User talk:Jeffooibird

Jeff Ooi
Anyone is welcome to edit provided they conform to Wikipedia policies. Your edits constitute violations of the neutrality policy, and repeatedly edit warring with other editors made your behaviour completely unacceptable. Moreover, Wikipedia has a strong policy protecting biographies of living persons from defamation. Companies have budgets to hire PR firms to edit their Wikipedia articles; individuals do not, so we err on the side of individuals. You are welcome to include your assertions in the article provided that you cite reliable sources and adhere to our neutrality policy. I have deleted User:Relaxtoday, which consists of nothing but defamation of Ooi.

Also, for using this account to violate the block, I will be blocking this account for 24 hours. You are welcome to discuss the issue on this talk page; I will be checking it. If you have any additional concerns or would like another party to have a look, feel free to use Contact us. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool! Hi John, I am not well trained in English or law, but I do know what is right or wrong, and how defamation was done. Citing innocent companies name into baseless statement is very crued, despite more proof of misinformation and no-proof of wrong doing was revealed. I did a post here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnleemk#165.228.129.11.27s_edits_on_Jeff_Ooi
 * I don't want to edit this "sms scam" misleading statement, but I can't just let the untrue statement hanging there to haunt people, and actual issue was not solved. Can you get people to remove those company names please once you read the truth? Do find a single proof that UFO did arrive in Jeff's back garden, I would love to see how it looks.... Kristy :'(


 * As I said, when your block expires, you are more than welcome to correct outstanding problems with the article, provided you stay within the bounds of our neutral point of view policy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I learn a lot here! I'll follow the TOP5 rules and quote facts with reference. Have changed the no reference quote with supporting facts. Anyone shall edit if found the facts. - Kristy 17 July 2007.

I'd took most of the suggestions and references to adjust the wordings to neutral point of view, but I found this user Relaxtoday, which is also the original poster where all this bias issue came from, removing my comment as well as another user who brought up more complete facts on another issue. What do we call this type of personal bias attack towards 2 companies, and barried other users effort to bring to neutral view? Here is what I left my comment, waiting for his reply:


 * Relaxtoday. When a user posted neutral comment and follow all WP:LIVING, you have been censuring and adding unreferenced attacks on the few users good intention, the behaviour clearly ignores both WP:CENSOR and WP:SOAP.


 * Several people have revert changes made by the Relaxtoday user, including Earth user but the Relaxtoday user has clearly remained persistent, reintroducing the same form of commentaries including the citation changes and new posting by another user, both learnt and complies to neutral ground standard.


 * Relaxtoday Talk, if you want to find proof as eager as we all do, keep neutral comment. Comment here and we shall work hard to find the proof and correct citation. Until then assistance is much appreciated, no WP:SOAP please. - Kristy 18 Jul 2007

Johnleemk | [User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]], I did not said this user Relaxtoday is the same person with the living user blog, but are we suppose to allow facts comments from neutral users?