User talk:Boonchong chua

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Oct 2015[edit]

Hi, I'm Asheshong. It appears you've reverted an edit to a previous version without any apparent justification. In the previous edit which you reverted to, you've mentioned that there's no source to Agoda being based in Singapore. I've included a reference to your point in the latest edit re Singapore. Please feel free to engage me in a discussion before you make further changes, as it appears that your edits constitute disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and arguably, vandalism. For more information on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, please see vandalism and disruptive editing. Asheshong (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Agoda.com because it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bug in Agoda App.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Bug in Agoda App.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of no original research policy[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Reykcollider (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bugs in Agoda App.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Bugs in Agoda App.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bugs in Agoda App.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Bugs in Agoda App.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More disruptive editing[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at agoda.com. You are using Wikipedia as a soapbox and your deletions are not made with a NPOV Reykcollider (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valid changes to agoda.com[edit]

when we are to use the word "reported", then the words should be exact as the source. If not it become a scenario of putting words into other people's mouth and misrepresenting the person.

In this case, someone say "xxx is one of the leading sites for Asia". If the articles are to be quoted and cited, shouldn't the exact words be use. Instead, we see sentence being change and even "upgraded" to "one of Asia’s largest and most popular". Is this a case of putting words into other people's mouth?

I'm just pointing out a very simple fact, the sentence was changed for a marketing/advertising reason beneficial to a particular company using Wikipedia, a reputable and not Agoda associated platform, to upscale its image.

Boonchong chua (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boonchong chua (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see my explanation under my Talk Page - Valid changes to agoda.com

Decline reason:

Procedural close - this is not an unblock request.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It seems your only purpose here is to campaign against this company. Wikipedia is is not a soapbox. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7 Oct[edit]

Hi Neil,

I hope you can answer my query if contributor can freely change the words while using a certain reference. In this instance, change the sentence totally using contributor's own words vs the original writer's words. For example, when a source say "the show was brilliant" and the contributor rephrase "the show was good". Both are positive but source was saying the show was above good and not just good.

If the answer is yes, will the same rule be apply throughout wikipedia?

This has nothing to do with whether I am biased or not, or against any entities. Lastly, i accepted the ban if it is base on the previous editing but not the latest one.

Boonchong chua (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Boonchong chua (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please refer to 7 Oct

Decline reason:

Procedural close - this is not an unblock request. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please do not use the unblock template to communicate with others (outside of actually posting an unblock request). As your block has expired and there was no unblock request included in the templates I have closed them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3 Nov: Reverted invalid / disruptive changes to Agoda.com page and included new references[edit]

References have been added to solidify factual claims which were contested in the last few edits.
Removed (2013 to reflect the year of the reported article) as this is not the convention in Wikipedia articles. Listing the year within the article is redundant as that is what references are for.
It appears that your edit history displays a pattern of bias and tendentious/disruptive editing. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Please feel free to read more about Wikipedia:Disruptive Editing to avoid a report which may result in an indefinite ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asheshong (talk • contribs) 09:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]