User talk:Vsion/Archive03

Previous discussions:

Archive 1:
Archive 2:

Stop deleting pictures that are taken by others

You can't source them if you took it yourself or your friend did. Just because its not from a big website like NBC News, doesn't mean you can just go on and delete it.

How can lidat one?

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

Acceptance

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

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

TfD nomination of Template:Delete

Template:Delete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Wisd e n17 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

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

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

A short Esperanzial update

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

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

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Taiwan

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

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

City of Singapore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chee Soon Juan edits?

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

Re : Welcome back!

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

CfR

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

Possibly unfree Image:HockLeeBusRiots.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yawn

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

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

No, I'm just sorely unimpressed by you.

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

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

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

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

Wangi/RFA

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

Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nanking Massacre, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Re:Barnstar

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

External sources on Danny Yee

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

TOTSE

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

MSN

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

Singapore company stubs

Hi Vsion,

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

Barnstar

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

Hello!

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

Sophia and Uncyclopedia

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

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

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

Uncyclopedia and Oscar Wilde

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

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

MRT map

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

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

categorization

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Microorganism was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Davodd 03:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nanking Massacre.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

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

RfB With A Smile :)

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

Hi Vsion

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

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

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Environmentalism was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 18:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RJC

Agree, so why don'y you stop reverting my edit until we come to a consensus? icecold1 03:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be informed of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy which states: "Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. "icecold1 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already know that and abide by it. :-) --Vsion 03:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RGS

I don't want to get into this again.

Please read my argument on the RJC talk page on why I feel that both issues are different and should be handled differently.
My inconsistent and often convoluted editing is hardly a valid reason for removing the information from the article. I'm pretty sure there isn't a Wikipedia policy that centres around "removing information added by stupid editors". Seeing as to how the previous debate ended in no consensus, don't you think we should at least try to establish consensus this time before revert warring again?

-ryand 09:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for choosing to set aside the dispute. I would like to note, however, that perhaps you have mistaken Slashme's arguments for mine. My argument all along was that she was notable for the one stunt she did. I have never stated feminist activism as my reason for supporting her inclusion in the article. That said, thank you again, and I hope we can work together more peacefully in the future. -ryand 10:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement you quote ("One of interest and curiousity, being that she was once from one of the top schools in Singapore and ended up in the porn industry because of some beliefs in the feminist theory.") was in response to your question: "Well, please explain what's her influence on you?". That was (and is) her influence on me, and I believe her influence on many Singaporeans as well - that she was from RGS and yet joined the porn industry. Yes, her claimed reason for doing so is a load of bullshit, but I find it nonetheless interesting that she did so and gave the reasons she gave (her feminist claims were mentioned in interviews, by the way, not part of some porn storyline, whatever that is). All this, however, is "her influence on me", and not "the reason why I feel that she should be included on the notable alumni list". I didn't see the relevance of your question then, and I don't see it now, either. So yes, you can take it that my reason for adding Annabel Chong was because I felt that her first-of-a-kind sex act and the media attention that it gathered merited her enough notability to be included on the list. -ryand 12:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Annabel Chong was a porn star doesn't make her addition to the article "porncruft". I assume you take "porncruft" to mean "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of porn"? Well, my argument is that Chong had an impact not just on Singaporean porn-fans, but on the population in general. The reason why Chong is unique in the Singaporean consciousness is because at the time of her becoming a porn star, Singapore was known both within and without as a conservative Asian state. That a Singaporean girl - an alumna of RGS, no less - would go on film to have sex with 251 men at a time was something that was unheard of in the nation. Perhaps you don't feel that way; that's fine. But Chong has seeped into the public consciousness as our first and perhaps most infamous porn star, so much that references to her can be found all over the place, and not just in porn reviews or adult magazines. For example: a local film review, a Talking Cock article, a mrbrown post, even a National Heritage Board press release. And that's just local stuff. Internationally, here's: an example of "Annabel Chong" being used as an epithet in a newspaper article, Annabel Chong mentioned in a music review and Annabel Chong being used as part of the lyrics for a freestyle rap. I'm inclined to believe that Chong does have notability outside the porn circles. -ryand 06:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to exaggerate things, I'm just trying to prove the point that everybody (not just porn-fans) knows who she is. To give a similar, more recent example: Tammy was also propelled to the spotlight purely for her act of having sex on video - yet interest in her case went beyond that merely lust, jokes and curiosity (although those were present). I believe there was also debate on societal norms, questions on morality, etc. Can the Tammy sex video scandal considered porncruft? In my opinion, no. And similarly, neither can interest in Annabel Chong. Attention for both cases is very much in the mainstream. As for your argument that there is no precedent, I believe Mailer diablo pointed out the List of Caulfield Grammar School people. That Annabel Chong does not appear on the List of University of Southern California people actually surprises me, and I doubt that it is not so much a case of editorial judgement as negligence. After all, Joe Francis, an adult film producer, is also listed on that article. -ryand 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Annabel Chong on RGS

I notice this has been going in circles and circles, so I thought I'd have a discussion on this matter.

Seriously I'm surprised that AC in the notable alumni section is a greater concern than the culture section that is directly above it, which appears to be suffering from some degree of "cruft".

Wikipedia is not censored, and notable doesn't nessecarily mean it always have to be in a positive light - that'd violate NPOV, isn't it? Head over to List of Caulfield Grammar School people, in which its school is a featured article, includes a convicted murderer (see section W). So long as the article itself doesn't have anything that says along the lines of "RGS is breeding porn stars", a simple link to her biography is generally acceptable. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 03:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Community School (Singapore)

Proposed deletion of International Community School (Singapore)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article International Community School (Singapore), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, appreciate it. --Vsion 04:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On November 28, 2006, a fact from the article Hussein Shah of Johor, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks again Vsion for following up on the sources. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of popups

Please do not use popups to revert contentious edits. It is considered as disruption and may warrant a block. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Hi there, thanks for tagging American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai as a copyvio. Just so you are aware - if an entire article and its history are obviously a copyvio (as that one was) you can tag it for speedy deletion using {{db-copyvio}} and then it doesn't have to go through the whole process. Thanks! --Ars Scriptor 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was aware of db-copyvio; but didn't realise that the 48-hour restriction had been removed. Yeap, it will come in handy. --Vsion 16:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request here, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Wiki eZach| talk 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Single-party state.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Hello there, my name is Peter M Dodge and I go by the handle Wizardry Dragon on Wikipedia. While I am not a member of the Mediation Committee proper I have offered to mediate this case. If this is okay with you, I would like to proceed. Please let me know either way, and if you have any issues with this please let me know so I may try to address them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update List of Singapore-related topics

Hello Vsion, could you run the bot to update the list? It is long outdated, hope you do it asap. Thanks. Ter e nc e Ong 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Vsion 23:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human body features

Hello Vsion, I noticed you're the creator of Image:Human body features2.png. Could you by any chance upload a higher resolution (or vectorized) version without the lines and the labels? There are notable differences in body-part terminology and categorisation across cultures, so it would be good if there would be a label-less image that can be used widely across Wikipedia editions. Thank you! — mark ✎ 13:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation of single-party state

Hi there, I've taken the mediation case for single-party state for the mediation committee. Please go here to start the mediation. Thanks. —Xyrael / 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. After speaking to a party of this case, I think it has pretty much faded into the background. For that reason, I will be closing the mediation soon unless you have any opposition to this. If so, please drop me a talk page note. Thanks. —Xyrael / 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore related AfD

Hi there Vsion, I would welcome your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Thanabalan. I have contacted you because Stephen Thanabalan is linked on one of your sub-pages. I suspect that the usage of this name in wikipedia is a sort-of-hoax. Perhaps you have access to some infromation that may indicate that I am right or wrong (either might be helpful). Regards, -MrFizyx 21:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNG Image recompress with PNGOUT

Hello Vsion, thanks for creating those MRT map which is save as PNG. In future you may try to use PNGOUT [6] which will recompress PNG into much smaller size. It will save everyone a few KBytes of bandwidth for each image. Hope this is helpful to you. Regards, (FrankT 02:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

DYK!

On December 24, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fathur Rahman al-Ghozi, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore general election, 2006

There is some things we need to settle with the election article like original research, verifiability, updates, expansion etc. Its on hold for GA for seven days, would you like to help me out with sorting this mess for the next seven days or so? Terence Ong 11:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only inline citations are the only problem and contributing to the OR in the article. I think the chunk of victory parade info is a bit of OR from my past knowledge. So you may like to remove the section. The worst thing is there is absolutely nothing on what happened on election day so please try to add information to it also, I will try my best but I'm busy today. I don't think its too long-winded, should be fine. Terence Ong 10:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines

How about separating the Singapore Airlines topic into different articles? Or changing the layout slightly? Very few people are going to read a huge article with masses of technical lists. Just reverting everytime someone makes an edit doesn't help, expecially when you don't explain why. I assumed you weren't trying to be intentionally rude.--Shakujo 08:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An airline page is an airline page. You would expect to at least be informed on its operational details and some technical facts. If "laymen's considerations" is what you are concerned about, than are you going to ask all mathematical equations be removed from Quantum field theory?--Huaiwei 10:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you explore Quantum field theory, you will find plenty of lists, the number depending on whether you take the easy/inaccurate or long/accurate route through the field equation matrices. Thankfully, the equations in Quantum field theory are enough to explain the topic adequately. They also possess relevance, which said concept when applied to the flight numbers, and judging from your own criteria of describing market share, proves that there is a lot of irrelevance in their inclusion. BTW If you want to discuss Quantum field theory then we should discuss it here Talk:Quantum field theory.--Shakujo 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on the Mediation Cabal listing here would be greatly appreciated.--Shakujo 04:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar: Thanks!

Thanks for awarding me a Barnstar! It was much appreciated. Jacklee 21:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi Vsion!

Thanks for popping by and for giving me those help links! I appreciate it very much.--Starry maiden Gazer 07:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

assessing singapore poets

Dear vision,

I have removed your assessment of several well known singapore poets as of low or mid importance and stub class. Recently Straits Times Digital supplement did an article on the Spwikipedians who probably did the assessment and a photograph was even published. Most of you are 15 or 16 years old and your schools were even cited. I think you should leave established Singapore poets alone. Otherwise I will write a lengthly article on each of the discussion page of the poets/writers you rate so poorly to expose the fact that you are school boys and also use it as a forum to point out one of the major drawbacks of an otherwise fantastic project: Wikipedia: ie that schoolboys use it to run a sort of "mafia". ( I wonder what your principals/headmasters will think) It's better to "live and let live" in the end, though at 15 or 16 we do believe that we are invincible and the world is our oyster.Ivygohnair 17:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the reason why I like wikipedia. Some posted comments are just hilarious! --Vsion 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol Ivygohnair 10:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well well well. A few teens getting all excited about the prospect of "instant fame" isnt very unexpected. I am pretty sure there are plenty of matured editors out there who contribute to wikipedia as much as them, if not more. Anyhow, age isnt always directly proportionate to maturity level.--Huaiwei 10:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appeal to you all not to judge or stereotype anyone, and to avoid making ad hominem attacks. If you feel that any {{SG}} ratings are inappropriate, please go ahead and change them. But be aware of the relevant guidelines when rating pages. I thank Huaiwei for his very true statement that "age is not directly proportionate to maturity level", and ask all other editors not to give teenage contributors different treatment or respect. And please, don't start accusing anyone of WP:OWN and using Wikipedia for our own purposes. It's just baseless. Your efforts to accord editors with appropriate basic respect will be appreciated. That teenagers' contributions should in any way be lesser to adults' simply goes against the spirit of Wiki. - SpLo T // 12:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, well well, I agree hold-heartedly with Huaiwei; teenagers are a valuable resource for a site like Wikipedia which will close down if enthusiatic editors decide to shun the site and go to another newer fad in Web 2.0. Who can be more enthusiastic than a teenager who suddenly finds in Wikipedia, the realisation that he can use the site as their own playground and with impunity, to decide on adult topics, gang up on newcomers, boost their own egos by awarding barn stars etc to each other and meeting up in Macdos to decide their next strategies ? I am a mother of a teenager myself and being nominated "Person of the Year" by Time Magazine, I have loads of teenage friends and "fans". I have also a vested interest in non-discrimination of editors by age, because as an oldie, I don't want to be discriminated upon just because of my age :-)

Ivygohnair 02:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well well well, your cv is solid I can tell.

Guess i better not mess around,

Skali complain to principal who'd gimme hell. :O Vsion 04:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"use the site as their own playground and with impunity, to decide on adult topics, gang up on newcomers, boost their own egos by awarding barn stars etc to each other and meeting up in Macdos to decide their next strategies ?"

I hope you aren't trying to stereotype all of that again. I fear for your reputation if your comments are blatantly directed at any specific editor, or even teenagers in general. - SpLo T // 10:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SpLot,

Please do give reasons for your ratings of established singaporean poets and writers as asked for by wikipedia rules. I do not fear for my reputation as I have evidence to back up what I say if we do have to engage in a sensible dialogue of reasonable minds on the talk pages of each established poet/writer you rate so subjectively. As shown in my last posting, I think teenagers are an important part of the wikipedia experience but as huawei has pointed out, they are not the only ones contributing to wikipedia. I do look forward to discussing intelligently the reasons for your ratings on established singapore poets and writers on their respective talk pages. Ivygohnair 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mdm, Inserting the Template:SG is part of an effort to consolidate articles related to Singapore so that we can monitor them more effectively. The template-header also helps to direct readers to the Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board so that more can join our little project. The rating itself is secondary and it is not set in stone. As we are adding the template into multiple articles, we do make mistakes, and we encourage anyone to modify them according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board/Article Assessment. For articles related to literature, the following arrangement seems reasonable:

Top-importance:

The article Singapore itself

Culture of Singapore (which gives an introduction on Literature of Singapore)

High-importance:

Literature of Singapore,

The most distinguished artists/writers/poets in the country

Globally or regionally-acclaimed artists/writers,

(There should exist multiple sources that describe their biographies and work)

e.g. Edwin Thumboo, Tan Swie Hian

Mid-importance:

Nationally-acclaimed writers, poets, such as winners of Singapore Literature Prize;

Authors of multiple best-sellers, e.g. Catherine Lim,

Low-importance:

other notable writers and poets.

There are of course grey areas between the categories, feel free to modify the ratings that others assigned to the articles. I believe there has been a misunderstanding, due to a lack of explanation of what the template is about. SpLot was trying to explain that you can change the ratings if you disagree with them. I look forward to your participation in this collaborative effort. --Vsion 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I am glad that the criteria you set up above are not set in stone. There are writers and poets who may be lumped into your low category class just because they have spent most of their working lives abroad, or there are some who merit a better rating because of the work they have done for the creative writing scene in Singapore both in the past and in the present. Having said this I still maintain that your ratings based on the above limited criteria are subjective. I am on vacation now, may I ask that a moratorium be allowed on the rating of Singapore writers and poets be allowed until next month when I return from vacation, and I am able to present more detailed arguments. Ivygohnair 06:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA, WP:V, WP:N. - SpLo T // 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Northstar V

There seems no reason for an early closure. This VfD nomination was put up for less than 2 hours; it wasn't even left for, say, 48 hours, as compared to the 5-day full duration. Closing a vote after 2 hrs is simply ridiculous. Mandel 19:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with you for two reasons. One, you are assuming too much; and two, one of my reasons for putting it up is to find a consensus for future anti-terrorist-exercises articles and such. Discussions are important.

Three, it might have slipped you, but an admin with article involvement is not allowed to close an AfD nomination. I would not report you, but doing this again might suspend your sysop prowess. Mandel 21:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do anything you want, afterall, the world is your oyster (see above). --Vsion 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal Request

Hello! I'm .V., a member of Wikipedia's mediation cabal. We provide informal and optional mediation to users in disputes so, hopefully, it can be resolved early instead of being taken to "official" channels (the Mediation Committee or Arbitration). A user has filed a mediation cabal request regarding a discussion on a page in which you are a participant. You can find a link to the mediation here.

Remember, this mediation is purely optional and the result is non-binding. The goal of this mediation is to hopefully resolve the matter peacably, fairly, and to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Thanks! .V. _[_Talk|Email] 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Kim Peng Clarence

You may wish to check out User_talk:Quarl#Tan_Kim_Peng_Clarence. The AFD result is quite a shocker and clearly ill-informed.--Huaiwei 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete. I would like to add that I'm from Singapore as well, but inactive on the Singapore articles on Wikipedia. To be honest sometimes I wonder if you core Singaporean Wikipedians might be a bit too close to the matter (being the guys who wrote it) to make objective judgements about whether a certain Singapore related article deserved to be AFDed. I don't really edit the Singapore side of Wikipedia,despite being Singaporean so I'm hoping my input on such matters would be useful as an impartial voice. I would consider myself fairly knowledgable about Singapore, but I have never heard of this Tan Kim Peng fellow (and I checked with some other people who were army officers and they never heard of him before either), this probably tells you how notable the guy is within even Singapore, much less to the world. That said, I do agree it seems that good faith or not, some editors seem to have a history of dissing Singapore and their dislike for Singapore might perhaps be coloring their decisions. Aarontay 07:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator, I certainly wont consider myself an expert in military history. As I have already mentioned, I wrote it based on what I happen to research on. One should make decisions on keeping articles based on the subject itself, and not based on factors related to the contributor. Please remain impartial, and do not vote based on personal or outside agendas.--Huaiwei 05:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not implying I'm voting based on agenda, because if I did I would have voted delete for the Singapore 2006. I'm just commenting on what I see, and you yourself have made even stronger comments along these lines I believe accusing some contributors of worse. :) Aarontay 10:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting with an agenda need not refer to a blanket delete vote in a group of articles. It could mean discriminatory voting by attaching prejudiced judgements on the contributors rather than the value of the articles themselves. Your own statements above and in the AFDs are very telling. Your derogatory comments pertaining to motives driving the ehthusiasm of contributing wikipedians are certainly unwelcome and very uncalled for.--Huaiwei 12:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Monarch High School (Florida)

Thank you for noticing that Monarch High School (Florida) was a copyvio. There is now a non-copyvio version of the article at Talk:Monarch High School (Florida)/Temp. If you think that the new non-copyvio version is worth keeping, you may want to revise your comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monarch High School (Florida). --Eastmain 07:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Carson Middle School

I have asked for a review of the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School. You can find a link to the review discussion at the top of the articles. Brianyoumans 15:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am iwazaki ,a Sri lankan wikipedian..I have created an article about Walpola Rahula ,here..But I just realised that there is an article of Ven Thera already,created by You(good work buddy).Do you mind if I change the structure of your article ?? I want to add my stuff to make it nice..--Iwazaki 12:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines

Hi, check out [7], where User:Shakujo has begun ranting to the Admin community over several wild accusations thrown at us. I somehow begin to wonder what drives the intensity of his actions, for he is clearly taking this far too personally. Pretty unusual for someone who isnt even exactly contributing much to aviation-related content.--Huaiwei 15:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it has been quite bizarre from the beginning. Thanks for responding at ANI, I can't think of anything else to comment there at this point. Hmm... I don't know, maybe he is just terribly upset when his edits were reverted by me [8] [9]. If that's the case, he will get over it after some time. ... hopefully ;) --Vsion 05:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am being over-sensitive, but what frustrates me most is when we end up discussing discussions and discussing users just to waste time. Anyway, I'm not the only one who considers that the articles needs some fat trimming from it: I wasn't the one who asked for the mediation cabal after all. Frankly, if you could have provided a better argument for inclusion I would have agreed, but now the situation has been inflamed.--Shakujo 08:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not to be condescending but if we could avoid the use of personal such as I/you/he/she it would prevent certain grammatical constructions and might make our language less inflammatory. Deal?--Shakujo 08:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some patience is much needed here, unless there is some pressing reason why you require a prompt resolution? Dispute resolution can take time, and I, for one, hasent even really found time to sit down, consolidate my thoughts, and write a proper response to the above cabal yet. I hope you do not see this as my intention to drag my feet.

Again, I wonder why you continue to have problems understanding that a factual disagreement is just that, a factual disagreement. Saying your negative actions are justified by the "failure of the other to provide convincing evidence" seems to be a pretty odd disposition to take to me, especially when it is more of attempting to justify your actions because you simply do not factually agree. Why do you bother to partake in dispute resolution then?

Finally, I do not think the exclusion of "I/you/he/she" makes this any less inflammatory. In fact, it is far worse. Go straight to the point, be honest and open, and trash it all out. That is far less inflammatory compared to comments like these [10].--Huaiwei 11:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really getting out of hand. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:2005_Bali_bombings_SCTV_screenshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2005_Bali_bombings_SCTV_screenshot.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —xyzzy_n 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. The rationale template is really helpful. Thanks.--Vsion 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic-group lists deletion discussions

Hi, I noticed you participated in one of these three deletion discussions:

All three discussions have similar issues but are leaning in different directions, so you may want to participate in the others, if only for the sake of consistencey and to avoid accusations that Wikipedians are being unfair to some group or groups (which is something that concerns me). I'm asking everyone who participated in one discussion to participate in the others. I apologize for bothering you if you already have participated in the others. Best wishes, Noroton 04:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 9 March, 2007, a fact from the article Patrick Stanley Vaughan Heenan, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 17:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spinal column curvature.png

Hello,

(in English)
(in French)

Medium69 23:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Lt_Adnan_Saidi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lt_Adnan_Saidi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Ya Men

Did you know? was updated. On 1 May, 2007, a fact from the article Long Ya Men, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]