User talk:MatSallehSesat

Welcome!

Hello MatSallehSesat! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! User:Chongkian (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

WJ Chater's theory about the first Sarawakian flag bearing a blue and red cross is wrong

The first Sarawakian flag flown on 21 September 1848 had a RED and BLACK cross. It was not a BLUE and RED cross or a PURPLE and RED cross.

After reading so many contradictory versions of what colours were on the first flag, I spent some time chasing down the original sources of misinformation about the flag commonly repeated in articles and books and they all lead to WJ Chater (blue) and Harriette McDougall (purple). WJ Chater was in charge of the Sarawak Government Printing office. He had access to documents in the state archives, and he used these documents to write articles for the Sarawak Gazette.

In his article "Flags" 30 Nov 1964, WJ Chater theorised that the cross on the first Sarawakian flag was a blue and red cross and that Charles changed the colour of the cross blue & red to black & red in 1870. https://www.pustaka-sarawak.com/gazette/gazette_uploaded/1404720332.pdf page 9

He doesn't present his theory as a fact, but somehow it evolved into a historical fact as his theory found its way into many other places, such as in his book 'Sarawak Long Ago', Wikipedia, news articles and many other modern books. He developed his theory about the flag, after discovering a proclamation from Charles that said "change blue bunting to black" in a document that mentioned the flag. And then supports this out of context phrase with other pieces of evidence. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find this particular document to read the full context. If anyone has seen this complete document, please let me know. If I could find this document maybe I'd be able to figure out how it might have been misread.

Chater made several errors in his article, so I suspect he may also be wrong about how he read the meaning behind "change blue bunting to black".

- Problem #1 - all other writers Chater states that other than another author, Jacobs, who quoted Harriette McDougall that "All other writers for the next twenty years (until 1870) who mention the flag give the colours of the cross as blue and red." This statement is incorrect. The only other eye-witness to the flag that describe the cross as blue and red is Harriette McDougall herself. She in turn gets requoted by other authors.

Harriette McDougall's reference to the flag bearing a red and purple cross is from a letter published in her book "Letters from Sarawak" in a letter dated July 1851. https://archive.org/details/lettersfromsara00mcdogoog/page/n52/mode/2up?q=purple

But in a letter just a few pages away dated January 1852 she writes:

"When we were at Singapore during the winter of 1849, Papa had a pulpit and reading-desk, chairs, and a painted glass east window, made with the cross of the Sarawak flag, deep blue and red, on a yellow ground, for the centre light." https://archive.org/details/lettersfromsara00mcdogoog/page/n98/mode/2up?q=flag

To make things even more complicated Harriette McDougall wrote a second book "Sketches from Sarawak" this book was published after 1870, but in the book she describes the flag used in 1849.

"In the year 1849, the atrocities of the piratical Dyaks were so frequent, that the Rajah applied to the English Admiral in the straits for some men-of-war to assist him in destroying them. On the 24th of July they left us, as many as eighteen Malay prahus, manned by from twenty to seventy men in each, and decorated with flags and streamers innumerable, of the brightest colours,-the Sarawak flag, a red and black cross on a yellow ground, always at the stern."

https://archive.org/details/sketchesofourlif00mcdoiala/page/36/mode/2up?q=flag

So should we believe Harriette McDougall, Harriette McDougall or Harriette McDougall?

I agree with Chater, that we shouldn't use Harriette McDougall as a reliable source in this case.

- Problem # 2 - There are many eye-witnesses who wrote about the flag before 1870

The biggest error Chater made and the easiest to disprove is when he stated that Harriette McDougall was the only eye-witness to write about the flag raising on 21 Sept 1848. He then explains why he thinks Harriette McDougall who claimed the flag was a purple and red cross made a mistake. Harriette McDougall was NOT the only person who saw and wrote about the flag before 1870. And strangely enough no one else who saw the flag in person described it as having a blue & red cross. So lets travel backwards in time and see what everyone wrote. --- Eye-Witness #6 - 1866 - Cuthbert Collingwood On the 17th September, 1866 my jungle rambles came to an end, and we set sail for the Sarawak River, which we began to approach on the 21st. At the distance of 17 miles from Tanjong Po the river divides, and beyond this ships of any considerable draft seldom pass. This is the Antimony Anchorage, so called from the antimony stores of the Borneo Company, which are located here. Here were several square-rigged vessels ; and as we proceeded we met many canoes, containing two or more Malays, who rested on their paddles to watch us as we passed. Some larger craft also there were, having an European build (lorchas), and flying the Rajah's flag—a broad cross, half red and half black, upon a buff ground.

https://archive.org/details/ramblesanatural02collgoog/page/n233/mode/2up?q=buff

--- Eye-Witness #5 - 1863 - Frederick Boyle He wrote an article published in Nov 1868, memorialising James and his work in Sarawak after James' death. The Boyle brothers visited Sarawak back in 1863 so he would most likely have seen the flag in person. In the 1868 article he wrote a footnote about the flag.

• A cross, half red, half black, on a yellow field, is the Sarawak flag

--- Eye-Witness #4 - 1850 - Rev. McDougall "The east window is of coloured glass, and given by my friend Mr. Jackson, the Assistant Resident at Singapore. The central light will represent the Sarawak cross, a red and purple cross on a golden ground. It is the national flag, and will please the native eye, besides being an appropriate Christian emblem." - why did he also think it was purple?

--- Eye-Witness #3 - 1849 - Charles Thomas Constantine Grant - Sarawak Government Officer 1849-1862 "It was on a fine day in the summer of '49 that I again found myself in the Sarāwak river… A low mist hung over the river, early one morning, as we got into our boat and started with the first of the flood tide, on a trip to the up-country Dyaks... Bidding the steersman direct the boat's course up the river, he dipped his long paddle into the water, dashing the spray into the air; his example was vigorously followed by the rest of the crew, and thus we started. Our Sarāwak Flag, a golden ground with a black and red cross, waved over the stern, as we passed between the houses of the Malay town."

--- Eye-Witness #2 - Sep 21 1848 (the day the flag was hoisted for the first time) - Henry Keppel Captain Henry Keppel was at the ceremony itself, in fact he was likely standing right in front of the flagpole. Not only was he at the event he's the one who captained the Maeander, the ship that brought James back to Sarawak from England in 1848. "The business commenced by the chief of each department welcoming back the Rajah. The Europeans presented him with a rich and valuable sword. Then came the Rajah's speech, — in the course of which he presented each of the Datus with a handsome state sword, and afterwards introduced to the people his heir-presumptive his probable successor in the government of Sarawak. A new flag, which the Rajah had brought from England, was then unfurled for the first time — displaying a black and red cross on a yellow field. This was to be henceforth the national flag of Sarawak. It was hoisted and saluted in due form, the Maeander's band by a lively air contributing to the effect." https://archive.org/details/visitIndianArch00Kepp/page/30/mode/2up

And finally the one Eye-Witness that trumps absolutely everyone else. --- Eye-Witness #1 - Sir James Brooke - the White Rajah of Sarawak and the designer of the flag. but before you read the quote I need to explain a term - "cross per pale" - this is a term used in heraldry to describe a cross that is divided in half vertically. Were the McDougalls told the cross was "per pale" but they heard "purple" ? Sarawak 14th March 1849

My Lord In accordance with your Lordship's instructions of the 25th January 1847 and the sentiments expressed in my despatch of the 30th of June 1847 relative to the additional Article for introducing a flag amongst the natives, proposed to be inserted in the Treaty with the Sultan and Chiefs of Borneo, I beg to acquaint your Lordship, that on my return to Sarawak, feeling how desirable such a measure would be, I hoisted a flag, and recommended its adoption by all native prahus and other vessels belonging to this country. I subsequently waited to ascertain before reporting to your Lordship, how far the native community was inclined to adopt the use of the flag, which is a yellow field, with a cross per pale red and black, and I am happy to add, that they have eagerly embraced this distinguishing mark of Country, which they look upon as a security to these vessels and they are moreover anxious to carry the register proposed in the additional articles. I venture, therefore to apply for your Lordship's sanction to use this flag which will form at first a broad distinction between Sarawak and the neighbouring rivers, and which may gradually be extended amongst the well disposed communities on this coast, when they shall be found fit to use it rightly. The discord and destruction of Borneo Proper, the total want of all the machinery of Government and indeed of Government at all, render it improbable, that a flag should emanate from that City, but in the course of time, should the rule of the native Chiefs improve, and some degree of order be restored, it will be advisable to recommend the adoption of the present Flag to the Sultan and ruling Pangerans, who would doubtless readily adopt it, as a national emblem already in use in their dependencies. The highly beneficial tendency of this flag, not only in ultimately becoming a distinction between the well disposed and piratical rivers, but in giving a spirit of national pride to the natives, and assuring them of the protection to be gained from it, is so evident that I need not dwell on it, but the sanction of Her Majesty's Government can alone afford a stability to the flag which it will otherwise require many years to attain. In requesting this sanction, I may venture to mention the large interests which are gradually developing in this country, and its rapid increase both in commerce and population. It is for these reasons I solicit the sanction for Her Majesty's Government for the introduction of the flag which will afford a recognized permanency to this country , and should Her Majesty's Government deem it right a further measure of protection might be accorded. I have the honour to be, My Lord Your Lordship's humble Servant. J Brooke Commissioner & Consul General

Transcript of Original letter = http://archive.brooketrust.org/DA/showObject.php?id=FO12.7.45 Photostat of Original letter = https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-806748698/view

MatSallehSesat (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Brooke's use of the St. George flag

There is no proof James Brooke ever used a St. George flag or even a swallow tailed St. George flag.

And he definitely did not use the St. George flag to be the 1st flag of Sarawak.

The closest we can come is that there was a RYS burgee and white ensign on the Royalist, which was sold off in March of 1844.

The flag did not fly over Fort Belidah, because Fort Belidah was burnt down almost immediately after being surrenderred by the rebels 20 Dec 1840.

No one knows when Fort Belidah rebuilt. The next time it's mentioned at all is when the Chinese are forced to pay to build a replacement Fort Belidah in 1852.

MatSallehSesat (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Sarwak Flag (1848).svg

Thanks for uploading File:Sarwak Flag (1848).svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bibliography of Sarawak (January 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by I dream of horses was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bibliography of Sarawak and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MatSallehSesat! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi MatSallehSesat, I have asked for a second look at this as merging it to the general Sarawak page is quite suboptimal. CMD (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

there's a "further reading" section on the 'Raj of Sarawak' page - maybe I should just put it there since all the books currently in the list fall into that category. But in reality I was hoping to make it its own page as a typical 'bibliography of' page that can be found elsewhere and keep it growing for all Sarawak books... it only had 15 books or so when I first submitted, so maybe that's why it was rejected. There's already a placeholder for 'bibliography of Malaysia' but I think the Sarawak aspect would lose its focus on that page. Will you yank it if I put it on the Raj of Sarawak page? MatSallehSesat (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I reverted your merge of the draft to Raj of Sarawak. That's far too many sources for a "Further reading" section, and very many of them are inappropriate, either because they are used as sources in the article already or are sufficiently old to be of very little value to the general reader. See MOS:FURTHER for the guideline on what should go in "Further reading" sections. I've pruned the section back further (ha!) from how it was before you merged in the list but it's still pretty poor quality: perhaps if you took the best five general sources from your list that aren't already used in the article they would make a good replacement for the Further reading section as it stands currently. Coming back to the draft, I think that it would be better as a standalone bibliography article, though I don't know what the notability requirements for bibliographies are – they seem quite common on Wikipedia, even though very few topics have sources written about their bibliography per se. The subject is of course clearly notable. Good luck finding a home for your work. Wham2001 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, still learning the ropes.

Hopefully a bibliography page gets approved, there's such a long chain of paraphrasing previous works and mistakes in Sarawak histories that there's a need for a complete list of old sources to help sort it all out. None of the books on my list would meet your requirements for a well rounded modern historical take appropriate for a general reader. I'm hoping the bibliography will be a useful resource for dedicated researchers. MatSallehSesat (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If it helps, we are all learning the ropes all the time. CMD (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope MatSallehSesat (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to Francis McDougall. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

okay, will do MatSallehSesat (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your bibliographies on Sarawak

Thanks for your critical review on the history of Sarawak especially the flags and history of the Brooke era. You are right, there may be various inaccuracies regarding history of Sarawak introduced by the authors during the Brooke era and authors after that. Majority of the books were written by single author and it is inevitable inaccuracies were introduced here and there. It is quite normal when there are only a few authors that are willing to critically examine every historical work written by these people (mentally taxing with low pay and small market of readers). Amongst the controversies including whether Sarawak should be called "Raj of Sarawak" similar to Indian princes or should be called "Kingdom of Sarawak" (as seen in the talk page of "Raj of Sarawak") remains a debate that would require extensive analysis and debate.

I would advise you to publish your "bibliographies of Sarawak" as a book with your book describing what are your findings of the certain inaccuracies in the history of Sarawak. Pustaka Negeri Sarawak has workshops organised yearly to encourage local authors to publish books on Sarawak. Before you embark on writing your book, I suggest that you look for any secondary sources that somebody had already done the work that you are intending to do.

Wikipedia, is an encyclopedia that should include secondary or tertiary sources for reliability. Primary sources are only included when there are none of these secondary/tertiary sources.As you can see, the wikipage "Bibliography of Los Angeles" are published in 1980s to 2000s that review the history of the city in the past 200 years. While for Sarawak historical books, there are only several of them that are recently published such as:

• Ting, John. "Colonialism and Brooke administration: Institutional buildings and infrastructure in 19th century Sarawak"(2015)

• Lewis, Samuel Feuer (1 January 1989). Imperialism and the Anti-Imperialist Mind

• "The Name of Brooke – The End of White Rajah Rule in Sarawak" by R.H.W. Reece, Sarawak Literary Society, 1993"

• Gin, Ooi Keat (1 January 2013). "Wartime Borneo, 1941–1945: a tale of two occupied territories"

• The Rise and Fall of Communism in Sarawak, 1940-1990 by Vernon L. Porritt

If you still wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, you are welcome to do so by correcting inaccuracies and citing your references within the article. Cerevisae (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bibliography of Sarawak (February 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbritti was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bibliography of Sarawak and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Pbritti (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: the initial decline did not make much sense, bibliographic articles should not be integrated into main articles. CMD (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: The article is insufficient to be a standalone bibliography, as they must meet WP:LISTN. Since this draft fails in That regard, what precious little of significant utility can be mustered from it should be merged with the Sarawak article as a Further reading or External links selection. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Further reading sections are usually not welcomed by FAC, and given Sarawak has previously been nommed there adding one would seem a step backwards. LISTN has a whole paragraph on exceptions regarding informational purposes, which bibliographies are. Bibliographies are not an area I edit in much, but this draft seems in line with articles like List of books about negotiation and Pershing missile bibliography. (Not trying to OSE here, but we clearly have bibliographies as a regular article topic, and I'm not seeing why this one does not fit within them.) CMD (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiproject Bibliographies#Notability of bibliography articles. The guidance on AFC directs that articles most likely to be fail an AfD are not supposed to be approved and I have a hard time imagining this one survives an AfD. Also, Further reading/External links sections are fairly common on FAs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Many things get added to FAs that wouldn't pull through FAC. As for this particular topic, it appears to have been covered in external sources, some accessible on gbooks ([1][2][3]), and there are multiple 'sub-bibliographies' (this lists some, some are on gbooks but with no preview [4][5]). My feeling is it has at least a reasonable chance of surviving AfD. (There is also an official State bibliography, although I think the scope is different.) CMD (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Malaysia

		The Malaysian Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Malaysia
		This WikiAward was given to MatSallehSesat by Chongkian (talk) on 05:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Datus of the Raj of Sarawak (May 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Raydann was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Datus of the Raj of Sarawak and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 05:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Datus of the Raj of Sarawak (June 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Datus of the Raj of Sarawak and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

asilvering (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Datu Patinggi Ali

Hello, MatSallehSesat. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Datu Patinggi Ali, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Pengiran Indera Mahkota

Hello, MatSallehSesat. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pengiran Indera Mahkota, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Datus of the Raj of Sarawak

Hello, MatSallehSesat. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Datus of the Raj of Sarawak, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MatSallehSesat,

If you return to editing on Wikipedia and you'd like to continue to work on this draft, you can make a request for restoration at WP:REFUND. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Datus of the Raj of Sarawak

Hello, MatSallehSesat. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Datus of the Raj of Sarawak".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Syed Mashhor bin Syed Muhammad Ash-Sahab

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Syed Mashhor bin Syed Muhammad Ash-Sahab, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)