User talk:Iamzh

Speedy deletion of Priscelia Chan
A tag has been placed on Priscelia Chan 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 a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Priscelia Chan has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Atyndall93 |  talk  08:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cynthia Koh
I noticed that your recent edits to the page Cynthia Koh has not been useful. Please note that wikipedia is NOT a PR site for Cynthia Koh.

Sections such as endorsements and magazine covers have been DELETED; as this does not serve any purpose for a encyclopedial page. Listing her endorsements is equivalent to giving those companies free promotion. And magazines such as I weekly are produced every week; and she only appears on the cover once in 10 years. Why is there a need to write all these unnecessary things?

Another point to note, please check on wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve on your tenses and use of verbs.

Cynthia Koh's page on wikipedia may have to be re-written if no serious correcting is done.

RegardsHtrbrse (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note:
Please note, if you were to revert back Cynthia Koh's article, I would recommend your account to be banned.

I repeat, Wikipedia is NOT a personal site for this actress. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. What you have edited are ALL irrelavant topics.

If you still choose NOT to listen, let the other editors decide. Either the page protected from further edits so that you don't list any irrelavant points, or your IP banned. Many other actresses do not have all these information that provides free publicity for the actress and the endorsed company in their articles.

I think you take things to seriously. You can't even differentiate from which is true and which is a comparison of time. You mean Cynthia Koh appears on I weekly cover every week? She only appears once in a blue moon. Why bother to write when she appears?

And by now, you SHOULD know (obviously you don't) that Wikipedia has its own set of quality standards. The article may have to be re-written. The article can be viewed by anyone in the world. If they read such an article which has lousy Grammar and problems in flow of language, how do you expect them to understand?

Please go and read up on ALL the information you need to know about editing before you talk.

Regards Htrbrse (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)