User talk:Brythain

Welcome!

Hello, Brythain, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Huaiwei 15:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Find the rest of the Singapore community!

Yeap, you can find us in these pages:

Do leave your name at the notice board, and thanks again for making wikipedia your online abode! ;)--Huaiwei 15:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam

Hello, Brythain. You have new messages at Alarics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Alarics (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Brythain. You have new messages at Alarics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Alarics (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion vs Separation

Please refer to:-

Thank you for your interest on the article page of Singapore, as you understand that certain words may not meet Wikipedia's requirement for reuse here hence my rewording of the term "expelled" to "separation" since the former was a straight forward violation per WP:Synthesis & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. As stated in the constitution of Malaysia prior to July 1965, member states are allowed to join the federation but there wasn't any legal provision for member states to leave it; Lee Kuan Yew being an established lawyer was well aware of this and had gotten Eddie Barker to request from Tunku for the necessary amendment to the Malaysian constitution in view of the deteriorating situation then, which was documented in "Lee's Lieutenants" (South Wind Production) ISBN 1-86448-639-2 and also, according to a web archive in the United States Library of Congress, effectively a third party view of the whole scenario.

The term "separation" was quoted consistently throughout, while "expel/expulsion" being a term used mainly by Tunku and Malaysian politicians (mostly for their political gains), Tunku and UMNO delegates didn't really understand how the constitution really work. In order for Singapore to separate from Malaysia, a minor change in the Malaysian Constitution was necessary so as to allow both leaders to sign the official papers, which states that Singapore secede or separate from Malaysia.

Honestly, I can't fault you for thinking that expelled was the correct term when it isn't so because of the cloud of political uncertainty back then which indirectly compelled the popular media to write and report in sensational terms. That said, I like the way you had reword the sentence but the term "expel" has got to go. Thoughts?

Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think expelled was the correct term; however, secession (the other word used in most of the texts) seems wrong as well. I am glad you've settled on separation, actually; it seems to be a good antonym for 'merger', which initiated the state of affairs. The problem is that historically, 'expulsion' was used in Lee's account, as you've probably noticed. I would go further in agreement with you by noting that Yeo Kim Wah and Albert Lau, in Chapter 7 (pp 117-153) of 'A History of Singapore' (edited by Ernest Chew and Edwin Lee, London:OUP, 1991; ISBN 0-19-588917-7) use the word 'separation' throughout. Thanks! Brythain (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helping out on Singapore

Hello again. The page is fully locked up but IMO, you being an uninvolved third party and all that, you can still help to make some changes to the article. How? Very simple, you just need to setup a sandbox under your username (such as → User:Brythain/Sandbox ←, which I've created on your behalf and you may add it in your user page for other future uses as well) and then... blast away! Oh, I've taken the liberty and copied the page content from the article into that sandbox... so like I've said, blast away! When you're done, simply leave me a message and I'll get a friendly Admin to help with the input. Or if you want to do it yourself, you may proceed to User talk:Ged UK and tickle him.

Don't worry, I'm usually not that in your face kind of guy, but the actions of some people really irks me when they pretend not to see or notice my/our complaints and went on to irritate me and the other editors by blindly reverting contents without first discussing them. Hope this clear things up, cheers! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Dave, thanks very much for the response. I was gone a few days, off and on, and suddenly there were all these revert sequences. Got kind of lost. Glad to receive help. Brythain (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and knowing that you're still a novice, I'm just glad I could help. To which, I will leave you with the following. Cheers! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an information page.

It is not an encyclopedic article, nor one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.

Shortcuts

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge.

Wikipedia is freely available, and combines many features
of general and specialized encyclopedias and other reference works.

Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information.

Wikipedia is not a place to publish unverifiable material.

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own ideas.

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your opinions.

Wikipedia is not a free advertising space.

Wikipedia is not a social networking site.

Wikipedia is not an advocacy platform.

Wikipedia is not an internet directory.

Wikipedia is not for medical advice.

Wikipedia is not for legal advice.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Wikipedia is not an anarchy.

Wikipedia is not censored.

Wikipedia is not nearly this in-your-face most of the time.

Meritocracy

Hey, you posted on the Singapore talkpage awhile ago a quote from a book about the ruling style of the PAP. Do you think you could whip up a paragraph about the PAP for the politics section with the sources you have? That way the article will conform to WP:LEAD. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph on the ruling style of the PAP? Give me a rough idea of what you think is needed and I'll get it together. The problem with having too many sources is you can't see the trees for the wood. Thanks! Brythain (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the very least we need to expand on what was considered necessary to include in the lead during the discussion on the talk page. Information about how the PAP operates; how it determines who enters the party, how the party is structured, and how it chooses who to employ as civil servants. This is where information about meritocracy would be useful. Do you think going into historical electoral support for the PAP would be useful? Anyway, this could be balanced out by the criticisms of its authoritarian style and its control over domestic life and elections. More is better than less at the moment. It doesn't seem right to have a politics section on Singapore without an explanation on the party that has ruled for over half a century after all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Brythain. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]