User talk:Sgwatcher

May 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Alex Tan, did not appear constructive and has been or will be undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. In particular, please familiarize with WP:BLP and WP:CITE as you have been making edits that go against these policies. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hi, the original summary you have put in is inaccurate and defamatory. You could either have the page removed or use the correct version which has been provided.

As mentioned, you should read WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. The writeup you removed had been reported by 3rd party news sources, whereas the writeup you are introducing are not accompanied by any citation or sources. How are you so sure of its accuracy without sources to back up your changes? Zhanzhao (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, I am Alex Tan himself.

Number 1, how can we verify that you're even him, and Number 2, I would now suggest you read up WP:COI. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears ZhanZhao (Personal attack removed)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an attack. A search up on your contribution validates the observation.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing is corrective, not disruptive. Please stop your disruptive editing.

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Sgwatcher. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Alex Tan, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I walk you through our conflict of interest guidelines? You can reply here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Jim1138 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alex Tan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also, please do not add your own personal opinion or editorial comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you have your edits reverted by multiple editors on multiple pages for clear breaches of Wikipedia policies, you must not simply edit war to put them back - especially not when there are concerns being aired over your impartiality, and over alleged personal attacks on other editors. If you agree to stop editing the Alex Tan article or any related articles until these concerns are resolved, I will be happy to unblock you so you can take part in the ANI discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a layman, I have no need to comply with Wikipedia policies. The original description by ZhanZhao was defamatory and he will return the original defamatory content. My aim is simple: remove the defamatory content or take the page down.

As a "layman" you either follow Wikipedia's policies or you do not edit - it is as simple as that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so laymen don't get to edit, who made you Wikipedia? What is Wikipedia? You are just an admin, know your place. And where the hell you get the 1958 birthday from? I'm born in 1987.

Of course laymen get to edit - by following Wikipedia's editing policies! Everyone who wants to edit, from layman to expert, must follow the same editing policies. Now, I'm really trying to help you avoid a lengthy block here, so please listen to what you're being told - there are admins here who are far less lenient than I and your current battling approach really will not get you what you want. (As for 1958, I have no idea - as an admin I am not taking part in the content issues - they need to be resolved by seeking consensus (see WP:Concensus) based on reliable sources (see WP:RS)). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You sure are good at changing your tunes aren't you? Editing policies are written to ensure accuracy and that is where you are lacking at. I do not comply with flawed policies.

Yes indeed, our policies are to ensure accuracy (among other things), and if you comply with them then you will get help in improving that accuracy - for example, I've checked the article and there are no sources for that birth date, and so I have removed it in line with our WP:RS policy. If you are civil with people, they will help you, but your current approach of lashing out at everyone is not the way to do it. Anyway, you're clearly not in the mood to listen to me right now, so I'll leave it at that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a Conflict of Interest

Hi Sgwatcher. Thank you for your contributions. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. If you don't mind, I would like to walk you through some of our guidelines. Could you please respond here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lemongirl942, the original summary was defamatory. What recourse do I have to take down the defamatory content? (Personal attack removed) Are you going to ban him then?

If you continue to make personal attacks on another editor, I will revoke your ability to edit this talk page. If you think there is defamatory material in that article, you need to discuss it in a civil manner rather than adopting your battleground approach. I'm sure Lemongirl942 will be happy to help you, so please adjust your approach so that you are not prevented from taking part. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So just because you are unhappy with the manner a person is conversing, you can promote rumors and circulate defamatory material. There will be no compliance from my part.

Hi Sgwatcher. We have some rules on Wikipedia. We do not accuse people of being "government trolls" simply because they have reverted something which you added. I would to have your cooperation and assurance that going forward, you will not indulge in any personal attacks. May I have that assurance? If yes, we can move forward. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ye, complied. 2 questions: What recourse does one have when defamatory and inaccurate material is found on Wikipedia? Can the page be taken down?

Hmm before we go forwards. I would like you to go 2 things. When you reply, please add 4 tildas ~~~~ at the end of your answer. Second, I know this is your talk page, but may I have permission to remove the personal attacks you have made? Thank you --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just answer my questions and stop wasting time? Make whatever changes you like and answer my question. This account will be removed after this matter is resolved.Sgwatcher (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the only original writeup I added (the rest were reverts) was one para of writeup, the content of which was sourced from a news site [1]. If what you are saying is true and those events did not happen, and I did inadvertantly post something that did not happen, the one that defamed you was the news site. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, there is no way for most editors to verify if something is true or not, and relying on sources and citations are the most neutral and unbiased method that most editors here do their writeups. As I understand it, if you feel that the MSM is biased, there are other alternative news sources like BBC and Yahoo Singapore that provide more balanced coverage. If you do not know how to add sources to your writeups, just ask, and we can give you guidance. BUT simply ignoring the rules here is not a good idea. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort of editors from all walks of life, and the policies and guidelines are what prevents this from going chaotic. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest knowing how you or Wikipedia operate. Answer my 2 questions: What recourse does one have when defamatory and inaccurate material is found on Wikipedia? Can the page be taken down?Sgwatcher (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Sgwatcher. Also I would urge you read WP:CIVIL, being rude doesn't work on Wikipedia. Now to answer your questions

We have policies to deal with "defamatory and inaccurate material". It is called WP:BLP.
"Can the page be taken down"? Short answer no. Wikipedia is not censored. (There may be some special cases though if it is an attack page, but as far as I can see, it is not) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of all media sources, you quote Singapore media. It is ranked 154th in press accuracy for goodness sake. I've got my answers and will continue to closely monitor this page. Banning me doesn't work. I have access to a lot more IP addresses in different locations.

And that will not work. I would urge you not to use multiple accounts. If you abuse it, the page can be protected to prevent anyone from editing it. So I would urge you to not do anything of the sort. You can always discuss your problems here in a civil manner. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, using multiple account for an improper purpose is not allowed. (See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still willing to help you out. At the moment however, I will not discuss any content issues but rather the COI aspect. If you are willing to comply with our Conflict of Interest guideline, I would be happy to walk you through it and explain more. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content Discussion

Sgwatcher, Actually, I'd like to find out exactly which part of the writeup you found defamatory. Was it about the SMRT email, or the NSman death hoax? Are you saying they did not happen? Or are you disagreeing with how it was written? As it is now, no one can even help you look for alternative writeup/coverage of the incidents, unless you point us in the direction. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]