User talk:Robertsky/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Brokenshardz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Red Director (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The Sound Of Lizard

Lizard Sounds: Chiap, chiap-chiap-chiap-chiap-chiap-chiap-chiap-chiap!

               Chiap, chiap-chiap-chiap-chiap-chiap-chiap-chiap-chiap! 113.210.96.104 (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Cikgu Navamany

Cikgu Navamany drives a Honda Civic,

The sky, tau lai mai van deks. 2001:D08:2183:F8DA:1:0:391E:A22F (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the photos that I uploaded

Dear fellow wikipedia user,

  I thank you for your feedback regarding my pictures. Feedbacks are important to me as they allow to improve and create better Wikipedia pages!! However, the pictures that I uploaded were not personal photos and can be found on the official schools instagram pages and I dont think they are unencyclopedic. I look forward to your reply.

Donut Hunter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donut Hunter (talk • contribs) 11:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Instagram photos are *not* automatically creative commons licensed. If they are from the official schools instagram pages, the rights belong to the schools, not you. The schools will have upload these photos and declare the release of rights of these photos. I highly doubt all of the photos are from the official school instagram pages, especially and . Please provide the instagram links to these photos. Who in the right mind would upload photos of schoolgirls in potentially compromising positions on official pages? robertsky (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Singaporeans First Party logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Singaporeans First Party logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dulwich College Singapore has been accepted

Dulwich College Singapore, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of 2022 in Singapore for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2022 in Singapore is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in Singapore 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky who the your page is 2022 in Singapore was deleted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseirena (talk • contribs)

A discussion was held. Refer to it as linked in the text above. robertsky (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Military dictatorship is a terrorist

It's the terrorist who uses the name of the military junta to do the bad things against the NATO, I'm dictator Mamoru, to support his assassination plans of Ichirō Matsui and Hirofumi Yoshimura in Osaka!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.125.22.76 (talk)

@114.125.22.76:Referring to the edit you had made for Kyoto Animation arson attack, you didn't cite sources for the additions. Is this terrorist you referring to the same as the alleged perp? If so, state your sources and expand on the article instead of just tagging it with categories without proper explanation. robertsky (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Kyoto Animation arson attack victim list

I reverted your edits as I disagree that a list is useful here, per WP:BRD you can gain a consensus on the talk page if you wish. Keep in mind though that this subject of victim lists has had mixed results. On some articles it works great where I have argued in favor of keeping, on others not so much. Perhaps its because WP:PROSE has been established so well in the "victims" section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: no worries. There is already a discussion ongoing in the Talk page. I am satisfied with the reasonings given for having the victim list within the article. My initial line of thought is similar to yours. However, as more details of the victims being released, to me, it is more apparent that weaving the various names in being released in separate releases would make the paragraph unwieldy long. Right now, it is only 11 names being released, with 4 or 5 of them having their own wiki articles. Given that studio 1 is a concentration of kyoani's top talents, we may end up with 50% of them being mentioned in the article. Ultimately, when the case ends, I feel that the article should be condensed in where is possible, i.e. I don't think we would be so concerned with exactly when each family released the names of deceased ahead of the official release by authorities, and whose names were released first. Doing so, it feels more like a news report rather than an encyclopedia article. My 2c. The same comment will be posted o the article talk page. Let's take it there. robertsky (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar

I ask to you, the wikipedia date G.E.M. is born 16 August 1991 this is date format for Singers from Europe Countries? like Mick Jagger (born 26 July 1943)

if her from asian singer you Should write date format August 16, 1991 like Jin Se Yeon born February 15, 1994

Regards Thank You Roseirena (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roseirena:: good question. if I am not mistaken, both are acceptable for Hong Kong. However, for consistency, I will use day-month-year format since most of the article is in that format. Thanks for the Barnstar. robertsky (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky but the Korean Actors many use the date format Month-Day-Year please change again the Article of G.E.M. use the date format Month-Day-Year but her carrer usually goes concert to United States & Canada because the page not made by meRoseirena (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roseirena: Korea is Korea, Hong Kong is Hong Kong, both have different date time formats. If I were to guess, Korean articles use MDY because it is written as so in Korean English. See Date format by country for more information. GEM is from Hong Kong. Hong Kong uses DMY format for dates written in English (see Hong Kong identity card or for examples). A stronger point would be that Hong Kong used to be a British colony, hence the DMY format should be used for her article as well. Her career is not limited to USA or Canada, and had frequent concerts in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South-east Asia (mainly in Singapore and Malaysia). Hence, in my view, the article being written with DMY format is correct. There is no 'ownership' of articles per se on wikipedia, you can always make the changes yourself. However, I would suggest that you carry this conversation on to the Discussion page of the article as a Request for comments first and reach an consensus.robertsky (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky G.E.M. born from China like Sun Xing born October 16, 1963 but yheir career at Hong Kong ? except if her (G.E.M.) born origin based biography from Hong Kong no trouble write date format DMY Roseirena (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roseirena: As mentioned, if you think it should change, go ahead and edit. No one is stopping you to do so, or Rfc it. I am not changing it myself as I believe that it should be in DMY format. Cheers! robertsky (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky open & look her (G.E.M.) Instagram account on link https://www.instagram.com/p/B0IDf0RHae9/ she made date format ? Roseirena (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roseirena: You don't get it, do you? Which part of I am not changing it myself you don't understand? Go change it yourself if you wish to so.robertsky (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky if I change the date format to MDY article G.E.M., you will return it again as before ? Roseirena (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roseirena: Short answer, yes. I rather that you Rfc in the Talk page of the article first and seek others for opinions. robertsky (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky because she G.E.M usually often travelled United States and she write date format is MDY on Her Identity rather than to Europe because she Rarely perfomed the Europe Countries Roseirena (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Robertsky i permitted to you please change the article of G.E.M. of date format MDY

Regards Thank You Roseirena (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Index of Singapore-related articles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Singapore Armed Forces Training Institute and Judge of Singapore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Robertsky. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

List of original programs distributed by Toggle.sg moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of original programs distributed by Toggle.sg, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Zebpay

Hello Robertsky. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Zebpay, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: deletion of articles accepted via AFC by experienced editors are unlikely to be sufficiently uncontroversial for the purposes of speedy deletion; also claims coverage in reliables sources. Thank you. So Why 05:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

SoWhy Hmm... Reasonable concern, but even when most of the initial content had been removed over time, the company and wallet closed down and its notability is being questioned? robertsky (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember that notability is not temporary. If the subject was notable at one point, which is was the AFC reviewer's judgment, it stays notable, even if the subject itself no longer exists. As for speedy deletion, speedy deletion is supposed only for uncontroversial cases. In this case, it's reasonable to assume that the AFC reviewer would disagree with deletion, so it needs further discussion at WP:AFD. Regards So Why 09:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! Will submit an AfD when I am free next. robertsky (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

House of tan yeok nee has a new occupant.

Hi Robert, please be aware that the house of tan yeok nee has been occupied by Amity Global Institute and no longer under university of Chicago booth.

you can come down to the house of tan yeok nee to check and see for yourself if you wish to verify it personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavenmiracles10 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please the Change South Korean Actors/Actress Date Format use UK (Europe Actors/Actresses) ?

Robertsky you change to South Korean Actors/Actresses use DMY format like Europe Actors/Actresses 111.94.203.64 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The article G.E.M. which I reverted your edit is a Hong Kong artiste, who by geographical association follows UK spelling and dmy date format. robertsky (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

But Hongkong need the US Hong Kong protesters wave American flags asking for help from extradited of China not UK flag waves 111.94.203.64 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

you must open the Her Identity on her Instagram use MDY (US/American) format and Use YMD (Chinese) date format not DMY (UK/Europe) Date Format 111.94.203.64 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Erm. Irrelevant point on US flag waving in Hong Kong protests/riots. Re: instagram, my point on the Hong Kong geographical association still stands. robertsky (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

If Hong Kong has been saved by United States, then Hong Kong will change the format to the same date as the United States use MDY date Format ? 111.94.203.64 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTSPECULATION Stick to facts. Hong Kong = UK spelling/dmy format. robertsky (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTSPECULATION Stick to facts. South Korea = Like US spelling/mdy format ? 111.94.203.64 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

She often befriend and hangout with american people on Her Instagram (Slide 2) Instagram again and rarely meet with English people or other European countries 111.94.203.64 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can have american, european, british friends as well or meet such people. Especially those who are well travelled. Irrelevant. robertsky (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

open your heart to be positive thinking, I just writing date format based on the typing that her made in the date format see the official her Instagram and again (see english her typiing on Instagram) 111.94.203.64 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I was being positive, but my positivity has a limit. robertsky (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

i understand your word i'm purpose to positive wikipedia typing for G.E.M. article, she was often use American English on her Twitter not British English Thank You 111.94.203.64 (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Help me

I Need your help to change from Date Format South Korean Actors/Actresses use MDY Format like US (Hollywood Actors/Actresses) to UK DMY date Format ? 111.94.203.64 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

No. You are capable of doing so yourself. I have other edits that are worth my time. robertsky (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

but my account was Hacked by Vandalism disguised as Administrator 111.94.203.64 (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@111.94.203.64: What was your account? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Why, I just now change format the Korean Actresses Jin Se-yeon to DMY date format is rollback again to US date format ? 111.94.203.64 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@111.94.203.64: And I explained why to you. The article was created and maintained using MDY. Majority of Korean articles also use this date format because it is closest to the YMD format that is used in Korea. You’re changing date formats without providing a valid reason to do so. Alex (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Korean arctile like US Date format is not DMY (Europe format) because the creating and maintaining by US People You Know Understand ? 111.94.203.64 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

not interested in editing South Korean related pages at the moment. Stop bugging me about it. robertsky (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

i'm don't disturing you robertsky but i hate South Korea on Wikipedia because they are like US date format Except Park Shin-hye & Ha Ji-won use DMY Format like UK (Europe Actors/Actresses) 111.94.203.64 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Alex But the Chinese date format is YMD closest to the MDY format 111.94.243.45 (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your ping

The template, now deleted, was created by a sock. Thanks for the ping.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your service

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for your work on the Hong Kong protests. RealFakeKim (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Mz7 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thank you! robertsky (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That was a mistake.

I've been on wikipedia for sometime and am clearly aware of the policies. But I've worked on the Kiefer sutherland nationality thing and that was it, and was agreed. Now people are coming back on that while I've clearly proofed everything in the talk page. So I think that was a mistake. Hughes Anderson (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Your proposal was not agreed to by any other editor at Talk:Kiefer Sutherland#Nationality. Various other constructions were discussed, but no one agreed with you there that his nationality should be reflected as merely "Canadian". Your continuing to make this edit without consensus will get you blocked from editing if you continue. General Ization ^Talk 04:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Do not forum shop or canvas for support here, and stick to the article's talk page. It takes more then your proofs and references to support your changes. robertsky (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Yong Pung How

On 10 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Yong Pung How, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Ainan Bin Muhammad

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Nomination of 2025 in Singapore for deletion

Please help me, there's racially motivated edits by admins

Uhhhh, just a heads up, your recent edits to the Wuhan virus timeline article is disrupting other references.

List of programme that broadcast in Mediacorp (debate)

Template

Edits to Cold Storage and Giant Pages

Hi there,
Thanks for your feedback on my edits to the Cold Storage and Giant supermarket respective pages.
Apologies if there were issues with these edits, however I would disagree that these compromise regulations on advertising as they are based on factual information regarding the companies.
I have re-edited these pages and hope that the edits would meet your approval. I'm new to Wikipedia so I would appreciate feedback if not! Thanks!
EmilyEquitas (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@EmilyEquitas: You are pushing a point of view (POV), and in violation of Conflict of Interest (COI). Calling it an advertisement is kind. You don't need my approval. You need to convince me. robertsky (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@EmilyEquitas: Just to make it clear, this is my reasoning for undo-ing your edits:

1. Your first source https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2020/03/05/2-egg-suppliers-operating-in-dirty-conditions-says-animal-rights-group/ does not mention who are the suppliers, which companies or supermarkets they are supplying to. Are there any other news media other than FMT that picked up this as news? Can FMT represent Malaysian media as a whole?

2. Your second source is a site that your organisation owns, which makes it a self-published, non-independent and primary source. Here, such sources has little to no standing. Is there any other publication or research done independently of your organisation? If so, back it up. The claims of the suppliers having a working relationship to the supermarkets needs to be substantiated independently and/or can be verified independently. The photos in the site's download section merely shows the eggs on different supermarket shelves which do not have any brand markings. Even the price tags has no supermarket logos or identification. How can one conclude from these photos that these are the supermarkets which pages you are editing on? I am not discounting the hard work your organisation is putting in, but anyone can take such photos in unrelated supermarkets.

3. Your edits are clearly pushing a bias POV. I don't simply revert. I do some quick searches on the Internet, and it turns up with articles refuting your organisation's claims https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/egg-producer-ltkm-lodges-police-report-allegations-wrongful-farm-practices https://focusmalaysia.my/mainstream/ltkm-denies-wrongful-farming-allegations/. If you don't want to be seen as pushing a POV, add these in to maintain a neutral POV. robertsky (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: Thank you, I appreciate the detailed feedback. I agree regarding substantiating press coverage and I will work on that.

EmilyEquitas (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Princess Maria Teresa of Bourbon-Parma

Edits for Kampong Kapor Methodist Church

Just thought I'd let you know

Two confusing infoboxes in the Oceania article

Question about index page

bypassing redirects

Please be more careful

Draft:List of original programs distributed by Toggle.sg concern

DYK for Princess María Teresa of Bourbon-Parma

Re: ABS-CBN shows

Good day RobertskySemi!

Dropped by to discuss the links you changed across all ABS-CBN shows. I very much appreciate the efforts you've put into it but I've got to point out that the ABS-CBN there was always meant to link to ABS-CBN (TV network) and not ABS-CBN Corporation. The shows have more logical connection after all to the TV network than they do to the actual corporation, being that it is after all the TV network that does the broadcasting. Hope that clears that up. Warmest regards Gardo Versace (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gardo Versace: thanks for the feedback. I will make the necessary changes. robertsky (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: Thank you! Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gardo Versace: is it also safe to assume the following:

* employment under ABS-CBN for artistes presenters and other staff goes to the corp page

* in infoboxes, broadcast and network parameters are referring to the tv network

robertsky (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: Now that one is a gray area. Being that the corporation owns the TV Network, you can say it's the corporation. Then again, you can also say it's the TV network. What does the other pages say? Does FOX have an example?

But, here's where we delineate. If the article refers to the broadcaster, it's the TV network. If it refers to the corporate entity, it's the corporation. So in the case of the ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy article, it's the Corporation being referred to except when the topic of shutdown comes, at which point the one being referred to is the TV network since it's the broadcaster. Gardo Versace (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gardo Versace: It's all about the context huh. Thanks. I am now running through the list of pages multiple times, so do expect to see more atomic changes in the pages you have on your watchlist. robertsky (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Robertsky (talk · contribs) sure thing. I appreciate the effort you're putting into it. Thank you so much! Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: Hey! Dropped by to personally thank you for keeping up the work you've been putting into cleaning up wikilinks relating to ABS-CBN. Couldn't thank you enough for it. Again, thank you and keep up the good work. Best regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gardo Versace: Thanks! More on the way. There's still more than half of the existing links that need to be updated still. robertsky (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Article on Circuit Breaker

Orphaned non-free image File:NopCommerce logo.png

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Defunct restaurant chains in Singapore

User talk:Justanothersgwikieditor#Responding_to_your_message

Seah Kian Peng

Removal of details from 963 hao fm and yes 933

Strategic Marine

Hi Robertsky, thanks for our message.

Strategic Marine Pty Ltd is ("SMPL") was a related company (common directors) to Strategic Marine (S) Pte Ltd ("SMS") until SMS was acquired by another party in 2019. SMPL has since changed their name to Henderson Marine.

There are some inaccuracies on SMPL's page as follows:

1) parent: Triyards Holdings Limited was actually the parent of SMS and not the parent of SMPL 2) SMPL do not operate the yard in Tuas Singapore and Vung Tau Vietnam - both yards were operated by the management of SMS through Triyards Holding Limited

The editing I have done was mainly text copied from the website www.strategicmarine.com which is owned by SMS (not SMPL) - hence I believe there is no copyright infringement here? Kindly guide me

Since SMPL has changed their company name to Henderson Marine, are you able to reach out to the writer of the SMPL wiki page to get them to make the required edit to correct the facts? We need them to change their name to Henderson Marine so that anyone who do a search on "Strategic Marine" will be pointed to our wiki page for SMS.

Therefore, is it more efficient if they change their name while I put up a fresh page for SMS? Appreciate your advice how best to do this.

Thank you

RyanRyan Seah (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ryan Seah:,

First, let me address the copyright infringement. The text on the company website needs to be released explicitly to the public domain. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

Next on the content. The content on the page, Strategic Marine is largely taken from primary sources. After looking through everything, and searching for information through Google, I fail to see the notability for the article to . I am submitting this page for a deletion discussion instead.

From your message here... It sounds like you are gainfully employed by SMS. You will be required to declare your affiliation as there is a low tolerance for conflict of interest on Wikipedia, if you are to go ahead to put a fresh page for SMS. P.S. I suggest that you see what makes the company notable first and research on these achievements or items of note if they are backed by verifiable and reputable secondary sources. More often then not, efforts by COI editors to create an article for their own companies will fail for not doing so. (See: WP:GNG and WP:NCORP)

Lastly, Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit. There is no one writer or owner of the article. I happened to see your edits as I happened to watch on changes to Singapore related articles.

Cheers! – robertsky (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Robertsky

Thanks for your guidance. Based on the rules, I do not think SMS would be in a position to write a wiki page on the Company. Yes, I am currently an employee of SMS and this editing is brought about when we discovered the inaccuracies posted on SMPL's wiki page. Can you guide how do I contact the writer for SMPL's wiki page as I believe the most efficient way to address my concern is to reach out to this writer to edit their page to correct some of the information? Thanks 165.21.106.38 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Robertsky To clarify, when you mentioned you are "submitting this page for deletion instead", did you mean the existing wiki page for SMPL? Thanks Ryan Ryan Seah (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ryan Seah: Once again, there is no one writer that we can pinpoint. Anyone can edit the page. Actually since you are under SMS, you should be able to edit Strategic Marine currently as the article is about SMPL. Technically no COI here. And yes, for the existing wiki page for SMPL. I have raised a proposal for deletion on the page itself. Anyone can challenge it by removing the banner, and then edit the page to raise the quality of the page so that the notability can be established. A deletion discussion will follow shortly if there are no edits to improve the article, or the article is not improved sufficiently. – robertsky (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kurt Lightner (United States artist)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kurt Lightner (United States artist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from artsy.net/show/contemporary-art-matters-branches and https://contemporaryartmatters.com/fruitpickers/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Forgot to check for copyvio in haste to split out the article. – robertsky (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Will be helping GE2020

Capitalization of "group"

Fake news regarding the real founders of East Ventures

Proposed deletion of List of major crimes in Singapore (before 2000)

The article List of major crimes in Singapore (before 2000) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

List article does not conform to MOS:LIST guidelines. It should consist of links to existing articles about the subject rather be a WP:NOTDICT directory listing. The article as it currently exists appears to be a collection of news articles rather than an encyclopaedia article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Noq: Agreed with the reasoning. Was wondering if the list was getting bloated, hence the initial split from the original article to deal with the bloat. However, I think this list should be considered as standalone list instead, and the entries should be pared done as per WP:CSC. Personally, I feel a PROD is unnecessary given that the lists are being actively worked on by several editors here. A friendlier message pointing in the right direction would have been sufficient. In any case... see Queries subsection (was composing a reply while TheGreatSG'rean post a message here). – robertsky (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Queries on crime list pages

Hi, I need to ask, is there a way to prevent deletion of the List of Crimes pages? I think there has to be a way to conform to policy and still have the article intact. It would be a loss if it was deleted. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@NelsonLee20042020, Justanothersgwikieditor, and TheGreatSG'rean: I guess we have 7 days from now (until 27 June. 26 June for buffer) to rectify this. I suggest the following steps:

a relook at the content to see what can be considered notable enough to create new articles per WP:CSC.
trim the list to include crimes with their own articles. this will potentially might end up with a merge back to one list.
for crimes with sufficient notability but without their own articles, we can establish a list in the WP:SG space so that we can collectively work on new articles in a systematic order. There is already some preliminary work done as indicated at Talk:List_of_major_crimes_in_Singapore_(2000–present)#Condensing cases in 2010s and adding more cases in the past decades.

We can take a look at other similar lists pages such as List of major crimes in the United Kingdom as examples. – robertsky (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, most of the crimes are featured in shows, which is a far cry compared to before 2019 when lots of editing was carried out. Some content needs to be condensed, with the main highlights stated. As the rules stated, Wikipedia isn't a news page, it can't simply contain all the crime facts. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have an idea. The crime articles we have is actually a timeline. We will need to rename it accordingly, as seen in Timeline of major crimes in Australia, as well as condense events to the most important details. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: Even if it is under the Timeline format, we will most likely still need to adhere to WP:CSC, and reduce the content. Most of the entries in Timeline of major crimes in Australia are actually linked to an article about the crime committed itself. This is no different from List of major crimes in the United Kingdom. – robertsky (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Even so, not every crime listed is notable enough for an article. We need to balance them out. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: Let's start with identifying which entries already have articles of their own first, put either in the table or list format (UK vs Aus list page). replace the 2000-present page's content with the reduced list first so that we can avert the PROD deletion on there. Do redirect on the (before 2000) page back to the main list. Like this, we can save the pages and their edit histories. Then we work on creating new articles for the more notable crimes so that they can be reinserted into the list. – robertsky (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

i just deleted the message NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

this page, it contains information about the crimes committed in singapore in the past, from the 1950s to 1990s. there were no other sources for information of any crimes other than past old newspapers of singapore. perhaps crimewatch have some that can be added, but apart from them, the newspapers are the only thing that provide us with information about the crimes from the past it is wrong to say that it is a newspaper collection and not a encyclopedia. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

i said these reasons in the talk page of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_crimes_in_Singapore_(before_2000) NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_major_crimes_in_Singapore_(2000%E2%80%93present) NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_major_crimes_in_Singapore_(before_2000) NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

there were many others too which i highlighted NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

for ur info, u can go read the talk pages u will decide if it is reasonable or not NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@NelsonLee20042020: err.... you shouldn't have removed the PROD banner. Your reasoning unfortunately doesn't trump Wikipedia:Manual of Style guidelines, with the specific ones as given by Noq. I had looked into the guidelines and found a way to keep the articles. I would rather try to save some content and the page history, rather than restarting from scratch on a new page, thereby invalidating everyone's hard work. We had 7 days to remove entries that are not notable, otherwise we would see have seen the articles being suggested for deletion discussions, which will more than likely to end up with a consensus to delete and/or and outright request for speedy deletion.

As laid out, the quickest way is to shorten to a list of cases which already have their own Wikipedia articles. Then we work our way through to establish new articles for the notable cases that do not have Wikipedia articles, and reinclude them into the list. Not all major crimes are notable. Murders are uncommon in Singapore, but there are plenty that are not notable. e.g. the punggol fields stabbing case. although it resulted in a death and a charge of murder, there are no new details about the case to make it notable. – robertsky (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Now we are on a shorter timeline to shorten the list. Oh well... – robertsky (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

it there really a way to save it without having it go to ground zero forever? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@NelsonLee20042020: as mentioned, trim the list first. that will likely avert the ground zero of the articles being deleted. – robertsky (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There are some crimes I had added earlier, which are notable. What about the Yishun case of 2008? TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: Might have missed out while shortening the list. Will elaborate the criteria I used later. Give me 5 minutes. About finish cleaning up the work there. Feel free to add back after I am done? – robertsky (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: As there are a huge number of entries in the list, I begin to select entries without their own articles that are appearing 4 lines or longer on my screen as a ballpark as insertion into the table of possibly notable crimes (assumption: more details = higher possibility for article creation). In doing so, I may have missed out some notable cases that are described in a concise manner. Apologies for that. I have shift the table to Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore/Pending list of major crimes in Singapore. Feel free to add/remove whatever I have missed out. I have also redlink some articles for the notable table as I feel we can work on these immediately due to the relatively higher levels of media coverage of these cases. – robertsky (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest moving the articles to draft space while they are being updated to meet WP:CSC criteria. This would allow plenty of time for the individual entries to be examined and if they are notable enough to support their own article, that article can be created. Any that are notable enough in their own right should be removed from the list. Just leaving them on just turns the list into a WP:DIRECTORY. noq (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I need to ask. For recent crimes like from 2016, how do we determine which ones are significant enough for inclusion? There's many murders reported that year, compared to others. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSEVENT for guidelines. If there is not sufficient WP:significant coverage to be able to create a stand alone article, then they should not be included. noq (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: What's your view on this? TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: Same as Noq, if we cannot establish a standalone article about the murder, it should not be in the list. If the fact that there are X numbers of murders happened 2016 is notable for whatever reasons, maybe that fact should be included in the main article, Crime in Singapore, with sources to back that notability up. – robertsky (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robertsky: With that said, I think some murders can be removed if its just plain personal disputes, including the Scoot case. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This article has still not een improved. I intend to take it to AFD tomorrow if nothing is being done. As I suggested earlier, moving it do draft would be a better way of keeping it until relevant entries are incorporated into a list meeting WP:CSC requirements. BTW, once this is done, I don not think you will need the split at 2000 unless Singapore is more of a crime hotbed than most other countries. noq (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Noq: I will shift this to draft first then. – robertsky (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Noq: Moved to draft. For the post 2000 list, it will be shifted back to the main title once the shortlisted cases prior to 2000 are in the list. There are other editors working on creating the articles for some of the >2000 notable cases at the moment. – robertsky (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Common Berthing Mechanism

Happy Friday (at least, here)!

Thanks for looking in on the CBM article. As noted at the bottom of the CBM talk page, I've been working on a re-write to the article, and am a bit concerned that we might be stepping on each other's toes.

Among other things, I've already drafted a revision to the "Uses" table, converting to a citation scheme that more consistently complies with standards. The list of references has expanded considerably, as has the scope of the content. The reference list currently stands at 126 items, with another 50 (±) that are duplicative or otherwise unusable. Some of the commercial websites previously referenced in the table fall into that second category. I am still winnowing the list down to the smallest possible size. I doubt that it will drop much below 100 or so; many of the references are unique to the table.

There are mutual inconsistencies in the set of references, and issues where a cogent picture doesn't emerge unless multiple references are considered in mutual context. As required by the standards, these are being addressed. I am doing so in "explanatory notes" to minimize distraction in the primary flow of the article. In most (but not all) cases, readability is better served by "bundling" the citations, so that discussion of their integrated relevance (including differences) can be cleanly discussed. Careful crafting of the notes has also allowed their re-use between the text and some of the images; I'm still editing that issue down to a more efficient package.

Interposing an "explanatory notes" section has effectively moved the referencing from the main article to the notes section. This includes references in the "Uses" table. I have not figured out how to integrate the enumeration of such notes with direct numbering of references, which would re-create the appearance of your recent edit. Therefore, I've adopted the Harvard style, although I have not yet finished the full implementation of that approach. The style allows an internally consistent scheme, but interposes a referencing layer.

Until just recently, I didn't figure the style change would matter too much: there were not many entries in the list of references. Since your recent edit, however, that is no longer true. If you know of a way to fully integrate the two enumerated lists (notes and references), I'm like to learn it. If not, then I see little alternative to what I've currently drafted (other than throwing up my hands and doing something else with my life).

Thanks again for the oversight. I'm looking forward to your suggestions.

Not fred999 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Not fred999: Horrors! Forgive me! My edit was mainly to convert the external links into the citation templates. Nothing more. I don't think we are stepping on each other toes. If you must, think of my edits as me trying to be helpful to prevent linkrot, and additionally, an interim one until the article is improved further. Going through the article, I thought that there might be details lacking. However, as someone who has limited knowledge on the topic, I don't intend to work further on the article in a major manner. Whatever style being adopted in the end, as long as it is consistent, I think other editors interested enough to edit on the article would learn to edit with that style in mind. I just glanced through your sandbox, which I think is a great piece of work and a vastly improved one over the current version. I think I am learning more from you instead since I am not actually expose to Harvard citation style personally. My only suggestion is that if you are sticking with Harvard style, why not consider the templates in Template:Harvard citation documentation? I noticed you have manually created the anchors for each reference. My only concern is that as the list grows, avoidable mistakes may happen, i.e. anchors in the body not matching the reference list.

In short, you do yours, and replace the current version when you are done.

You might want to consider requesting for a history merge (or by place {{History merge}} on the article when you are done, since your edits in the sandbox are quite extensive and numerous, and probably useful in showing the progress of the edits done to arrive at the end product. – robertsky (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, mate!

I ran a "pathfinder" on that template...over a year ago...there was a reason...I should have taken better notes as to why I concluded it didn't support the need as I perceived it at the time, but mostly I found that I made a lot more errors trying to conform to it. I'll look at it again. I went to the manual anchors because I could not find a template that readily support the abstraction layer without a whole lot of manual work. Possibly, I'll end up being lazy and letting someone with better wiki-skills (but maybe less technical expertise?) edit it into better compliance. Hey! What are you doing with your spare time in, say, 2021?

As to merging history...you're familiar with the expression about seeing how the sausage is made? It hasn't exactly been a linear process! I'll look at it when/as/if I get "done".

Thanks again for the oversight. Also, for the encouragement!

Not fred999 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Not fred999: Yea. I am more than happy to assist on the wiki syntax front. While you continue with your content development, I will look into the Harvard citation templates and see how those can be utilised properly in your sandbox. – robertsky (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful! I recall now the specific problem I was trying to solve. Interleaving the citations with the text was making it very difficult to "parse" material from the various sources into a single organizational structure for the article. It was much easier to have a "central reference repository" that could be organized according to the type of source (released Engineering reports, Flight Planning, Daily Status, technical papers, etc.). Using the direct anchors made it easy: I simply defined a citation syntax as a "comment" at the end of each reference, and used a second window to search, copy, and paste into my editing window. My editing rate increased dramatically thereafter, and my re-work rate dropped. Not fred999 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Not fred999: Hmm... I will look into grouping the references into different reflist templates then. – robertsky (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Grouping turns out to be trivial, but the result still has some issues. Will leave go of the grouping idea...subsequent editors will find it arcane, anyway. Will just grind away with the standard harv templates (of various flavors). Still have to tweak because it doesn't handle "organizational" authors well, but that's just a SMOP. Thx. Not fred999 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Saw your notes. Does the annotation template do more than just rectangles now? Tried it...it didn't handle the visual complexity very well. Been a while, might be better now. Not fred999 (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

...but {{overlay}} would work... Not fred999 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Not fred999: I saw 'but would work' as simply "{{overlay}}" did not render anything, and being past midnight, I saw it as '...but would it work...' and I was puzzled. (I fixed that for you.) Yes, {{overlay}} seems to be a better alternative. – robertsky (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

1) More sleep, less wikiwork. 2) Dang, that's a lot of work: see a not-so-quick mockup...given that this can't ever make GA status (low importance), are you sure it is really worth it? (I could not figure out how to make the overlay work with the "old school" narrative captions...I'm not really sure that the legend approach is an improvement. How to get rid of that huge gap between image and legend?) Not fred999 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Not fred999: Leave it as it is first? I will swing back to this after I am done taking stock of the pages at Category:Singaporean television actresses and other related categories (some 200 pages). – robertsky (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

About reverting on WordPress

I don't see any personal attacks here. What personal attack did I make on you? I made an edit and you IN ERROR, reverted it, and then tried to tell me that I was wrong for not citing a source FOR YOUR CLAIM (unsubstantiated) that this package is free and open source when it is not, which I can tell you, as both a user and owner. It USED to be free and open source, but it isn't any longer and hasn't been for like 9 years, but Wikipedia keeps LYIING on behalf of this corporation. It's not free and open source, it's not listed on the page for free and open source projects, so the listing shouldn't say that it's free and open source, and shouldn't link to the entry about free and open source projects BECAUSE IT ISN'T ONE. If it was one, it would be listed on the Wikipedia page that lists free and open source projects. It is not listed there. That is my "proof" if you need a "citation" to fix your error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen a ferguson (talk • contribs)

@Owen a ferguson: Again, WordPress releases its code under GPL v2 license. It is in the infobox, and cited as well in the article itself. I think you may be confused with WordPress.com, which is a commercial implementation of WordPress code. If you are not confused, then I am right to call you out. I am a WordPress user and a developer as well, by the way. – robertsky (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm neither a user nor developer of that piece of shit, but I used to be, and when they changed their model so that users/developers like you no longer have control of an unencrypted copy of your own email contacts database (which was years ago) they effectively turned everyone who was using it and saying it was open source into a total fucking liar.

When they removed bulk user export functionality and stopped adding email addresses that non-Wordpress users put into my "submit email" form directly into my own unencrypted SQL container, they were no longer operating in the spirit of free and open software. I don't really give a fuck about what license they use. I care about users who expect free and open software actually getting a free and open software experience. If your only argument is that they use the GPL, well, that's already in the sidebar, as you expressed. It doesn't need to be in the article text, and especially shouldn't link to an article about free and open software when Wordpress is abusing the notion of FOSS to be a bad participant on the peer-to-peer web.

God I wish I hadn't taken the time to explain all this to your pedantic ass, and just stayed with calling you an asshole. People like you, who don't know shit about shit except what the rules are, you are the reason I almost never come here and contribute, and why I've never given a dollar to this shitty website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen a ferguson (talk • contribs)

@Owen a ferguson: You are showing signs of WP:NOTHERE. I suggest you desist and think through clearly and carefully. WordPress as a free and open source software allows you to have full control over your database. You just need to install it on your own server. I shall not assume your understanding, or lack of, on how WordPress actually works. You have your thoughts, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to espouse your personal opinions without verifiable citation. By the way, citing Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia is not tolerated too. – robertsky (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

So are you going to change the page that lists open source projects to include Wordpress, since you seem to be convinced they are that thing? If you do, I feel like I'd have to revert that change, just so I can be as much of an officious dick to you as you were to me when you reverted my edits instead of reaching out to me first for an explanation of your unwarranted and abusive actions towards me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen a ferguson (talk • contribs)

@Owen a ferguson: If you mean this list List of free and open-source software packages, under the Content Management System section, it points to Category:Free content management systems, which WordPress is already categorised as. I don't see the need to update the list. – robertsky (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination for City Developments Limited

Please revert the deletion of the analysis page on GE2020

Determining future PM

Potential sock

Hi, the new user RRyomi (whose first edit included userboxes and a lot of userpage code) made this edit which was part of previous confirmed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting posts. You're more familiar, so I thought I'd check with you. CMD (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: It may be possible. Haha. Guess what... I am actually looking at another user, Vietbox, who also made a couple of edits on East Asian cultural sphere that is also suspiciously part of edits of previously confirmed socks. I didn't want to call it out earlier as there were prior queries (unanswered) on whether to include Singapore in that article. Maybe a CU might help to confirm our suspicions given that both users here are purportedly from different countries according to their userpage. – robertsky (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Well that's clearly not a new editor, and was created at a similar time. Quacks enough for a CU to me. CMD (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: filed all these users on the SPI page. – robertsky (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Prolific. CMD (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: wow. There's even one with my name to it. – robertsky (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

And with the most well-developed user page too. I've requested the photo it used be speedily deleted on commons. I've no idea if it's you mind, but either way it doesn't need to hang around. CMD (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: It's me, but I didn't consent to it being uploaded here or commons. Thanks, I saw the request! – robertsky (talk)

Such a pixellated image too. You deserve more competent attack pages. CMD (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Oh why. I am flattered. – robertsky (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

For work on Singapore articles at the very least. There's also common courtesy. Anyway, I think that everything is cleaned up for now, although the pattern suggests they'll be back again. CMD (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Najib Razak

DYK for City Developments Limited

Singapore article API

Happy National Day!!

Review of "Major crimes in Singapore" article

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

FAR notification

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

Your draft article, Draft:Henri Chen

Edits on Grab (company)

Replaceable fair use File:Total Defence Logo 2020.png

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Edits on Mobilewalla

Season's Greetings

Happy New Year!

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2025 elections in Asia

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2025 in Singapore

Regarding comments and edits in Kho Jabing

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

SGD

Thank you for helping with SGD. If you add more subtemplates, {{To USD/General}} has a sandbox and would now need a few more test cases. The subtemplates are linked from the {{To USD}} documentation. You can find broken pages with the tracking categories also linked in that documentation. You can look at {{To EUR}} to find what pages are using it (no more MRT there now). Special thanks for trying to expand the {{Inflation}} coverage. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Trigenibinion: Updating or adding new datasets at such an adhoc basis where I check for broken pages is inefficient, and kind of like whack a mole. If there is no one else doing the following, I will be writing a script to generate the data files for all available years for {{To USD}} based on the data from . Are there any other datasets which I should look at to fill the gaps in the worldbank data? Also, for Singapore articles, we typical convert to USD primarily. I have a suggestion for the {{FXConvert}} template you have created: somehow store the currency to convert to as an user preference, and convert to the stored currency preference unless otherwise indicated and/or by default to USD. – robertsky (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. You could ask in the {{To USD}} talk page if anybody had any plans for a data ingestion script, but I haven't been getting any feedback there. The 2019 data is from UN (published by the World Bank), the subtemplate also has a link to the IRS. Sometimes someone used ECB data for the Euro, but that is now kept inside {{To EUR}} anyway, similarly to how the source for INR is {{INRConvert}}. I already asked in the Preferences help page for a default currency setting, but then one would also need to transclude part of the pages dynamically. By default, my templates convert to USD because that is still the world standard. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there might be a lot of actual World Bank data just rolled over in those subtemplates, so the newer ones might also need to be updated with the data originating from the UN. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

MRT page discussion

Chinese New Year talk page

Though cited authoritatively. What is wrong, still remains a wrong.

[You say] "Previous version is closer to what is seen on malaysian government website though"

Dear friend, who is "Mr. Malaysian Government". The actual author's identity is unknown and may never be knowable.

[I put it to you] She is most likely an administrative government servant with poor oversight. The article has neither citation nor date of creation And She in no expert in law in neither Malay nor English. E.g. "Bahawasanya" is a real legal terminology meaning "In conjunction"

[I beg you seeking fairness] I sincerely beg you to return my work and watch the article you cited change within a year.

[History] Do you know the real reason behind the May 13 riots? And Do you know the word Muhibbah and how it was wielded against Malaysian politicians for 10 years? Else The real reason, why Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia. More In 1970 (glaring points) 1. Abruptly all local elections were abolished 2. Abruptly all the lawyers in Malaysian courts had to argue in Malay and all judgment must be written in Malay. 3. Abruptly all business signboards had to be in Malay and the Malay lettering must larger than Chinese lettering, failing which, the signboard was torn down militarily with heavy guns present. 4. Songs and books were banned, thick and fast, citing little or no reason, Dato' Sheila Majid was among the many who were banned. 5. The Romanization of Malay was made officially.

[Who is in-charge] This put enormous pressure on Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, nominated as sole authority. At time was underfunded, ill-equipped with ill-suited board members. This is a fact, proven time and time again.

However the fact remains, the above article was "not"; done, authorized, endorsed, approved, recognized, nor even sighted by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka the actual sole authority for such an important declaration.

Remember the founding fathers chose not to translate it as it would dilute their cause of making the Malay the supreme language of the land. Sadly it did not end well for this advanced 5,000 year old language.

[Regression and down fall of society] The May 13 incident had put Malaysia in regressive path and also gave credence to the deep state called little Napoleons. With Ringgit steadily falling against the Sing Dollar, It is strange, Singapore imports 90% of Malaysian exports, common sense says "if you buy, you lose money and if you sell, you gain money" I guess common sense is not so common.

[How I know this] I was there, what I saw, felt and read in the newspapers, is not all the history to my children

Thanks all the best

[An old saying] "Water must travel down from a higher plain". [Magistrate, Master Fu-Zi,Kong] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.1.219.200 (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That's your views about Malaysian government. Your edits remain unsourced and self-published. Anyone can claim to be an expert, but Wikipedia doesn't exempt expert editors from its core policies. This is especially so when one chooses to edit anonymously. Do find authoritative sources to back your words up. – robertsky (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki paradox: Issac Newton cannot publish in Wikipedia ?

[Newton] Issac Newton cannot publish his work in Wikipedia, yet it is littered with his [A fool] Only a fool believes the father of Wiki was stupid allowing anonymous edits [Power] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" [Sir John Dalberg-Acton] [Translation] How does translation becomes origin work?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.1.219.200 (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Newton, in this case, would be considered as an expert editing in his knowledge. He is welcome to cite his own sources as long as it is relevant, but sparingly used. This is on the assumption that his work is already widely cited by his peers. He would also have to declare himself as one with a conflict of interest. See Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics.

Now, as for translations, I relooked at translating into English on here, and found that translations may not be considered original research. In fact, one would have expected a literal translation of a non-English source, going by the essay previously linked. For this, I apologise. However unfortunately, "translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations".

From my point of view, I boil this down to the lack of clarity in our words.

Here's how I saw your edit message, and how I went about looking at this. Your edit message waxed lyrical about the beauty of Malay language and a 'corruption' of the language with loan words, rather than address why the translation did not suffice. On the first glance, the translation in Wikipedia worked well in my opinion, imparting the key points in the text. There was no need to change the translation. So, since I am not well-versed with Malay, I keyed in "Rukun Negara" into Google, and out comes an authoritative source from a Malaysian government website. Keying the Malay text into Google Translate also showed a similar English text to that on the article, but I took this is in lesser consideration given that machine translation is not perfect. Thus, forming the viewpoint that the existing text on the article as OK and not necessary of change.

If you had shared why your translation would work better, i.e. why "Kepercayaan kepada tuhan" should be "The trust in god", and not "Belief in god", it may have been better received. But since the changes you want to make are across the entire text, it would be better to have a new section in the article's talk page as there is an upper limit to how much you can share in an edit summary. – robertsky (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

		The Singapore Barnstar of National Merit
		For valiantly editing across a myriad of Singapore-related articles, especially with a community as small as ours where you see the same regular editors across many pages.
		_{this WikiAward was given to robertsky by Seloloving (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)}

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Robertsky: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Starzoner (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Queries on crime list pages

Related Articles