Jump to content

User talk:Strange Passerby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alverya (talk | contribs) at 01:36, 26 May 2011 (→I think user:Alverya is a Ministry employee.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

11:32Please note that it is currently 11:32 AM BST. (Refresh)
Strange Passerby's talk page procedures
If you leave a message here
 
  • I will reply here. Please watch my page for replies.
  • I will leave a {{talkback}} message only if you are a new editor, or if you specifically request so in your message or on your talk page.
If I leave a message on your talk page
 
  • I will watch it for replies.
  • You need not post here.
  • Please avoid using {{talkback}} on my page unless it's urgent. If you do leave a talkback message, please timestamp it.
    • Note that talkback notices are liable to be rolled back or removed at any time, unless they have been responded to in the same thread.
  • If you reply here to a message I leave you, I will continue the discussion here.
SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

ITN

--RxS (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

--RxS (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New coordinator

I have opened up a new discussion on WikiProject Multi-sport, about appointing a new coordinator. Please leave your thoughts there. Thank you. [1] Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a SPA

Hello Strange Passerby,


The user is not a SPA ..but a twofold indef-blocked and community banned user. I have reported this to WP-ANI [2]--Nmate (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StrPby, after following your and other users' valuable comments over the accompanying prose of the article, I've made some changes. I request you to take a look there and be a part of nomination procedure, right now I'm running busy in real life but will address all the concerns brought up there. I'm hoping a full cooperation from your side, thanks. — Bill william comptonTalk 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yam Ah Mee

I would comment that it is permissible for the nominator to !vote "as nominator" in the discussion, giving more detailed or other rationales. The second vote on the page should be noted as such. I suggest that simply noting the multiple votes would suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fair use?

What about these two , I was going to nominate them also but as I have some dispute with the uploader I left them, what do you think about them, the facebook screen grap appears only to show ridicules of the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vivian_Balakrishnan_fb_screenshot.jpg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_New_Paper_Gay_MP.png - Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Not sure about the first one; I'll add the second to the FFD nom. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I'm becoming increasingly concerned that this admin's edits are not NPOV, and when coupled with the bad fair use uploads, might require wider input from WP:ANI soon. Your thoughts? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do see issues but I think they can be resolved by process like your file nomination and talkpage discussion. As I had quite a conflict with the user in the beginning I want to avoid unneeded escalation. All countries political articles suffer partisan editing around election time and it fades away when the hoopla has died down then we usually go around and NPOV them back up again, or at least this has been my experience of British and American political sectors. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's see how she reacts. I hope it's productive and assumes good faith and she doesn't take this as an attack. I'm not sure if the partisanship will die down but I do hope so, she's an admin and should know better. It's ironic, I protest voted against the ruling party but here I am trying to defend against anti-ruling party POV... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more your first link comes across as a massive WP:BLP issue... I might FFD nominate for G10 speedy on those grounds. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about the facebook screenshot, it has got some conserning aspects as it seems to be saying this is the horrid critisism some unknow people added to his facebook page...if I bump into one of my picture expert friends here I will ask them about it. Ok, lets see what happens with the G10. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll see what a neutral admin thinks about it. If this was written in text, it would be a massive BLP violation, so no real difference in an image except that they're sourced to non-notable everyday people... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gone already. Thanks for your contributions in regard to that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was reflective of the criticism of him at the time. It was a screenshot first uploaded by The Online Citizen [3]. Normally I edit quite conservatively, but what I am most concerned about is a continual whitewashing by YoungPAP members (they are often anonymous and leave no edit summaries), eager to make large scandals sound like really small incidents. Furthermore I don't know what is particularly wrong with the comments I cropped in (the original screenshot is much longer), in so far as it is not libelous (it represents opinion, and makes no assertion about facts), and it reflects the general mood online at the time, and you could very well argue that he was indeed "homophobic" and indeed "scared of gays" -- this is indeed, what the government-independent press essentially said.

In 2006 we didn't have this problem because the government ignored Wikipedia. I tried to maintain a balanced article -- see the views I took from his webpage and the summary of his legislative resume which I created. Nevertheless, among Singaporeans connected to the internet, the first thing that comes to mind when Balakrishnan is mentioned is probably "the gay incident". In America, if a a politician had made similar remarks, and continued to make similar remarks, and continued to attack his opponents in that manner, that would probably earn him a very large section in his biography. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 04:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You "don't know what is particularly wrong"? Have you been away from Wikipedia so long so as not to know the BLP policy? Furthermore, per WP:RS: "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." If those comments were covered by non-self-published sources (TOC and TR count as SPS; the Economist on the other hand wouldn't), then it would be different. But not in this case. A clear cut attack, and a clear cut violation of BLP. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was acceptable during the 2006 elections. The BLP policy was enacted much later (over a large group of dissenters) so as to avoid lawsuits, particularly triggered by the Seigenthaler incident. It is a "hard-coded" legal insurance for Wikipedia, not an original content policy. The proper thing is to fork a new article discussing Balakrishnan's (alleged) smear campaign, as well as various tactics pursued by the ruling party in general. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 09:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you yourself mention, "BLP was enacted much later". It, however, remains enacted now. Such crap might've got through in 2006, but that shouldn't mean similar stuff should be able to get through now. Additionally, such issues might have to be removed from the 2006-related articles under BLP. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the issue is to save the content and simply divert it away from the biographical article. I intend to create new pages, I just haven't had time. I started Central Executive Committee (PAP) for instance -- there's a lot of juice on this! But so far it doesn't reflect any of its possible potential. I intend to get a few books like "Lee's Lieutenants" (a wonderful resource) and get some of my friend to research the National Archives. It is a lot of effort starting new articles (now than in 2006 as well), as you must have everything prepared -- that was my reason for keeping it on Balakrishnan's page temporarily. BLP's main purpose is to avoid libel charges. Balakrishnan is not likely to win a lawsuit, nor is he likely to start one -- for now in fact, he simply wants to pretend the whole affair never existed. I also wanted to punish the YPAP agents who would delete entire sections without explanation by expanding the section even further. I am moving the content to the talk pages, so I can fork it later. Alex Au's criticism and analysis should not be removed from other pages.
I am also concerned about how the current state of the article basically makes the gay community and the SDP look bad. There is no gay agenda. SDP's agenda is human rights and equality -- however the way it sounds now sounds like how the Straits Times phrased it, which to me, is a pro-government POV. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 09:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Hello, Strange Passerby. You have new messages at Tyw7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 01:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio?

The original base of the article (which mentions his resume) was from user:Vsion, who is a respected contributor and would have unlikely to have copy and pasted from a random official website. For deleting 326 revisions, I wonder if we have been a little hasty in jumping the gun. How do we know that MCYS did not copy from us? MCYS created that article in 2010; Vsion started that article in 2005. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 10:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[4]. He may be a respected contributor now but who's to say whether when he was newer here five/six/however many years ago, he didn't do what most newbies did? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyvio_issues_with_a_six-year-old_article. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am almost fairly convinced MCYS copied from us (and should be contacted for not attributing us). Look at how they wrote that article. It is written in Wikipedia's style. They plagiarised from us, not the other way round. It was Vsion who originally wrote "married with three children". I think we should consider restoring the revisions. We may be the victims of our own success.
Vsion was fairly well-informed in June 2005 (I should know). The copyvio bot would have detected it then. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 10:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided a link above for you from 2006 taken from the official Cabinet website. MCYS' current profile is similar to the official Cabinet profile. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The base of the article was written in the summer of 2005. Also look at how the contributors slowly added the revisions. Of course you deleted the revisions so you can't see. User:Huaiwei contributed too. 10 different editors all plagiarised from the same source? I think not. Again the copyvio bot was already active then. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 10:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the copyvio bot only started its work in 2007. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is from Jan 06, with a tag at the bottom noting April 2005 – before our article was created. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that copyvio bot....we had several active around since 2004, but they would often be able to only post to talk pages, etc. or certain boards -- bots gained more freedom as time went on. I restored a few revisions for you to look. Look at how the article was built up. Look at diffs like http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vivian_Balakrishnan&action=historysubmit&diff=37853301&oldid=19040893 and look at the Cabinet article. Those little details were added piecewise to our article by different contributors ! Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that. I never said the entire article was a copyvio. But if there's any copyvio in a revision, the revision has to go. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will also note that these trivia are not included in his official profile. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was probably the main source.... but I am not sure if it's a copyvio. In the future we shouldn't be too quick to jump the gun. We can see the article's evolution. Was the article continuously modified to reflect some external source? I suppose that is likely (given government agents who annoyingly bold different titles on Ministry articles to make their employers look grandiose, but then I question whether that is a "typical" copyvio warranting a speedy delete. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not tag the article for deletion at any time. The deletion was unilateral, as you will see at Moonriddengirl's talk page, and was contested by another non-admin copyright specialist. In any case, revision delete is necessary to get rid of the old copyvio revisions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this diff again. Some IP added " He was elected President of the National University of Singapore Student's Union (NUSSU) from 1981 to 1983, and Chairman of NUSSU in 1984/1985." (7 May 2006). A contributor added that single line. This is in none of his 2005/2006 biographies except his 2010 one. I am suspicious. I am merely saying we should be cautious.
I'll delete the revisions again if it turns out that it is indeed a bona fide copyvio. (We can't discuss the facts otherwise.) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 11:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, it was. [5] "He was elected President of the National University of Singapore Student's Union (NUSSU) from 1981 to 1983, and Chairman of NUSSU in 1984/1985." Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think user:Alverya is a Ministry employee.

I of course want to assume good faith and not bite the newbies, but separate from the copyvio issue, there are these edits, and the way articles are annoyingly bolded -- to make articles reflect government web pages -- well, this makes me suspicious. Alverya both edited Balakrishnan and Teo Ser Luck. See how he made a perfectly good article became a piece of propaganda http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Teo_Ser_Luck&diff=prev&oldid=416688369. Cf the current "official" bio [6]. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 12:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite getting what you mean by "the way articles are annoyingly bolded". It's MOS to bold article titles... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not article titles but rather important ranks and titles or government ministries and programs. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 12:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I might be being daft here but I don't see anything other than TSL's name bolded in the diff you gave me? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This. I'm happy that they invest so much time of course -- I would actually like the government to engage our media more -- but when they try to "officialise" things with their she was elected Member of Parliament boldness, or worse, delete critical sections, I get annoyed. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 12:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, yeah, that's concerning. I agree that while we should AGF, it would be worth watching Alverya's edits further to see if they introduce more POV. (Also, please check your wikipedia email as per my you've got mail template at your talk page! I emailed you about something slightly less related to this.) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i guess since you guys are talking about me, I can come in here and "defend" myself right? :P Got to admit, my mistake to copy and paste the content from the MCYS website. newbie mistake that you'll notice i stopped doing for quite some time now. Just getting into Wiki, so learning along the way. Would appreciate your "teachings" if i made mistakes. tried to read up and dos and don'ts, but boy, wiki is mind-boggling and a bit overwhelming sometimes. Anyway, i'm editing more to learn more, and basically my goal is for factual and neutral articles, which is the crux of wikipedia right? :D THANKS!!

ITN for Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Edit summaries on Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland

alright, alright. but they werent disruptive to content.(Lihaas (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Not to content, but disrupting Wikipedia can happen in many ways, and it's disruptive to people following the edit history of the article. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? the fellow gaelic absol majority??
i read it somewhere, ill gfind that source. ill jyust hide isntead of removing in the meaintuime? okay?(Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
The Scottish election has nothing to do with a visit by the British monarch to the Irish state. Please be aware the article is on a 1RR restriction per WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about the FG stuff you removed. uu didnt explain that. restore/hide it then.(Lihaas (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
The visit was made on an invitation from president of Ireland Mary McAleese. FG's electoral victory is irrelevant to her visit. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BACJKGROUND context. never haoppened with the irish nationalist FF/
also [7] is not war, perhaps just edit conflcits.(Lihaas (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I know. I wasn't accusing you of edit warring, merely telling you of the restriction should you choose to revert my removal of the information without discussing. I've commented on the article talk page regarding Scotland. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ooh also, we need more context to the unprecedentant visitand the ocntroversy. [8][9], etc. perhaps a "reaction" section>?(Lihaas (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
not necessarily the weblogs of places like aljazeera are no considered dodgy.
anyways, just tag the dodgy ones and ill find another source or remove it. got some other stuff im adding now.(Lihaas (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Yes, like al Jazeera. That blog is a webblog belonging to an anti-Monarchist group. Totally inappropriate. Stop editing disruptively. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGF, that was edit conflict as youll note from the bbc re f "added back" hat was never disputable. i was adding the obama bit,(Lihaas (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
For god sake, were avingh a high normal civil discussion on a CURRENT EVENT that obviously yields to EDIT CONFLICTS. there is nto controverisal content dispute. why dio tyiyu need to compklaing to ANI abotu everything. you reverted, i explained, crisis solved. see the TIMING of the edits.(Lihaas (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Then YOU need to voluntarily remove the information, as I cannot because the article is under 1RR. That is the only reason I went to AN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine I will. just tell me and i will. im just adding some sources. We can easily socle thsi ourself, as we are doing. no? do we think we are warring or being uncivil? i dont.(Lihaas (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I told you it was an unreliable source, only for you to tell me to "just tag the dodgy ones" because you had "some other stuff im adding now." If you are agreeable to revert to the simple fact (100 years since George V) with the BBC ref, all the better. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fact tags are calls to improve refs, the ref in question is dodgy then tag and well either find or remove. Now we cvan discuss it, dont think you need the ANI. its your complauint so we can withdraw and discuss it as we are doing ourselves. im almost done with my sources now, so clean up what you see fit and reverts are not dubious is uncontroversail and i dont have beef with yorus b/c we are TOGETHER cleaning and current event article. see WP is based on colloboratuion wso we can colloborate.(Lihaas (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
It doesn't matter that the revert is uncontroversial, the article is on a strict 1RR rule and I'm not going to break it. I would still ask you to be the one to remove the contested information. And you shouldn't be added poorly-sourced information at all. It's not a race. WP isn't about adding information from biased sites then tagging the information ourself. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
incidentally waht is Leinster House?
It's the Irish parliament building. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[10]???(Lihaas (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Eh. I had already removed the offending bit (the part sourced to the nationalist site). The Obama information is covered in the RTE reference provided there. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict, was just about to ask if that was the edit to undo. anyways, ive reverted mine.(Lihaas (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
seperated b/c major was former and cameron uis current to give context. PM is also proper noun when giving title as opposed to general mention, in this acase the former. we dont have to follow media conventions.(Lihaas (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Queen_Elizabeth_II.27s_visit_to_the_Republic_of_Ireland resolved? you can take complaint off..(Lihaas (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

I have replied to your comment re the Dublin and Monaghan bombings here. ~Asarlaí 12:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it. I need to head out now, but will respond as soon as I can. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Dates in references at Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland There were dates in both formats, just trying to make them consistent through the article. Goldnpuppy (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Strange_Passerby&oldid=430942840"