In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. JASWE (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not associated with or employed by UAS. I made the edits because the idea of an arts university goes further back than 2021 (as in original draft). There is so much more to Singapore's arts and cultural scene, and I do want the Wiki community to be aware of it. KPALau (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thank you for clarifying you are not associated with UAS. Your edits are not neutral and are generally promotional in nature. Your first edit is to remove a maintenance template specifically saying the article sound promotional in general and your subsequent edits are promotional. This is usually indicative of editors having COI with the article. Also try to write in your own words and not copy out from newspaper articles and press releases as it will be a copyright violation. I am posting a template message below with some of the general policies and guidelines for editing Wikipedia.
I hope you are not discouraged by what happened and stay to help edit and add on to the articles. Thanks! JASWE (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello KPALau and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you decide that 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. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ■ JASWE (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for your message, appreciate it! I've referred to Wiki periodically on various topics but was never triggered enough to contribute until I came across the entry on UAS. My late grandfather contributed to the Report of the ACCA (also known as the Ong Teng Cheong report for the arts) in 1989, so it was really disconcerting for me to see this entry that the notion of UAS was only conceived in 2001. In the late 1990s to early 2000s, there was also a push to promote the Creative Economy, yet the University still didn't come to fruition... till 2021.
I do feel strongly bout getting history across as accurately as possible, even if Wiki can at times be dodgy. Can you reconsider my edits and revert? I will then change the citations and sources of information that you pointed out. Thanks! KPALau (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you have written here 'My late grandfather contributed to the Report of the ACCA (also known as the Ong Teng Cheong report for the arts) in 1989, so it was really disconcerting for me' will construe a slight COI. Singapore government moves very slow when there is no direct or known economic benefits but this is how our government works. Linking two separate issues without a source linking them will be considered original research and not allowed in Wikipedia.
Your edits on UAS are considered copyrights violation so these edits will be scrubbed off the page per my request to delete the edits. I will not be removing it and revert to your version. You can rewrite them but in your own words with the sources supporting your statements. Do read the guidelines (I know its tough for new editors to read them through but do try!). I strongly suggest adding a few sentences with proper sources at one time so it will feel less overwhelming for you also. ~ JASWE (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention my late grandfather at all and cited the ACCA Report as a publicly available source. I will delete the references to MOE press release and media articles since it is so objectionable.
With due respect, my proposed edits above are more neutral and far less promotional than what's currently on the Wiki page. KPALau (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it is not about mentioning your late grandfather. You mentioned your grandfather was involved in the proposal which may or may not lead to UAS eventually and you are triggered as opposed to 'was never triggered enough'. This is the COI I am mentioning.
Template:Infobox_university indicates parameter campus_type is to indicate the Type/nature of the institution's campus (e.g. urban, rural, multiple sites). It is not about where the campus at.
Your copyright violations is for copying word for word from newspapers article and press release. Not mentioning them will not resolve the problem. That is a light copyvio in the line 'in fine arts, design, media arts, performing arts and arts management, as well as in new and upcoming areas in the applied arts'. The paragraph starting with The idea of a Singapore arts university was mooted as early as the Report of the Advisory Council on Culture and the Arts in 1989 while sourced is basically original research that it was the basis of to start UAS. You wrote The ACCA Report recommended that the Ministry of Education could consider establishing a Faculty of Art and Design and a School of Performing Arts in the proposed new university which does not proposed a standalone University. This is almost WP:COATRACK and irrelevant to UAS.
There are lots of buzzwords being used such as foster career readiness, futures thinking and enhance interdisciplinary collaboration. and drawing strengths from and driving synergies between LASALLE and NAFA which makes most of your edit unusable.
While there is a desire to right great wrongs like not omitting your grandfather's work (see COI and original research again), please do not do it here in Wikipedia. Thanks. ~ JASWE (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was working to tighten text and changed the sources, before coming across your new message.
The sentences "in fine arts, design, media arts, performing arts and arts management, as well as in new and upcoming areas in the applied arts" and "foster career readiness, futures thinking and enhance interdisciplinary collaboration" etc. didn't come from me. These were already in earlier versions and since I was not able to verify the source, I left these phrases intact to respect earlier editors.
The references to ACCA and the Committee to Upgrade LASALLE and NAFA are policy precursors. Anyone who has some history/interest in the Singapore arts sector would be aware that it was not a 2021 light bulb moment. For that matter, the need for Esplanade Theatres on the Bay in 2002 was also recommended in the 1989 ACCA Report, even if it was not named Esplanade then. As you pointed out as well, it is precisely because the Government takes time to germinate ideas and sit on policy decisions.
The spirit of Wikipedia is to collect knowledge and build consensus, isn't it? Wholesale rejection of edits and the insistence of only one viewpoint seems to run contrary to what Wikipedia seeks to do. KPALau (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KPALau Again, show us the references and sources between the ACCA and the decision to create UAS. There is a logical jump in your statements between ACCA to establishing a Faculty of Art and Design and a School of Performing Arts in the proposed new university and formation of UAS. Wikipedia relies on references and sources to verify the statements being written.
The sentences I highlighted came from your edit. I will admit based on the last [version] that the line in fine arts, design, media arts, performing arts and arts management, as well as in new and upcoming areas in the applied arts and foster career readiness, futures thinking and enhance interdisciplinary collaboration comes from a previous version but you add on drawing strengths from and driving synergies between LASALLE and NAFA. In all, it was still a bad edit.
While Wikipedia may be used to collect knowledge, it is built on consensus and what we have now is this process Bold, revert and discuss cycle. Your changes are reverted and now we are discussing it. Note that Wikipedia will revert to the last good version and discuss the changes. Currently we are past the BR and at the Discuss phase. If there is no consensus, the changes will not be implemented (as it was challenged). Also, the change as said is not acceptable per Wikipedia policies. If an edit is not acceptable per policies, it will be reverted. ~ JASWE (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with your points that the sentences you found objectionable were corporate gobbledygook, conceivably promotional in nature and takes phrases from news articles. I've taken the liberty to delete or paraphrase where appropriate. Hopefully the earlier editors won't take offense! KPALau (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, KPALau. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page University of the Arts Singapore, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
