User talk:MordukhovichAleakin

January 2022

Hello, I'm Seloloving. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Lee Hsien Loong, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Seloloving (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MordukhovichAleakin, I note your edit summary to TheEncyclopediaReader calling them ignorant. While editing Wikipedia, passions may run high as a matter of course, but we need to bear in mind Wikipedia's civility requirement, and comment on the contribution, not the editor. Please do read WP:CIVIL. Please do also add sources for your contributions, especially if they are on articles of living people. You may reply here or message me on my talkpage if you require assistance. Cheers. Seloloving (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You saw what he did, he removed the national language. Ridiculous! It's no wonder people keep assuming Singapore is part of China.

I understand, but we still have to remain civil with each other on Wikipedia. Please do refrain from using such labels again. As for my note on the biography of living persons on Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong, while there may be disputes over their appointments, we still have to adhere to WP:BLP and ensure that information should have reliable sources. If you wish to call the tenure of Goh's a one party state, you must have reliable sources backing the assertion. Seloloving (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But we both know SG is a one-party state, at least de-facto. I can say this on the talk page right? I assume you're Singaporean, so you know what I'm talking about. Let's not kid ourselves here. There's probably a news article out there calling Goh's rule as a continuance of PAP's hegemony but I'm too lazy now. I'd find one if I have the time.

De facto or not, we have to adhere to Wikipedia's rules, and WP:BLP articles are particularly sensitive, as you may have read. If you can find a source, other editors can judge it on its merits and decide if it should be included. Even if a source exists, it has to be balanced against WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or activism (see WP:ADVOCACY) even though I understand the temptation. :

I understand throwing so many rules at you right now is not very conducive, so do ping me if you ever require further assistance. I suggest editing other articles you may have a hobby in to gradually learn about editing on Wikipedia, before returning to more contentious topics. That was what I did too. Seloloving (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy

MordukhovichAleakin. I understand you wish to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in Singaporean history, but Wikipedia is not about that. Seloloving (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

Rather than disrupt the project to make a point (yes I have read Talk:Singapore#Starting_from_1959 and the above discussions), I suggest you read WP:POINT. May I also suggest you refrain from edit warring (on multiple articles from what I can see). M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Singapore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Progressive. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Singapore. Your edit on the CMIO classification has been rejected by a number of editors on the page. Having failed to change WP:STATUSQUO, you should engage in a talk page discussion with other editors instead of continuing to push your edits onto the page. Your conduct constitutes WP:EDITWAR, which may result in a block. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, unless you also disagree with my edits, my edit was not "rejected by a number of editors" but rather simply one editor, that is Gandalfett. My edit stood for a few days before it was reverted by them, and hence there was ample time for it to be reverted by someone other than Gandalfett if it was indeed "rejected by number of editors". In addition, said user is not using the edit summary at all as to *why* they are reverting me per WP:FIES, which leads me to think as to why you are not slapping warning templates on their talkpage as well. Speaking of which, you threatening me potentially being blocked from editing and bad-faith assuming I'm trying to disrupt Wikipedia is excessively hostile considering I simply made one revert and I was actually using the edit summary. MordukhovichAleakin (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]