This is an archive of past discussions with User:Strange Passerby. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
copyvio?
The original base of the article (which mentions his resume) was from user:Vsion, who is a respected contributor and would have unlikely to have copy and pasted from a random official website. For deleting 326 revisions, I wonder if we have been a little hasty in jumping the gun. How do we know that MCYS did not copy from us? MCYS created that article in 2010; Vsion started that article in 2005. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 10:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
[1]. He may be a respected contributor now but who's to say whether when he was newer here five/six/however many years ago, he didn't do what most newbies did? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I am almost fairly convinced MCYS copied from us (and should be contacted for not attributing us). Look at how they wrote that article. It is written in Wikipedia's style. They plagiarised from us, not the other way round. It was Vsion who originally wrote "married with three children". I think we should consider restoring the revisions. We may be the victims of our own success.
I have already provided a link above for you from 2006 taken from the official Cabinet website. MCYS' current profile is similar to the official Cabinet profile. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The base of the article was written in the summer of 2005. Also look at how the contributors slowly added the revisions. Of course you deleted the revisions so you can't see. User:Huaiwei contributed too. 10 different editors all plagiarised from the same source? I think not. Again the copyvio bot was already active then. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 10:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That was probably the main source.... but I am not sure if it's a copyvio. In the future we shouldn't be too quick to jump the gun. We can see the article's evolution. Was the article continuously modified to reflect some external source? I suppose that is likely (given government agents who annoyingly bold different titles on Ministry articles to make their employers look grandiose, but then I question whether that is a "typical" copyvio warranting a speedy delete. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 11:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I did not tag the article for deletion at any time. The deletion was unilateral, as you will see at Moonriddengirl's talk page, and was contested by another non-admin copyright specialist. In any case, revision delete is necessary to get rid of the old copyvio revisions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Look at this diff again. Some IP added " He was elected President of the National University of Singapore Student's Union (NUSSU) from 1981 to 1983, and Chairman of NUSSU in 1984/1985." (7 May 2006). A contributor added that single line. This is in none of his 2005/2006 biographies except his 2010 one. I am suspicious. I am merely saying we should be cautious.
Er, it was. [2] "He was elected President of the National University of Singapore Student's Union (NUSSU) from 1981 to 1983, and Chairman of NUSSU in 1984/1985." Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
ITN for Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland
Not to content, but disrupting Wikipedia can happen in many ways, and it's disruptive to people following the edit history of the article. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Really? the fellow gaelic absol majority??
i read it somewhere, ill gfind that source. ill jyust hide isntead of removing in the meaintuime? okay?(Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).
I know. I wasn't accusing you of edit warring, merely telling you of the restriction should you choose to revert my removal of the information without discussing. I've commented on the article talk page regarding Scotland. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
ooh also, we need more context to the unprecedentant visitand the ocntroversy. [4][5], etc. perhaps a "reaction" section>?(Lihaas (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).
not necessarily the weblogs of places like aljazeera are no considered dodgy.
anyways, just tag the dodgy ones and ill find another source or remove it. got some other stuff im adding now.(Lihaas (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).
AGF, that was edit conflict as youll note from the bbc re f "added back" hat was never disputable. i was adding the obama bit,(Lihaas (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).
For god sake, were avingh a high normal civil discussion on a CURRENT EVENT that obviously yields to EDIT CONFLICTS. there is nto controverisal content dispute. why dio tyiyu need to compklaing to ANI abotu everything. you reverted, i explained, crisis solved. see the TIMING of the edits.(Lihaas (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).
Then YOU need to voluntarily remove the information, as I cannot because the article is under 1RR. That is the only reason I went to AN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Fine I will. just tell me and i will. im just adding some sources. We can easily socle thsi ourself, as we are doing. no? do we think we are warring or being uncivil? i dont.(Lihaas (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).
I told you it was an unreliable source, only for you to tell me to "just tag the dodgy ones" because you had "some other stuff im adding now." If you are agreeable to revert to the simple fact (100 years since George V) with the BBC ref, all the better. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
fact tags are calls to improve refs, the ref in question is dodgy then tag and well either find or remove. Now we cvan discuss it, dont think you need the ANI. its your complauint so we can withdraw and discuss it as we are doing ourselves. im almost done with my sources now, so clean up what you see fit and reverts are not dubious is uncontroversail and i dont have beef with yorus b/c we are TOGETHER cleaning and current event article. see WP is based on colloboratuion wso we can colloborate.(Lihaas (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).
It doesn't matter that the revert is uncontroversial, the article is on a strict 1RR rule and I'm not going to break it. I would still ask you to be the one to remove the contested information. And you shouldn't be added poorly-sourced information at all. It's not a race. WP isn't about adding information from biased sites then tagging the information ourself. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
seperated b/c major was former and cameron uis current to give context. PM is also proper noun when giving title as opposed to general mention, in this acase the former. we dont have to follow media conventions.(Lihaas (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).
I count (very roughly) about 11 supports and 10 opposes. I agree wholeheartedly that the blurb should not have beeen posted. But if reasonable people like you and me don't keep up the fight, the loud mouths will win. If anything, that posting should make you more, rather than less liely to patrol ITN, so long as you are spending any time at all at wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Youth Olympics
Well I ain't being funny but the way I changed it to would be the correct way i.e. fitting in with all other nations. Thus someone and not me as I don't know how to do this will need to make a new template so that the mixed team shows up correctly, like the ZZX verson would. Instead of this somewhat complicated way of showing the same as ZZX but with different wording. Good twins (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll think about it, but it'd be counter-intuitive without a delegation code as the length of the template name wouldn't be much shorter than what it currently is. I'll see what I can do. StrPby (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
re Otherdictionariesarebetter
Per our previous discussions, I have been reviewing the above editors contributions over the last few days. As he is not causing disruption presently, I do not feel that any report to an admin noticeboard will result in any resolution. Providing he continues to direct his attention to areas where he is content to follow the sources and not indulge his taste for substituting opinion over consensus then I suggest we wait and hope they mature into a responsible contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This. I'm happy that they invest so much time of course -- I would actually like the government to engage our media more -- but when they try to "officialise" things with their she was elected Member of Parliament boldness, or worse, delete critical sections, I get annoyed. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 12:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, yeah, that's concerning. I agree that while we should AGF, it would be worth watching Alverya's edits further to see if they introduce more POV. (Also, please check your wikipedia email as per my you've got mail template at your talk page! I emailed you about something slightly less related to this.) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, i guess since you guys are talking about me, I can come in here and "defend" myself right? :P Got to admit, my mistake to copy and paste the content from the MCYS website. newbie mistake that you'll notice i stopped doing for quite some time now. Just getting into Wiki, so learning along the way. Would appreciate your "teachings" if i made mistakes. tried to read up and dos and don'ts, but boy, wiki is mind-boggling and a bit overwhelming sometimes. Anyway, i'm editing more to learn more, and basically my goal is for factual and neutral articles, which is the crux of wikipedia right? :D THANKS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alverya (talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Coz I am a civil servant but it's my job. I do wiki on a personal basis. I'm just another Singaporean citizen trying to edit wiki, and unless there is a unspoken rule that someone who works as a civil servant is not allowed to edit any wiki pages about politicians because people will start accusing? I do wanna edit other non-govt pages, but since thus far, I can contribute nothing further to other wiki pages I've read. Tried to edit the Glee wiki, but people beat me to it. So, if there is some unspoken rule as i mentioned earlier, then I guess I have to quit wiki... which I think is super unfair.Alverya (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You can feel free to edit on a personal basis! Government IPs themselves may be blocked in the future (pending concerns) but anyone can edit yes, but editing on behalf of the government (or any party) is an issue. In that case, I apologise, and I hope we can collaborate in the future. (Also a little tip -- use more independent, rather than promotional, sources when writing about government / politician articles! They work better.) Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 11:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. If govt IPs get blocked, i've no issues. I will try and use more independent sources, sry for the trouble. :D Alverya (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I've responded, but in fairness and for neutrality, I've also raised (imo relevant) issues I have previously raised with you over your participation in the matter. Both sides need to be looked at, as is the case in any dispute. I hope you understand. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi StrPby, it's now almost three days (at least in our part of world) and I'm still waiting for your response. As I asked, if still something missing there then please tell me. I'm trying my best to satisfy you, so please cooperate with me. — Bill william comptonTalk04:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Strange Passerby, I don't think you have established a clear need on why the entire admin corpus needs to be advised; the evidence in the recent cases seems to be limited to actions escalated by Sandstein. Is it your view that when one admin repeatedly acts counterproductively, the solution is to repeatedly remind ALL of the project's admins (of what it knows and otherwise complies with) without actually addressing that single admin who is causing much of the problem? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe it would be viable to single out any one admin here. Both Sandstein and HJ Mitchell probably did what they felt to be right, even if both actions could have been handled better. I'm not buying the apparent crusade against Sandstein here. I'm not suggesting this should be a precedent and that all admins would have to be reminded of these principles in future, merely saying a one-off reminder can't hurt. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think admins are understandably getting a tad bit tired of being reminded of things they are already complying with and not in need of being reminded of yet again. If there wasn't an earlier case where the same set of problems unfolded, I'd have agreed that a one off-reminder this time is good, but I think we've been there and done that. At the time, I'd specifically asked for all admins to be reminded of good practice, and they were...but I can't justify continuing that as as a precedent, particularly when it will promote serious wikilawyering and permit such problems to persist. And looking at Sandstein's response to one of your proposed Fofs, I don't think he fully understands. Thanks for your answer though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
La goutte de pluie's sockpuppetry issue
Hi, I'm the anonymous IP involved in the "edit war" with User:La goutte de pluie over at Teo Ser Luck's page. Firstly, it is really beyond my control that my Starhub IP keeps changing. I am really not on any proxy.
I would like to bring up something since I can't post on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board.
During the "edit war" with User:La goutte de pluie, I noticed another anonymous IP popping up to help La goutte de pluie to revert back to his edit. Also under the Talk Page, it was the same person who added the questionable content about MCYS. If you asked me, I think that guy is also La goutte de pluie and I'm saying that because during several exchanges with him, that's exactly the same things he said to me over and over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
You are cordially invited to join the Asian Games Task Force!
Hello fellow Wikipedian! I just wanted to let you know that Asian Games task force is looking for participants and I thought you might be interested in joining! Check out our project page, and if you like what you see, join us by adding your name to our membership list.
Lihaas has a long history of editing contentious articles, particularly on current political events. I and many others find him to be very reasonable. His edits are motivated by good faith, and he will respond reasonably if you write a reasonable note. Try to work things out informally without drama! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz06:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand. I thought we were supposed to specify the award most likely to be posted on the main page. All I did was put the most prestigious awards next to the ceremony. As for changing "Emmy Award" to "Primetime Emmy Award", that just made it clearer why there is only one expected story per year instead of more for the Primetime, Daytime, Sports, Technology and Engineering, News and Documentary, Regional and International Emmy Awards. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm having problems with this IP-jumping editor, who will revert random additions without discussion and without using community processes. I don't have time to write up an RFC, but please suggest an appropriate course of action. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to review the edits I made to Tin Pei Ling page. I shortened it because it was too lengthy days ago. But Elle feels the need to insert sarcastic words again. And Vivian Balakrishnan. I would like to point out Elle linked the word agenda to gay agenda even though Zhanzhao warned not to overdo on gay issues when he should be talking about suppressing video under Talk section. p.s couldn't control the IP tonight. Keeps flipping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.11 (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that an appropriate link if certain readers (Singaporeans) are unaware of the connotations of the language they are using? Zhanzhao's issue was a different one. You only flip IPs when you get blocked, which is rather curious -- I've never seen someone flip from the 218.186.16.* range to the 202.156.13.* range! Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 17:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
To help Kiefer understand what constitutes identifying information, I am going to post an example of identifying information about a miner. Here it is; .
Why is this identifying information? Because it shows an image of the miner's home, and the filename of the image also reveals the town in which that home is located. Therefore it could possibly be used to locate or uniquely identify that miner.
By contrast, a minor (or even a miner) choosing to mention a common medical condition, cannot be used to locate or uniquely identify that person. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Imagine that a vandal starts leaving nasty messages, an event that has many times, with potentially deadly results. Let the minor decide after reflecting further. Kiefer.Wolfowitz06:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Please deal with the substance of the concern, DemiWit1000, this time at least. I linked to the Nyb's essay suggesting the removal of personal information by minors (#7 I repeat). Kiefer.Wolfowitz06:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Worth monitoring, especially with the suspicious account creation date. But as the last check didn't throw this account up, I'm inclined to AGF. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
On 8 July 2011, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article STS-135, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Hi SP. I'm not badgering you in any way, but could you consider just popping back and adding the bold 'Oppose' to your !vote. At WP:RFA2011 we have some bots patrolling RfAs that rely on it for gathering statistics. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Please review the situation for me. I cannot deal with these games by myself anymore, and I need a copyright expert (especially when it comes to dating the blog). I could have sworn Balakrishnan's blog wasn't Creative Commons before the copyright dispute -- when I used it as a source it was "all rights reserved", and the portrait subpage cited isn't linked anywhere from the main page.
One issue is that of COI -- it means that one of the editors (or "the editor" if necessary) has connections to the blog, perhaps as a public relations manager. Hence, you have the silly action like attempting to remove the otherwise perfectly fine Breast Cancer Foundation photo with the more official portrait (and not even attempting to move it somewhere else in the article) -- and removal of this image occurred before without explanation and without replacement. I don't know what other people would be so adamant to have their language on the page, either.
The other is still copyright. The editor claims the material here on his blog is older than the official government biographies and since the material is licensed under CC, therefore text from this section can be freely copied into the article. How valid is this claim? How do we ascertain who is the real original author of the work?
I suppose the COI very much disturbs me, since the editor refuses to admit that "okay, I'm part of the web team and I went on there and changed the licensing for the site". elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be an entry in the Wayback Machine archive for his site before today, so it's impossible to tell if they switched the content licenses. In any case, since the same text is found on official government sites with a copyright notice, we need to err on the side of caution and reject it as a copyright violation, if it is (re)added. The best way forward might be to email Dr Vivian himself, especially at any personal email that can be found where he might not have minders sifting through his email.
There is a major issue here with the side you are fighting against. Unfortunately this appears to have become a large crusade, with many meatpuppets and sockpuppets in use. This is not to say that they are completely wrong, because it is true that you have also made questionable edits, although these have certainly not been on a scale as large as the other side.
The biography on his site appears to be updated in May 2011 (just after the general election). It even contains images of the CV that was included in the election manifesto that was published in April 2011. On the other hand, the government website is dated June 2011. If there are any doubts you can always email him at the address provided on his blog.
Furthermore, it should be obvious that the language used by La goutte de pluie is, in good faith, perhaps due to her less than perfect command of the language. Wikipedia language should be concise wherever possible. Her pattern of edits, (which you have highlighted as questionable), suggest that she is not focussing on making Wikipedia better, but pursuing her own political interests. By all means escalate this to arbitration if you feel that this is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.168 (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Which was obviously written by him too. The point is that the material on his blog is licensed under Creative Commons. He does not lose his original rights even if the government reserves rights on their sites. Why don't you email him if you are unsure? Use of this material is consistent with WP:ABOUTSELF, WP;SELFPUB and WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Thank you also for highlighting the older version which also illustrates the amount of material that La goutte is trying to suppress for reasons best known to herself. Spurious copyright issues should not be used to suppress verifiable data from Wikipedia. I will reinsert this material in due course. Thank you very much. 220.255.1.147 (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Strange Passerby, I would like to highlight to you that the edit war about Vivian Balakrishnan's schools only happened AFTER La goutte de pluie got upset when she couldn't wiki link words like "agenda" to "gay agenda". She had made no efforts to rewrite the section after removing the original copyrighted text and protecting in late June. So I rewrote it. She started accusing after I questioned her intentions in linking words "agenda" to "gay agenda" repeatedly. The same thing happened on the Singaporean general elections 2011 page. You know it. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in doing an FTC around the 1952 Winter Games. One question. I'm working on an enormous FTC that, given my current abilities and time, will likely never be completed. My only concern is that if this project picks up steam I don't want this 1952 Winter Games FTC to throw a wrench in that project. Do you forsee it being an issue? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius18:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There really isn't that much needed. The medal table needs probably a stronger lead of a few more paragraphs, and a few nice pictures, but otherwise it's about there, based on the other medal table FLs. The "list" portion of it is the table itself, and obviously that's already done. It's only the writing bit and that shouldn't take too long. Probably could be done by this weekend and sent to FLC on Sunday or Monday. Once that hits FL then I think FTC should be a pretty easy breeze. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok I've added some info in a Highlights section. It reads a bit choppy and probably needs some finessing. Take out what you don't like, add what you think is missing. There aren't a lot of great pics for the 1952 Games, I've looked. If you know of some athlete pics that I couldn't find please add them. I'll have limited computer access until Monday so if you feel as though it's ready for nomination at FLC please go for it. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius16:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
So, someone told me that maybe FTC, if they're being a bit snarky, will want all the SPORT at the 1952 Winter Olympics and NATION at the 1952 Winter Olympics articles to meet their FT criteria too. That's a line of thinking I hadn't previously considered. Your thoughts, H1nkles? Anyway, I'll still send the medal table to FLC some time Sunday when I've time. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This would be an overview topic, which would mean that "every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic should also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic." One could bring up events at the 1952 Winter Olympics; this would bypass having to bring every sport plus the opening and closing ceremonies. The events could then again (potentially, we need to be able to "argue" for a structure even if we have no intension to work on it) become a new overview topic. Then the multi-event sports would themselves become potential subtopics of that topic again. The country-at-the-games-articles would also need to be included indirectly in the topic, so a list of nations or something would have to be created, although one could always argue that the medal table is a list of nations, and that the medal table would be the head topic for a subtopic of the nations. In my Oslo Metro topic, there are three levels of topics and the nomination went fine, even though only six of about 150 potential articles were included. Although not altogether active, some feedback may be possible at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions. Arsenikk(talk)07:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I confess to having little experience with FTC or the mindset of the delegates. I'm for pushing forward with the overview lists (Venues and Medal table), we could add the Events list and give it a run. The medal table isn't a complete list of nations, so perhaps a list of participating nations is necessary? This would create an overview topic that should cover all the relevant issues. I think we can do this and make the argument that you don't have to include all the Nation and Sport at 1952 Winter Olymipcs articles. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius16:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I've started work on the Events at the 1952 Winter Olympics. There was not much there so I added a bit of prose and some refs. To my knowledge there aren't any Events at YEAR Olympics FLs so it's hard to determine what else I need to add to this list. Can you think of anything I should include? It's pretty minimal right now. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius21:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a good start. I was thinking maybe we'd expand that list to list every single event that took place in each sport, perhaps marking them (background colours, as well as a symbol or list column for WP:ACCESS) for men's, women's or mixed. We could introduce columns like "first contested at Olympics" (women's 10k Xcountry would be 1952; men's ice hockey would be 1920). I'm not sure how much detail we should go for when listing the individual events; perhaps defending Olympic champion and new Olympic champion? Would be a little cross-over with the medal winners list although I don't think that'd be too bad.
Alternatively, we could leave this at stub, and if asked, claim the events are covered by said medal winners list since every event is indeed already covered there. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards your final comment about leaving it as a stub. I asked for input at FLC and Ramblinman thinks it's a fork and we shouldn't bother trying to get it to FL. I see his and your point and I think for now I'll leave it alone. I feel good about taking the article, venues, medal table and medal winners to FTC and take our chances. Do you agree? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius20:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the re-inclusion of the possible discovery of water on Mars. I thought the section below was a discussion. Is it not necessary follow the procedure (highlighted in yellow) for nomination? I also noticed that the corresponding article was not present when you nominated. The rules seem vague and I'm in the dark. Please enlighten. Thanks. SurajT07:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Since I basically took time out of lab to add some significant references and additions to the article, it would be very kind of you to flag or remove individual problematic statements, rather than reverting my entire addition, which I am sure you don't really find problematic. I am unaware of which particular statements are unsupported. Is it the one about the Barisan Sosialis? (see: Barisan Sosialis.) Do you object because while election sources say, "the narrowest election since 1965" they don't explicitly refer to the 1963 election? Given that the 1963 election is sourced, this seems curious. Do you object to the characterisation of George Yeo as being popular online and having received "a flood of support"? I think this is supported too? I am simply at a loss at which statements you find problematic. Thaaaaaaaaanks. ellevécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 01:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
AN notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Just a formality, since the person who started the thread seems to have forgotten to inform you.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The irony, eh? Thanks for the note but I'd already seen it at Worm's talk page and subsequently at AN. At this moment I'm pretty much ready to disengage totally; it's a waste of time trying to argue further. StrPby (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Unwittingly I have stumbled upon a rich literature on trade unions and labour relations in Singapore (not usually taught in our schools), and you might find this interesting reading. I aim to explore the early labour movement, the leftist grassroots that comprised the core of the rank and file of the PAP before the Barisan Sosialis split in 1963, as well as the political alliance between the noncommunist trade unions and the PAP, and whether this alliance was important even after independence. Early union leaders into the late 1980s appear to be democratic socialist and aligned with the historical left-of-centre party they knew from the 1960s, which explains "their increasing disquiet". (Devan Nair appears to be part of this old leadership.) I aim to incorporate many other references, but that reference is the most intriguing that I have found so far. If you have any interest or if you simply want to vet my edits, you are welcome to join me. I have no conclusions to draw from at this point -- I have no idea what I am going to find. ellevécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 04:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Accusation of Personal Attacks
I am genuinely confused. I participate actively on several forums where a personal attack is defined as where an individual person is singled out, and verbally attacked. I don't think I have done that here. (If I have, please show me.) It's difficult to stop committing a crime I don't understand. HiLo48 (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I now see that you have completely removed my attempt to defend myself. Hardly ethical. I think I'll give up. Wouldn't you rather convince someone, than just bully them off Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: WP:ITN
Appreciate your thoughts on my posting to ITN. I am not sure whether it is inappropriate unless there is no clear consensus or the admin is the nominator of ITN/creator of the article. Nevertheless, your opinion is noted. Will keep in mind. Thanks - -- TinuCherian - 13:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
She's doing it again. Please take a look at her recent activities. Regardless of our religious views, the attack on the church is dangerous. Hope you understand why I am anonymous. Thank you v much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searchertoo (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
What? I am simply citing what I found on Google Scholar. I haven't been cherrypicking my sources unlike some of the members of the church. Give me an academic source that covers the church favourably and I will cite that too. Remember WP:NPOV determines weight by sourcing, not the your sense (or anybody's sense) of the truth. If the majority of sources about a subject are unfavourable, then the majority of the article should be unfavourable -- anything else would be giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint. That is how WP:NPOV works. ellevécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 15:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexia Sedykh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
