted by random users do not qualify, unless proper credentials that can adequately prove the authencity of the author--please refer to Biographies_of_living_persons and SELFPUB. I would strongly recommend that you maybe able to provide an alternative source such as a book, periodical or newspapers, as per Citing sources? You can maybe take a look at Citing_sources if you want to quote websites especially--although we do not have to stick rigidly to the rule when it comes to guidelines than policies. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tun Habib Abdul Majid, Sultan Ali of Johor
Hi there! Noticed that you made changes to both articles, especially the latter. Would appreciate that you may read the talk pages and so that we may clarify conceptual misunderstandings and doubts, if any? Made a partial rewrite of Tun Habib to clarify doubts--glad that you discuss with me if you have any objections. Thank you! Mr Tan (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe this will be of interest (added into citation): "Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (1936) ...Mahmud Muzaffar Shah, deposed by the Dutch from the throne of Lingga, appeared in Pahang in 1858, claiming to be the lawful ruler of that State and of Johor, as his ancestors had been before the Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824. ." If any objections, I would sincerely appreciate if you might be willing to discuss with me on contentious points. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tun Habib and dialogue in wikipeida
I have reedited the following paragraph:

'''The royal regalia was given to the Lingga-based Tengku Abdul Rahman who was supported by the Bugis nobles. After the affairs in Singapore, Bendehara Ali gave his legitimacy to this branch. The sultan later died in 1830 and was succeeded by his son, Mahmud Muzaffar Shah. . It was valid until its deposition in 1857. '''

'''Singapore treaty seem to split the Johor-Riau empire and its royal houses into two factions: as seen by the British, but it is not so in reality, Bendahara Ali's reply to Sultan of Johor, Sultan Mahmud Muzaffar in 1855 especially about the signed agreement between the Temenggung and the "Sultan Ali" reaffirmed Temenggung's hold on his fiefdom. This led to further British intervention in Pahang as the Bendahara is seen to be a hindrance to British imperial motives. '''

Firstly, the use of "Sultan Ali" should not be used as I had cited further sources that he had effective control and legitimacy over Johor as compared to Muzaffar. In citation 28, this source gives as follows, with the paragraph quoted:

Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (1936) "...Mahmud Muzaffar Shah, deposed by the Dutch from the throne of Lingga, appeared in Pahang in 1858, claiming to be the lawful ruler of that State and of Johor, as his ancestors had been before the Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824." That said, Bendahara Ali may have given his support for Muzaffar as Sultan of the Johor Riau empire but in practice, he is not the Sultan. Now what do you mean by "legitimacy" here--please explain.

Secondly, please abide by the style consistency as per Mos, considering that the section uses bullets, please do not break the format of the article for consistency reasons.

Thirdly, this article is dedicated to Tun Habib and not to the legitimacy of the ruling houses over these dates. We have to abide by Summary style over limits on relevancy of topics. This disputes do not involve Tun Habib, but the descendants. If you might want to discuss the legitimacy issue during the 1850s, then by all means start a new articl, say, Disputes over the Johor throne in 1819 or any name which you might deem fit.

Looking thru citations which I have provided above, Muzaffar Shah is just a claimant to the Johor throne. We also have to assume a policy of NPOV. Especially for your sentence "It was valid until its deposition in 1857.", what do you mean by valid? Go to Google books and check again. How is the "valid" "legitimate"? Even if you were to say that the Bendahara's recognition provides legitimacy (by principle) to Muzaffar, can you prove that he is the soverign ruler? A Sultan who is granted approval of legitimacy to his rule but does not hold power still makes one a claimant and not a soverign. He is merely a Pretender; let me make this clear. In this case, Muzaffar was the soverign ruler of Lingga but not of Johor. To add on, speaking about Bendahara Ali, he did give co-recognition to Sultan Hussein Shah a few years after 1819. . Even if you were to insist your argument that Bendahar Ali recognition authority if rulers were paramount--which you did not provide any citations in Bendahara, doesnt that answer to your doubts of the split of the House of Bendahara? Take a look at the quoted long paragraph in my edit.

To your contentions that Muzaffar Shah was the sole legitimate Sultan:

"Bastin, Winks, Malaysia: Selected Historical Readings, pg 132 'Though in 1818 Major Farquhar had signed a treaty with the Underking of Riau by virtue of powers granted him by 'Abdu'r- Rahman Sultan of Johor, Pahang and dependencies, and though in his letter suggesting the Carimons (Karimun) for a port he had again referred to 'Abdu'r-Rahman as emperor, he now conveniently remembered that the potentate had deprecated being called ruler of the Johor empire and had declared that he was Sultan of Lingga only. So aware that under Dutch surveillance neither Sultan 'Abdu'r-Rahman of Lingga nor the Underking at Riau would be able to convey any rights at Singapore to the British,...'"

If you think I am still wrong in my facts for whatever reason, then PLEASE  explain to me why so. You can cite phrases and paragraphs to me, even if it is not in English. I am litrerate in Malay to some extent, if you might be concerned.

Also, I mentioned "effectively split" which meant that the empire split into empire by practice, but not by name, which is exactly the case--as you had mentioned, but failing to meet Summary style guidelines. Citing, . Im afraid your refusal to explain is putting me in a difficult position.

I sincerely persuade you to discuss matters with me if you find that I am wrong in anycase, rather than insisting on your points through edits--I have yet to see any samples of your sources (in scanned pages, web scans or typed phrases), which on my part I showed samples to you on the contrary. Wikipedia policies demands that Dispute resolution any contentions, or conflict of understandings should be resolved by means of dialogue and discussions, not silence and revert wars over insistence of facts. After all, wikipedia is a place for knowledge exchange, not ignorance to a problem and forcing your way through without consensual dialogues. Admins have the authority to ban users if users show continued deliberate and conscious violations of policies.Mr Tan (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, 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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)