Talk:Kuala Lumpur

message: The April average high temperature is obviously not -9.1°C (15.6°F). Could anybody be so kind to find the correct data? Podgorec (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate data 

message: I am sure Yap Ah Loy is an important figure in the history of Kuala Lumpur, but there seems to be an excessive emphasis about his contribution to the development of the city that is not supported by sources.  For example a source here attributes its rapid growth to Sir Frank Swettenham, and here it says Swettenham was "instrumental in the development of the town". The rapid growth in population is said to be due to the construction of the Klang-KL railway line here (initiated by Swettenham), and that railway line was only finished after Yap's death.  Claiming that he is the "founder of modern Kuala Lumpur" just doesn't sound right. Hzh (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will rewrite the History section within the next week or so to give it more balance, at the moment it seems like a POV is being pushed.  In the meantime, any suggestion would be welcomed. Hzh (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Yap Ah Loy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I had started a sub-heading in  "Global And Regional Rankings", which was opposed by User:Chipmunkdavis and User:Herman Jaka as well as by several anonymous users
See arguments for and against on -
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Controversial_content_added_by_User:Escravoes 
I would welcome additional feedbacks on the city's rankings (well-sourced and verifiable additions) into the section. Thanks.Escravoes (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Although all the websites are credible. That doesn't meant the need to put a huge rankings for every city articles. If this how Wikipedia runs, I don't know what to say either than this projects are totally doomed. 128.90.59.252 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for agreeing with me that all my sources are credible. Your issues however is that you did not like the article. WP:I just don't like it Also your argument that  one "doesn't meant the need to put a huge rankings for every city articles" is false as the article is neither "huge" nor "for every city" and Wiki is robust enough to avoid being "totally doomed"Escravoes (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not because I don't like it, but try to see other city articles in this encyclopedia. Try to open your eyes widely. Did you find any city articles full with rankings???? Just recently watching your user talk, you just been blocked for LIBELOUS content. Is this you just want to do in this encyclopedia?? Your contribution are full of nonsense. 128.90.59.252 (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

text: If you had noticed, several of those rankings were already in "Kuala Lumpur" even before my article was published. That an article is present or absent in another article is NOT relevant for its inclusion or non-inclusion into another article. I am also glad that you did NOT said I inserted anything LIBELOUS in Kuala Lumpur but sourced from the Financial Times UK, Huffington Post, CNN, Trip Advisor,  which has not been accused of being LIBELOUS in their rankings of Kuala Lumpur as among the world's most dangerous city or otherwise. You had also failed to specify even a single point in my article "which is full of nonsense" or LIBELOUS in ranking of Kuala Lumpur as among the world's most dangerous city by very credible sources, which you yourself did NOT disputed either their reliability or their libelous content!  Escravoes (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are sick because you really did not understand what I meant. Did I say you make libelous content in Kuala Lumpur???? Did you really read the block notice on which article that become the reason for your block. Hmmm, interesting, you just admitting that you are the one who wrote the article rankings. Are you a journalist? So, that's why you really want to pressing the content to be added in the article because you wrote it? So, this can be include on ownership too. 128.90.59.150 (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

text: The ranking articles are sourced from (again) CNN, Trip Advisor, Financial Times UK, Huffington Post, where they are sourced and cited. Yet somehow, you viciously stated that I claimed ownership over the article! Did anybody sued any of the sources I quoted for libel? The article, for which I was blocked is NOT on the rankings on Kuala Lumpur, but on a the welfare state of crocodiles in a farm in Thailand! My edit on Kuala Lumpur however, by your own admission, is not libelous. Escravoes (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to say from which news the rankings sourced from. Everyone are not to be fool enough to understand that. For sure I know you've been blocked because of libelous addition on the Thai article. Since when did I say your edit in Kuala Lumpur are LIBELOUS???? The only thing I said is your content in Kuala Lumpur are identified as SPAM and NOT-NEUTRAL at all. 128.90.59.150 (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for agreeing that my article on the Thai crocodile farm, for which I was blocked, was NOT related to my edit on Kuala Lumpur. Thanks also for saying that I did not published anything libelous on Kuala Lumpur, but facts verifiable directly to major news media (CNN, Financial Times UK)  and credible websites (Trip Advisor, major Malaysian newspapers) of my edit, which you said was "full of nonsense." Now however you claimed that my contributions had had been identified as SPAM and NOT-NEUTRAL! I asked - name me one from my sources which is a spam or which is non-neutral POV. Escravoes (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not need to deal anything with you nor agree with anything you said. Just accept the CONSENSUS and move on! Talking with someone who have the lack of understanding is definitely a waste of time. 128.90.59.150 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Global and Regional Rankings

message: It seems that some people want to put forward Sutan Puasa as the founder of Kuala Lumpur or that he was responsible for the early development of the town.  From the sources I read, the evidence is poor, instead what we get is a lot of speculations cobbled together with some dubious assertions. I think we should use more reliable historians who are better at sifting through historical evidence instead of those who want to push an view point.  Also describing early Minangkabau traders in Kuala Lumpur as "influential tycoons" is just silly hyperbole. Hzh (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founder of Kuala Lumpur 

message: Will people stop adding pointless ranking in the lead? Mercer ranked Kuala Lumpur at No. 86, it is hardly an endorsement.  Also trying to narrow it down to a ranking for best for retirement, students or renters just reeks of desperation, as useful as a best ranking for 3 year-old babies or 30 year-old housewives. They are not noteworthy and should not be in the lead. Hzh (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  City ranking 

message: I personally haven't played the game, but I can't find any mention of GTA 5 having the setting of Malaysia, let alone KL. 
"Games have also been set in Kuala Lumpur, including include Grand Theft Auto V, three levels of the game Hitman 2: Silent Assassin and two levels of the PlayStation 2 game Burnout Dominator."
If anyone can help confirm this, I'll be removing that claim. Chaire! Sai2207 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Factcheck

message: Here are some grammar mistakes I believe can be fixed:
Under the header "Beginning of modern Kuala Lumpur," change:
"Raja Asal and Sutan Puasa also switched side to Raja Mahdi, and Kuala Lumpur was captured in 1872 and burnt to the ground. "
to "Raja Asal and Sutan Puasa also switched sides to Raja Mahdi, and Kuala Lumpur was captured in 1872 and burnt to the ground. "
"A Sanitary Board was created on 14 May 1890 which was responsible for sanitation, upkeep of roads, lighting of street and other functions."
to "A Sanitary Board was created on 14 May 1890 which was responsible for sanitation, upkeep of roads, lighting of streets, and other functions."
I used an Oxford comma here for consistency because it is used in many other places in this article.
Spiderduckpig (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hzh (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2021 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion