Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore
|
Welcome to the talkpage of the SGpedians' notice board, where you can discuss about Singapore-related articles and issues. Enjoy! =) |
|
|---|
| 1 2 3 |
Articles
Others |
Chee Soon Juan
(Since kimchi has shut down the "vandal alert" section, let me post this here). In Talk:Chee Soon Juan, it was revealed that the article Chee Soon Juan has serious factual problem, and apparently Chee himself has issued a long list of challenged items in the article. Many of the POV and inaccurate statements were added to the article and remained undetected for almost a year. While to be interviewed by ISD is one cool thing, to be sued by Chee would be quite embarassing. As I'm not very familiar with the subject, it would be helpful if you guys can take a look and tidy up the article. Thanks. --Vsion 05:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Then the question now is...is wikipedia now accountable to the views of individuals who has articles writtern on them? While I cannot endorse nor reject these revealations of facts with regards to Chee given the lack of information I have at hand, it underscores the need to remind ourselves that wikipedia remain a sourced site with a strong NPOV culture. I do not consider direct inputs from the article's subject as "NPOV" in nature in general. Lets work towards the presentation of opinions from both benches (and not making conclusive comments on him) before we end up flip flopping between conflicting views...--Huaiwei 14:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- The answer to the first question would be no, Wikipedia:Verifiability is the policy that applies here. Chee, in this case, did the right thing, by emailing the editors instead of editing the article himself. Those contributions by the three anons I listed in Talk:Chee Soon Juan have serious problems. I wonder what measures we can take to prevent this from occuring again. Hmmm... how about creating a new section in the noticeboard, for "Request for comment / request to verify"? It would be more prominent compared to the "to do" list. If I encounter a suspecting edit which I can't verify myself, I can post it under the section, to notify others so that more people can examine the concerned edit. --Vsion 17:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. Wikipedia:Verifiability even illustrated the example of having an article subject (or his research subject) providing information himself to wikipedians, stating that "Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry." Dr Chee may have done us a favour by not editing the page, but his comments alone wont count for much until he could actually show us published information for us to rely on. And a reputable publisher too while we are at it, if we may consider the party website as a partisan one. Anyway, your suggestions are already in use in wikipedia isnt it? :D--Huaiwei 17:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Chee's comments are mostly nuts. Even a primary school kid could point out his motives and rebutt him. Can we sue him for bugging a fellow Wikipedian to remove bad (but true) stuff about him? --Terrancommander 17:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- And Vsion, don't fret. Because of Wikipedia's free content policy, U.S. politicians have been waging covert warfare with each other by editing their opponents' articles bit by bit. This information took 3 weeks to verify before reverting, causing them to lose their reputation. Yet, the person cannot be sued because of Wikipedia's policy. If Americans can't be sued for this, Singaporeans can't be too. We can always countersue him for hiding up facts anyway, you're not alone. :) (Wikipedia is a U.S. project) --Terrancommander 17:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Chee's comments are mostly nuts. Even a primary school kid could point out his motives and rebutt him. Can we sue him for bugging a fellow Wikipedian to remove bad (but true) stuff about him? --Terrancommander 17:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed. Wikipedia:Verifiability even illustrated the example of having an article subject (or his research subject) providing information himself to wikipedians, stating that "Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry." Dr Chee may have done us a favour by not editing the page, but his comments alone wont count for much until he could actually show us published information for us to rely on. And a reputable publisher too while we are at it, if we may consider the party website as a partisan one. Anyway, your suggestions are already in use in wikipedia isnt it? :D--Huaiwei 17:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- The answer to the first question would be no, Wikipedia:Verifiability is the policy that applies here. Chee, in this case, did the right thing, by emailing the editors instead of editing the article himself. Those contributions by the three anons I listed in Talk:Chee Soon Juan have serious problems. I wonder what measures we can take to prevent this from occuring again. Hmmm... how about creating a new section in the noticeboard, for "Request for comment / request to verify"? It would be more prominent compared to the "to do" list. If I encounter a suspecting edit which I can't verify myself, I can post it under the section, to notify others so that more people can examine the concerned edit. --Vsion 17:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
news maintenance
We should maintain a better current events section for Singapore, of which no new articles for things like "June 2006" or "July 2006" has been created, so now we mostly rely on 2006 in Singapore for anything notable. For an entire nation there is certainly more to do, so perhaps if we posted excerpts on the noticeboard it will be better maintained? Note, I just remembered this after this entire Bhavani and mrbrown affair. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Or do you guys think we can maintain Current events in Singapore without going insane? ;) I dont mind giving it a try actually--Huaiwei 13:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
List of names
Hi, I have just shifted the list of names to put in in alphabetical order, makes it look much much neater. Feel free to rearrange them but please discuss if after doing so, thanks. --Terrancommander 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have just sorted them back to chronological order again. Neat is subjective, but a list showing the order of people joining us in wikipedia and the ease in picking out relative newbies so that they can be welcomed into this community far outweighs pure asthetics.--Huaiwei 17:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is already a list Category:Wikipedians in Singapore in alphabetical order. --Vsion 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, how about I am not newbie, but I just added my name to the list so I am second from the bottom? How would you classify newbie? I don't think 145 edits in a day can be considered newbie... Also, I doubt Wikipedia would allow me to join Esperanza, the Welcoming Committee, and VandalProof if I was new... --Terrancommander 09:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)- Ignore my comments, even I don't understand what I was talking about. But... I didn't even know there was such a page until I clicked wrongly. -.-" --Terrancommander 09:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Heh...I suppose that is feedback we need then. ;) Lets help promote this page to fellow Sgpedians!--Huaiwei 11:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- As I have already explained, the primary intention of a chronological list is clear. That intention dosent deny individual cases like yours the liberty to cease calling yourself a newbie. It is not meant to be foolproof, for this is not a scientific list, but one only maintained by individuals who volunteerily add themselves in. Even if it does not accurately reflect to the last dot how new someone is, it does at least tell us just how difficult or easy it is for new members to find this page! :D
- Anyhow, "145 edits in a day" isnt the same as "145 edits everyday". Anyone can chalk up a huge number of edits in a day and then leave wikipedia tomorrow, so lets not go into numbers, for I see no end to it.--Huaiwei 14:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please avail yourself to Wikipedia:Editcountitis. -- Миборовский 19:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I feel like a "peidu mama"... :( --Terrancommander 16:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Which really does deserve an article. -- Миборовский 18:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I feel like a "peidu mama"... :( --Terrancommander 16:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If you really want to know, I'm criticising them by saying that. --Terrancommander 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Standard naming scheme
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Archive?
Ready to archive? This page is getting rather lengthy. -- Миборовский 04:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This Singapore Wikipedian appears to be missing, suspect to have passed. I wonder if someone has the time to check and confirm?
The simplest way is to look through the obituaries in the archived sections of The Straits Times at the National Library. Another branch with such known archives is at Jurong East. Newspaper archives are in the form of microfilm. There is some identifiable information about him : his age is 94, home believed to be at Ang Mo Kio, and last edited mid April 2006. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 03:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Peer review: "History of Singapore"
Please take a look at History of Singapore. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated at Talk:History of Singapore. --Vsion 05:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you should make it a Good Article, before sending it to FAC. But Peer review is a good step. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Submitted to Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Singapore, let see how it goes ;-). Knight, you don't sound stressed leh. Take it easy, young man. --Vsion 06:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- My stress period is more or less over. I am now looking for WikiProjects. Good luck with the Peer Review and I hope it becomes a Good Article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Meetup?
Anyone interested in a meetup, I've created a page here. I plan to have this one in November maybe the first two weeks of holiday or else some will flee Singapore for a long vacation. ;) It should be fine as I believe almost everyone's exams are over, I don't know about those doing O and A levels this year. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 10:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Help a fellow SGpedian
Hildanknight wants to leave Wikipedia because he feels stressed, and happens to have conflicts with a few SGpedians. Anyone for helping him? --Terrancommander 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- He'll be back. -- Миборовский 06:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm probably not leaving. I am currently looking for WikiProjects to join, to contribute to articles of interest, and to make Wikifriends. You could help me by suggesting good WikiProjects. Currently, we don't have a WikiProject Singapore. If we did, I would be a participant, working on articles about Singapore TV shows/movies. Others could work on history, education, etc. One of the main causes of stress - blocks to 202.156.6.54 - was apparently removed; however, for the second time in two days, I was a victim of collateral damage caused by an autoblock. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- See? ;) -- Миборовский 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- To quit just because of one being an unwitting victim of an IP block seems alittle...nvm. :D Now I am quite sure our young Singaporeans have greater resilience than that? ;)--Huaiwei 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm known for my resilience. Being the unwitting victim of an IP block won't make me leave so easily. The problem is that it kept happening, especially when I was trying to contribute information, and that really stressed me. I let my stress get the better of me in the wrong way, and I lost my focus as a contributor of information. I've been informed of some recent changes to the blocking mechanism which are supposed to prevent me from being a victim of collateral damage, but there appear to be some problems with it. On a more positive note, I've just decided to sign up for the Computer and Video Games WikiProject; I will work on the following articles: Neopets, RuneScape, AdventureQuest and Chip's Challenge - and I hope to get the first two to Good Articles. However, I am still thinking about starting a WikiProject Singapore. I was chatting on MSN with Tdxiang, and he added a red link to a WikiProject (Singaporean entertainment) on the noticeboard page. However, a general Singapore WikiProject would garner more participants. Being a Singaporean and listing oneself on the noticeboard does not neccesarily mean one is actively involved in contributing to Singapore-related articles; that's where the WikiProject comes in. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm probably not leaving. I am currently looking for WikiProjects to join, to contribute to articles of interest, and to make Wikifriends. You could help me by suggesting good WikiProjects. Currently, we don't have a WikiProject Singapore. If we did, I would be a participant, working on articles about Singapore TV shows/movies. Others could work on history, education, etc. One of the main causes of stress - blocks to 202.156.6.54 - was apparently removed; however, for the second time in two days, I was a victim of collateral damage caused by an autoblock. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Peidu mama
Hear? We need an article on peidu mama!!! I just googled, and man, people have been saying nasty things about them, especially after one of them died or something. It makes me mad, and it makes me not want to associate myself with you xinjiapore(a)ns. >:( I give 3 days for the above link to turn blue, or I'll remove myself from Category:Wikipedians in Singapore (I probably should anyway), Category:Singaporean administrators and Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board#SGpedian sysops in a somewhat lame and futile but symbolically-important cyber protest. -- Миборовский 07:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tdxiang has responded to my request and created the article, though (as might be expected?) with much predjudice and uninformed statements. But thanks anyway. -- Миборовский 08:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since you guys are at it, we also need articles on other foreign workers, from Thailand, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Philippine, India, and Sri Lanka. Perhaps, an article Foreign workers in Singapore is a good start. --Vsion 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I like that idea..just about any article which talks about the lesser-known aspects of Singapore is of interest to me. ;)--Huaiwei 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since you guys are at it, we also need articles on other foreign workers, from Thailand, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Philippine, India, and Sri Lanka. Perhaps, an article Foreign workers in Singapore is a good start. --Vsion 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Homerun nominated for Good Article
User:Richardshusr nominated the Homerun article, which I wrote, for Good Article. He also nominated the other article I wrote, Google Groups, for Good Article.
I would obviously be delighted to see two articles I wrote becoming Good Articles, especially because I am a member of the Good Articles WikiProject.
However, I think the two articles I wrote, in their current state, are "not ready" to be Good Articles. Nominating them too early may negatively affect their chances when they are ready at a later date. Could you please look through the articles, and leave your comments on the talk page (something like an informal Peer Review, or an advanced WP:RFF)? Fail the articles if you consider that the right thing to do. Please remember that I am trying to make them Good Articles, but in the future. As Homerun is a Singapore-related article, getting it to Good Article would be a boost for us.
Google Groups shows potential, and after I do some further expansions, referencing and touch-ups in August, I will Peer Review it, after which I will consider it ready to be a Good Article nominee. Homerun needs more extensive expansion, referencing, and general cleanup, but I am willing to collaborate with other Wikipedians (potential Wikifriends) to make it a Good Article, perhaps in September, after a Peer Review.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Terence, I know. However, Homerun is a Singapore-related article, and I'm sure that, being an SGpedian, you would like to help a fellow SGpedian out, and improve the article to Good Article status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Odd Singapore flag
(The below thread is copied from my user talk page)
Hello. I found this flag using Google image search (I used the term Olympic flag). The flag is white with the Lion Head symbol in the center. How often is this flag found in the country? Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... I have never seen it before. Kimchi.sg 08:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I personally never seen this before, but when this photo was taken, it was taken in early June or July of 2005, when the IOC was in Singapore to pick the 2012 Summer Olympic games (given to London, United Kingdom). I am stummped to what it is. Any help is appreciated; thanks in advance. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)