User talk:SimonBillenness

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Burma/Myanmar
Hi! Please join us! Chris 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just joined! SimonBillenness 23:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of ISBN numbers
In this edit, I noticed that you removed all of the ISBN numbers cited in the article. Please do not remove ISBN numbers without valid reason; this is considered vandalism. Thanks! --Hintha 00:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops. My mistake! SimonBillenness 04:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For some reason, your edit removed the ISBN numbers again. I think this may be a problem with your web browser. Which one are you using? --Hintha 00:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I use Firefox.SimonBillenness 06:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

NLD Flag
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you want to include NLD emblem, please get a proper emblem from NLD office, dont just keep putting the picture of the flag and insisting it as being emblem. Okkar 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The NLD's flag is its emblem. Kindly refrain from removing it from the page. SimonBillenness 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of Revertions
You should read and digest that yourself as you seems to be the one who breach such a rule often. Okkar 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Okkar 14:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will take the Wikipedia rules around reversion to heart. However I will continue to correct misspellings and poor grammar. If you edit more carefully in future, I will not have to correct your submissions so often! I notice that your last edits were more careful. Pleae keep it up and improve! SimonBillenness 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:Civil and please pay particular attention to the point "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" and "Judgmental tone in edit summaries". You should stick to Wikipedia policies yourself if you intend to tells others to follow.  Okkar 22:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Correcting spelling and grammar as well as asking people to improve their editing is not in the least belittling. Citing poor spelling and grammar in edit summaries is simply good practice. No reasonable person could conclude that I've violated Wikipedia policies on those grounds.SimonBillenness 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Myanmar

 * I included all the flags that are relevant to the article, seeing as NLD flags was included, i see no reasons why we should discriminate against other opposition groups. After all, we cant have one rule for NLD, and one rule for the rest just to suit your political "leanings" simon.  If you wish to include NLD flag in Myanmar article simply to fufil your organisation's committment to lobbying on behalf of NLD, you have to expect that people would begin to question your motives.  That said, it is no longer the case of focusing on "contribution" alone, because the said "contribution" was made with motives other than simple "contribution" to Wikipedia.


 * It is not attacking to "suggest" that some of the edits made by particular editors are politically motivated. For example, you are the director of "US Campaign for Burma", how does one ensure that your contributions are not biased towards opposition groups, particularly NLD and NCGUB, both of which are lobbied heavily by "US Campaign for Burma" and you just happens to be the Director of the said group.  I kept the discussions and debates strictly confined to the contribution, however the contribution in question just happens to be "policatlly motiviated", therefore it is not attacking nor accusing anyone in particular for their political motivation.  Secondly, it is hard for anyone to assume "good faith" when they come acorss articles that are writing in such a way to support lobbying of particular political party or opposition groups, one cant help but wondering if Wikipedia being used as a lobbying platform.  Your affliation and the position you hold in these lobby groups does raise questions about your motives.  Surely you must realise that what you are doing is entirely contradictory to what Wikipedia stands for. Okkar 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okkar, I have made it abundantly clear on several occasions that I believe it is perfectly reasonable to include the flag/emblem of a political party cited in an article.


 * Once again, you attack me by suggesting bias on my part. Please quit the constant and tiresome innuendo and provide edits of mine that exhibit bias. I'd be surprised if you find any. You are attacking people personally, particularly if you provide no evidence of biased editing.


 * I keep my political work separate from my Wikipedia editing. I would suggest that you do the same. Your comments above do, I believe, constitute a personal attack on me and so I will report them. Your abuse of Wikipedia standards needs to stop. SimonBillenness 04:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
According to WP:COI, your staunch insistance to include flag of NLD in Myanmar and your position as Director of US Campaign For Burma lobby group is in clear breach of Wikipedia Policy, therefore I will be filing a request for an investigation. Okkar 10:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The NLD flag was part of the Myanmar article before I even started contributing to Wikipedia. I did not add it but I did prevent it from removal. I maintain that it is perfectly reasonable to include a flag/emblem/logo of a political party in an article that prominently cites that party. This is the only example of potential bias that you have cited. Since there are valid reasons for the flag's inclusion and since you have cited no other examples of biased editing on my part, I believe that you may well very find it very hard to support any charge of conflict of interest.


 * Please also note these other provisions of WP:COI. I believe that you have continually made personal attacks on my motives and assumed bad faith. Again, please cite any evidence of bias in my contributions. The last sentence is key: "Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor."

From WP:COI

Importance of civility

During debates in articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions.

Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms — this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage.

[edit] Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.

Fighting Peacock
'''PEACOCK IS THE SYMBOL OF BURMESE ROYALTY, MONARCHY AND STATE HISTORICALLY. DURING THE COLONIAL ERA, IT WAS HIJACKED BY THE BRITISH AND USED AS IF IT WAS THEIR SYMBOL. BEFORE COLONISATION BURMESE SOVEREIGN COIN WAS ' DINGA' AND IT BORE THE ROYAL PEACOCK, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS 'ROYAL SEAL';IN BURMESE IT IS CALLED 'TASATETAW'.TODAY IT IS THE ROYAL SEAL OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE SHWEBOMIN THE CROWN PRINCE OF BURMA. Anyone interested in seeing it can contact myanmarpatriot9@googlemail.com ''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.22 (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe SimonBillenness seems to be misrepresenting "Fighting Peacock" as NLD "emblem". "Peacock" represent our country's flag before we were colonised by the British, hence why ABSU flag included a peacock emblem to represent our nation's struggle to gain independance from the British. Fighting Peacock on the other hand is the emblem of the "Student Front" (Kyaungthar Tat Oo) of ABSU. "Student Front" represent a wing within ABSU that includes a group of students, who sworn to sacrifice their lives for the greater cause in the name of their country. They are always at the forefront of ABSU and student lead demonstrations and they are the ones who always take the first strike from batons and galloping horses during the colonial era. It is a fact that many students have died under the flag of "Fighting Peacock" througout the history of our country. Although, "Student Front" was officially disbanded and banned along with ABSU during BSPP era, the stories of "Student Front" with their dedication, sacrifice, courage and honour has masmerized and captivated every generation of young students.

At the beginning of 1988 uprising, it was the students from High Schools, came out carrying "Fighting Peacock" flags along with their school banners when they marched through the streets of our cities. The 88 generation high school students immidiately assume the position of "Student Front" during the 1988 uprising and it was them who paid the highest price. NLD, as political party adopted the symbol of "Fighting Peacock" into their party flag after the uprising in order to honour the students of Myanmar, who were always at the forefront of the struggle for their country and those who lay down their lives in the name of "democracy" and "freedom". Fighting Peack is not just a mere representation of courage or freedom, nor is it a mere logo on the flag of a political party, it is much more than that. It a symbol that represents courage, honour and sacrifice of the "students" of Myanmar, it represent the history of our country's struggle from both foreign invasions and tyranny, it represent our forefathers and it represent the fighting spirit of the "students" of Myanmar. NLD and ASSK would not be where they are today, if it wasnt for those students waving "Fighting Peacock" flags in 1988. If you said you are for freedom and democracy, then honour those students who brought about the change, honour those students who gave up their lives so that NLD can sit and complain about how they have won 1990 election and still not in the office.

Thanks to a mixure of political correctness and pure ignorant, we all have forgotten the fallen heroes and the spirit of "Fighting Peacock". Instead of honouring them for their sacrifices, we sat by sideline and watch people like SimonBillenness exploiting "fighting peacock" to promote NLD and NCGUB. Is this the way their death should be honoured? They didnt die for NLD, they died for our country and now we are repaying their deaths by letting political parties exploit the "Fighting Peacock" symbol. It is an insult to suggest that "Fighting Peacock" represent NLD as NLD has done nothing to earn the honour and respect that goes with the symbol of "Fighting Peacock". It belongs to the students of Myanmar. It should be clarify in the description of NLD flag, otherwise, we are effectively rewriting the history of "Fighting Peacock" and dishonouring those students who gave up their lives during the struggle. Okkar 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

are you okay?
I just wanted to check that you're still around and okay. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ragib
Ragib is continously changing the core article of Rohingya. He Purposely adding Bengali term on their main page. please someone can handle on this issue since he is admin in wiki. It is hard to control on his activity against the Rohingya most oppressed people in the world.--72.229.35.220 (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Hello Simon, I just finished reverting the changes you made to the categories for U.S. Campaign for Burma. I have no idea why you thought they made sense, and I hope you will exercise more care with regard to categories in the future. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - Under standard Wiki naming conventions, the article really should be at "United States Campaign for Burma", unless the official, legal name of the organization is, in fact, "U.S. Campaign for Burma". Please let me know which is correct. Cgingold (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello SimonBillenness! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Karawynn Long -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Freedom Campaign for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freedom Campaign is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Freedom Campaign until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)