User talk:La goutte de pluie/archive 8

We want structures that serve people, not people serving structures. — Anonyme, mai '68

la goutte

la pluie

la note

la mémoire

la parole (a)

Email me

TOC

As established at WP:RSN, The Online Citizen, as a groupthink blog, should be used sparsely and is not for most purposes a reliable source. Therefore I don't think you can characterise it as "valid". I've reworded the section to make it sound less POV. It was pretty anti-TPL, and as much as I don't like her or the fact that she's now an MP, we have to maintain neutrality. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It is perhaps not the most ideal standalone source -- but what is wrong with it having as supplementary source ? It is a source that supports the other sources. I do not think we should remove the source. WP:RS doesn't say that you should remove sources that do not fully qualify as WP:RS, but rather remove statements that are not backed by WP:RS. Furthermore what is a reliable source depends on context. We can be sure they did not fabricate the Elections Department document, and the depth of the reaction means we can cite both the TR article and the government document to avoid violating WP:OR. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to cite TOC as a supplementary source and quite another to cite it as a source in a blatantly biased paragraph, which only adds to the appearance that the entire section is POV. I'm quite happy for you to restore it (further discussion notwithstanding either here, on the article talk, or at RSN) if the section does not (as it did) take on an ostensibly anti-TPL or anti-PAP tone. This article is due to go up on T:ITN soon and we could do without a POV tag to scupper its Main Page chances. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is that POV -- we are almost covering all the facts of the case and we aren't given any more. The entire incident reflects badly on TPL obviously, but that is because that seems to be the majority view. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The majority view online, perhaps. As an administrator, if an editor raises a point to you that he or she thinks content you are adding may be POV, wouldn't it be wise to ask for a second; third; fourth opinion? Because I certainly think unsourced statements like "This fact was not covered in the state press." are POV. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That was not my intention -- that was just to help clarify that the "official" state press view of events and independent blogosphere's views (which occasionally source their own arguments credibly) are different. This is not POV, but reality. Singapore's situation, because of a lack of press freedom, is unique. Occasionally notable events are only discussed by independent, notable reporting. For now we can consider many independent blogs not to be prima facie reliable, but reliable on a case by case basis. In America, partisan views would have easily found a mainstream venue. (Fox News is considered a reliable source, after all.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. We hope (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am curious, why do you think the image is replaceable? The original image was an iconic one and a major election issue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to go to the file and edit it as stated above, giving your reasons why the file can't be replaced. An administrator will look into the matter and decide. We hope (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I tagged the file because it is non free one with living subjects, that's all. We hope (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Temasek Review

The DYK project (nominate) 06:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful page — may I take inspiration from it?

Hello! I am anonymous for the moment, because of techinal problems of connexion: I can't create my user page and my mailer does not even work.

When these problems will be solved (after several attempts by the network operator; “Vive la France !”), would you mind if I create a user page which be rather like yours? And, just in case, if I don't understand how something is done, would you agree to give me explanations? --78.123.104.87 (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC) (actually: Eva, la Tahitienne)

No problem. Actually the initial concept was borrowed from user:mailer diablo =) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 12:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Tin pei ling new paper.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tin pei ling new paper.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of anything untoward, please do note I've not nominated the Kate Spade file for deletion as I agree that that one could reasonably be considered of, per WP:NFCI, "iconic status or historical importance". (And for the record, I voted SDP last Saturday. :)) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, random thought/comment further to our discussion above and the other RFU notice you've received here, given you've not edited actively since March 2008, if you're out of touch with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and/or WP:Fair use, then perhaps it would only be right if you underwent a reconfirmation RFA? Just a rhetorical thought, I certainly don't expect you to do anything and I won't be offended if you decide not to. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

File:The New Paper Gay MP.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The New Paper Gay MP.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Vivian Balakrishnan fb screenshot.jpg

I hate to do this, but I've nominated this file for speedy deletion under G10 as a blatant attack. Not by you in uploading it, but the comments are a clear WP:BLP issue and they should have no place on Wikipedia. It can be replaced in his article by simply saying he was attacked online and sourcing this. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS / Vivian Balakrishnan

Alverya (talk · contribs) has—correctly—removed information in Vivian Balakrishnan regarding the controversy over the so-called "gay issue", specifically concerning comments by Alex Au. Just to leave you a note to say I fully agree with the removal per WP:RS (emphasis original):

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source.

Please do not restore the material unless you find a non-self-published source (SPS including TOC and Temasek Review). Otherwise, I'm afraid your recent edits taken together would warrant review of your admin privileges as no prospective admin would honestly get away with violation of Wikipedia's five core pillars. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And please, if you haven't already, (re)read WP:BLP. Your recent edits show, intentionally or otherwise, an ignorance of that policy. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my edits seem like POV warring. If you haven't noticed, the YPAP has been rather active recently, which has pursued the strategy of trolling activist groups online, whitewashing articles and in general, making their employers "look better" than they actually should. The big blow-up portrait of Balakrishnan on Commons to me was suspicious -- that isn't published anywhere online and only seems to be a local copy the Young PAP wing seems on hand. (I am also the administrator of several groups online where I have had to deal with this rubbish.) The infamous online persona "John Tan" (meant to put a bad name to John Tan the SDP candidate) is just one example of this.

Also, perhaps we should move some of the information to a separate article, then. Alex Au is a respected activist and is one of Singapore's most visible spokespeople for the gay community, which Balakrishnan basically attacked clandestinely. The issue again is that when Singapore lacks a free press, intellectuals have to resort to other media to combat bias in government newspapers. We should also be using discussion pages more. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

At least years ago, the general consensus was that editors hired by the government to push the views of their employers should be treated rather severely, even "punished" on their talkpages. See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress. I have caught Ministry IP addresses doing this. It is quite annoying. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 09:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree regarding the editing by government-linked editors (I did a whois on an anon yesterday and it returned a result for the Infocomm Development Authority). However, WP:RS and WP:BLP are clear on this. BLP is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia now and allows the removal of any unsourced, poorly sourced, or unreliably sourced contentious information—negative or positive—from an article on a living person. And I think RS is very clear on using blogs as sources for opinions and facts on living people. That said, Alex Au is prominent enough to be given coverage even in the government media, so his comments might have been published somewhere else. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, can I say that I'm concerned the "gay issue" is getting undue weight in the article. Might be better to (like at TPL's article) include a short paragraph on it and link to the election article, where a section on this would be better placed? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I share your concern. I plan to do that eventually, even draft a separate article. Right now I don't think that much harm is being done. Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, we should punish government/YPAP POV-pushers for their attempted censorship; the edits the Congressional staffers did then were small and of a much smaller magnitude, and were also quite juvenile. This whitewashing is far more malicious. Note they did not transfer it to a different page, transfer it to a discussion, they did not comment it out -- they deleted it outright. For that I think it should stay a few more days (also while I draft a new article to put it into, with an overall sourced analysis of the particular issues in a far less episodal manner).

Certainly (for the scope of his resume) and that if you google "Vivian Balakrishnan" you get a lot of criticism and less commendation on his ministerial activities, I don't think it's that great of an undue weight issue. In mind of a lot of educated citizens that is in fact the major association with Balakrishnan. Nevertheless I do agree we should eventually fork it off -- but we should mention there was a controversy -- the two summary articles from Today and the Economist work best. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you just undeleted the article, please see the discussion at User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyvio_issues_with_a_six-year-old_article for more information about the copyvio issue. Yoenit (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, La goutte de pluie. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports

Your edits to Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports got blown away by an editor who restored the utterly uncritical tone. I reverted it back but without references I don't think it can all stay. There must be some critical reference material about this organisation, even allowing for the lack of internal criticism? If you can dig up a smaller amount of better referenced criticism then that can go in and be defended against whitewashing much more easily than the current content. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

My intention is to add some soon -- I'm just busy with other forms of research and peer review right now. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi hi, I think Daniel was referring to me who "blew away" the edits. :P Wasn't my intention to whitewash it, but it was obviously unreferenced and the tone seemed very POV to me. so like I said on Daniel's talk page, if the referencing by credible sources can be put in and a neutral tone is used (because everything has the negative and positive sides, so it's unfair to put an editor's tone into a fact-based article), i have no issue with it. Of course, based on fairness, if we have a critical reference, should there be a positive reference? Thanks! Alverya (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)