User talk:Vsion/Archive03

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks!

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1:
• Archive 2:

---

How can lidat one?

Oy, brudder! Ca you tell me why you tell me you dowan the Rfa leh? I trust you so much and you turn me down. How can lidat one?Ok, I was kidding... Anyway, I'm just disappointed...that you don't want it...sad...aiyah, neh mind lah! Next time I'll nominate you, ok? Good luck, Vsion...-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 和 CCD Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance

Well, alright, but can you please declare the acceptance of this Rfa? Even if you do not want it, you must still put it up. :)-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 和 CCD 維基和平 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feel disappointment. I just want to continue doing what I have been doing, keep focus on writing article, and stay above the fray. Besides, with so many helpful admins out there, there is nothing I cannot get done easily. There are many more worthy candidates, look beyond sg a little further, you can find many great editors within South-east Asia. --Vsion 13:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Delete

Template:Delete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Wisden17 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 23, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ah Meng, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Taiwan

Hi Vsion, how do you propose to merge Portal:Republic of China? Originally there was only one portal for Taiwan and ROC but the portal kept being moved to Taiwan vs. Republic of China. An ROC portal would confuse people between history in China and the latter part in Taiwan. Whereas Taiwan could cover ROC topics. However, some people think a Taiwan portal suggests its a country when it's not. Then there's the complication of ROC's official stance of representing all of China. Hope to hear your suggestions. — Nrtm81 07:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is a vote; I will support the merge. There are too much overlap in the scope. Most would be materials in "Portal:Republic of China" are relevant to "Portal:Taiwan", the remainder (pre-1949 events, etc.) are relevant to "Portal:China". Hence keeping two portals is sufficient. --Vsion 23:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

City of Singapore

Re [1] [2] - I am afraid your edits were reverted bacause of the following reasons: i) The City of Singapore did not cover the entirety of the crown colony. The rest of the crown colony outside of the city was covered by the Rural Board. ii) Not the entirety of the colony was granted city status by the King. Only what was covered by the Municipal Council was conferred the city status. — Instantnood 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Both "Singapore City" and "City of Singapore" are synomonous to Singapore. There is nothing wrong with my edit. Your comment is as confusing as your argument, as you yourself have mixed up "City of Singapore" with "Singapore City", showing how weak your reasoning is. What entity are you talking about? My transfer of the content to the City Council will clarify the matter, what's wrong with that? In addition, the name of the article you created is misleading and you left both articles in a very poor state. If you are not interested in completing the articles, then just merge it into the city council article as the material are closely related. --Vsion 04:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"City of Foo" and "Foo City" would be referring to the same thing for most cases in English. The Singapore City or City of Singapore, before its council being abolished, did not cover the entirety of the then crown colony. As I have mentioned, there was a separate Rural Board responsible for the rest of the crown colony. Please kindly don't confuse readers. You can improve the content without merging the articles or disrupting factual information. — Instantnood 06:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said, "city of Foo" is indeed "Foo city". Similarly, because Singapore is a city, then "City of Singapore" or "Singapore city" is simply "Singapore". Your creation of a separate article "Singapore City" (note the capitalization), to refer to a pre-independence entity is confusing. This argument is not new and I note that your previous actions in a similar issue has resulted in a ban barring you from editing the article Singapore. Please do not use article's namespace to push your pov. --Vsion 04:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There was indeed a City of Singapore (spelt with a capitalised C), and there was a separate Rural Board [3]. If the City of Singapore covered the entirety of the then colony, then where was the Rural Board responsible to deal with? Is it anybody's POV when it's only a description of factual information? Please do some homework and figure out what was related to the ban, why there was such a ban, and see if its imposition was fair and just. — Instantnood 15:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (modified 23:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

The problem is not whether there was a City Charter in colonial Singapore. The problem is that you refused to recognise that the present Singapore is (administratively or otherwise) a city. You are an experienced editor, you should know that using an article title "Singapore City" to refer to an archaic entity is misleading when the common interpretation means the present singapore. A title "Singapore City (1951-1965)" would be more appropriate. This was simply an act of pushing your pov by abusing article namespace, and refusing to respect consensus. --Vsion 16:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is an actual fact that the modern state of Singapore nor any entity within the modern state of Singapore has inherited the city charter, and no new city charter as be conferred. Therefore in legal aspect (note: I'm not talking about the geographical or urban studies aspects) the modern state of Singapore, nor any entity within the modern state of Singapore, is a city. Since it's an actual fact it's not my or anybody's point of view. Actual facts can't be overturned by consensus. Mind your language and be careful when you're accusing anything. — Instantnood 18:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A city state does not need a city charter. What you are refering to is a pre-independence administrative entity, and therefore the merge to City Council of Singapore is correct and most appropriate. There is no good reason for you to revert. --Vsion 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do they have to be merged? You've yet to demonstrate there's consensus to do so. The Council has been established long before the royal charter was conferred. Separate articles exist for some cities and their councils. — Instantnood 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So the rural board is a seperate city and crown colony from Singapore? Geez why no Singaporean knows this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.67.109 (talk • contribs) 10:49, July 3, 2006 (UTC)

With no city status, the Rural Board is not a city. It covers part of the then crown colony. " Geez why no Singaporean knows " - There's no clue I can answer this question.. I do wonder how many Singaporeans in contemporary Singapore would know that the Cocos or Keeling Islands and the Christmas Islands were part of the crown colony of Singapore until 1955 and 1957 respectively. — Instantnood 15:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

re: 3rr vio. you may want to consider WP:AE instead. 71.212.79.165 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Chee Soon Juan edits?

Do you mean Chee himself edits his articles? As a shared IP or as a user? And what are his edits that are disputed? I'd like it if you can reply on my talkpage. Thanks.--Tdxiang 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Re : Welcome back!

Not too sure atm for FACs, but that's right, I'm back! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

CfR

Re [4] - I've listed your proposal on Wikipedia:categories for deletion [5]. But since you've "RfC" as part of the section title, feel free to correct it if you really meant to nominate it to Wikipedia:requests for comment instead. — Instantnood 20:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:HockLeeBusRiots.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:HockLeeBusRiots.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hezbollah antiaircraft from Herald Sun.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hezbollah antiaircraft from Herald Sun.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yawn

If you think that referal is going to make me accept your POV you're quite mistaken. John Smith's 22:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, it's time for you to go to bed! --Vsion 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm just sorely unimpressed by you.

Now where did I say I believed it was a fake event? You're acting irrationally.

We can always ask someone to mediate the point, though. Will you accept it if I request it? John Smith's 22:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case I'll have to send it to the arbitration committee. John Smith's 21:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, where did I say you said you believed it was a fake event? And when did I act irrationally? IIRC, you were the one who violated the 3RR. As for the arbcom, it is really your choice; it is free anyway, no lawyer fees required. --Vsion 06:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wangi/RFA

Thanks for your comments on my rfA, in the end I did manage to become an admin. Please let me know of anything I do that you've got an issue with! Thanks/wangi 00:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Re:Barnstar

Thank you so much for giving me an excuse to edit my almost dormant user page. :D I didnt see this coming, and categorising can actually be very fun to do, so nothing for me to shout about, really! Nontheless, thanks for this nice gesture and for appreciating. ;)--Huaiwei 15:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

External sources on Danny Yee

I added a good chunk, as you requested in the AfD. Would you take a look, and re-think your AfD comment? LotLE×talk 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

TOTSE

Thanks for pointing that out. I've restored and semi-protected the page now. Cheers, Tangotango 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

MSN

I don't see you on MSN nowadays, would you like to sign in now, since you are editing. Provided you are free, of course. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Singapore company stubs

Hi Vsion,

I see you've created Category:Singapore company stubs. I just wanted to make you aware of the fact that the creation of stub templates and categories should be proposed at WP:WSS/P. Since it is unlikely that the category you created will reach the threshold of 60 stubs, it may be deleted. The discussion about what to do with it will take place at WP:SFD. Thanx--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 23:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

For your tireless contributions to and maintenance of articles on Singapore, especially those pertaining to its history, politics and current events. —Sengkang 01:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, and thanks for the personal welcome to Wikipedia! I have to say it's rather addictive. (By the way, I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to be posting this kind of message to your talk page -- it doesn't seem 'serious' enough.) --Jacklee 01:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sophia and Uncyclopedia

I tend to disagree with your comment that the ironic use of "Sophia" on Uncyclopedia is "irrelevant". It may be somewhat trivial, but it's at least as relevant as the dozens of entries under the heading "Real and fictional women named Sophia (or variants thereof)", though I'm interested in your perspective. --Robertb-dc 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I feel that the content should not the included according to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information under the Internet content entry. Internet content is not inherently notable, unless supported by reliable secondary source. Nonetheless, I was doing mass removal of external links to Uncyclopedia at that time, following a discussion in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#External_links_to_Uncyclopedia, and inadvertently deleted the section at Sophia without discussing first. Feel free to reinsert if you feel it is noteworthy. --Vsion 01:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is always a source of chaos in an ordered system (and is therefore essential to the well-being of the universe). I'll hold off restoring the Uncyclopedia reference to the Sophia article until the issues noted below (Uncyclopedia and Oscar Wilde, and the Village Pump discussion) have settled out. One important note, though; the Uncyclopedia reference in the Sophia article is not a link to Uncyclopedia itself, but to Uncyclopedia and other Wikipedia articles, and therefore shouldn't count as evil linkspam. Whether it's "an indiscriminate collection of information" may still be up for debate, but that debate would have to include the rest of that strange list of Sophias -- the whole article might be a candidate for deletion. --Robertb-dc 16:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia and Oscar Wilde

Re: this edit of yours: I would think References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture should include a mention of Uncyclopedia. I created this article in no small measure to keep this cruft out of the article on Wilde himself. I won't revert you, but would appreciate it if, on second thoughts, you revert yourself. - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see above section regarding related incident in Sophia. The case for mentioning Uncyclopedia in References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture is much weaker than in Sophia because "Oscar Wilde" refers to an actual person, where Sophia is a name. The sentence "Fake Oscar Wilde quotes and references are a running gag at Uncyclopedia" gives no indication why these quotes and references are notable or significant in popular culture. Information such as "Fake Person X quotes and references are found in Internet Website Y", with substitutable X and Y, is neither inherently notable nor interesting. The fact that Uncyclopedia is a commercial website with advertisement and presents parodies and falsehoods (as oppose to knowledge and encyclopedic content) weighs against such inclusion. On the other hand, if you think this particular Uncyclopedia content on Oscar Wilde is a significant parody, cited by reliable secondary sources etc, then please provide the information and revert my edit. --Vsion 13:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

MRT map

The part going to changi airport is wrong. it should be go all the way up then turn right, not up, right and up again. --User:Ragnaroknike

You are right, thanks. I haven't been working on maps for quite a while, i will fix it when I have the time. --Vsion 13:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

categorization

Hi there and welcome to the category SWAT team. I think the best tips and tricks are the ones given in the categorization main page:

• Use the most specific category you can find.
• Look at similar articles to see what categories are available.
• Remember to use the birth/death/living categories for articles about people.
• Help other editors working on the backlog by categorizing articles even if you nominate or propose them for deletion.
• When in doubt, put a temporary higher-level category and leave message on the article's talk page so that future editors can refine the categorization.

But the comment of the advice of Crystallina (talk · contribs) is also pretty important: don't let the numbers get you down. We had a backlog of about 4000 articles in August that got taken care of in roughly two weeks. Now the total backlog is around 20000 with Sept. and Oct. combined but that's likely a consequence of recent changes in the bots' behaviour. For the next few months, we're going to get a huge load of uncategorized articles but I'm hopeful this will eventually return to normal. Pascal.Tesson 22:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Microorganism as this week's WP:AID winner

Davodd 03:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nanking Massacre. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

RfB With A Smile :)

Talk:Chinese language romanisation in Singapore - An example of inconsistency

Hi Vsion

I've tried to improve the page Chinese language romanisation in Singapore, specifically, the "Person's names" section. I noticed your comment in the discussion page, almost a year ago. Would you like to find a way to write it into the article? --Rifleman 82 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Environmentalism as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 18:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)