User talk:Strange Passerby/archive3

Copyright?

Dear Strange Passerby, I'm facing some troubles that i think you can solve. I created the english version of the page dedicated to the artist Aldo Mondino. The photo from that page has been deleted for copyright reasons. My question is: what's the procedure to put some artist's works on wikipedia? how to deal with the copyright? shall i contact the owner of the works?

another problem: my wikimedia account has been deleted, could that have happened for that copyright reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teoporta (talk • contribs) 09:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, if you wish to upload works still in copyright, you'll have to contact the copyright holder to request permission, then forward the permission to m:OTRS. The image hasn't yet been deleted (although there is a deletion debate at the Commons), it has merely been removed from the page. As for your account, you managed to leave me this message while logged in, so your account hasn't been deleted. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

citation as criteria

see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Remove_citation_as_criteria JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reminder on close paraphrasing

Originally posted at User talk:Anikingos

Hi Anirudh, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you of our essay (imo, it should be a policy, but hey) on close paraphrasing, which is related to copyrights. This is regarding the recent events that saw you being blocked, but also about your post to WP:ITNC#Russian Duma condemns Katyn massacre since.

You suggested the blurb:

The Duma has declared that the "Katyn crime" in 1940 was ordered by the Soviet dictator and other Soviet officials.

The BBC article:

Russia's lower house of parliament has condemned Joseph Stalin by name for the mass execution of Poles at Katyn during World War II. The Duma declared that the Soviet dictator and other Soviet officials had ordered the "Katyn crime" in 1940.

Your suggested blurb is almost a word-for-word copy of that second paragraph. Just so you know, if you used your suggested line in an article, and went on to reword other sentences just like that, you would still be in violation of copyright.

Please treat copyrights and close paraphrasing seriously as it could get you into more trouble as it is.

Best regards. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried my hardest and changed all the wording. Unfortunately, it is still a copyvio(as you told me). To be very frank, i cant actually write the topic in my own words. I am looking for editors who can teach me how we can write the subject in our words so that the we don't violate the copyright. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Public Domain Astronaut Award

	The Public Domain Astronaut Award
	For helping Wikipedia by killing off copyvios. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Katyn massacre

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle

I admit I messed when I used twinkle I guess I didn't stop to think about how to correctly do it for a second, I will endeavor to learn from my mistake. sorry for any problems that I may have caused you and thanks for fixing it.TucsonDavid (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeepdaySock (talk • contribs) 16:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Le poète de la langue Française

Gosh no of course I didn't mind - on the contrary, thank you for being so diligent AND then sending me a nice note! No, I agree the behaviour is, er, unusual and I fear it's perhaps just a tick-box on someone's little research chunk in their essay, but I thought I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. (While also suggesting they should maybe stop) ... but if it continued as disruptive behaviour I'd be in the front row with torches and pitchforks; it's just that I'm hoping it's Mostly Harmless! Thanks again, have a good one. DBaK (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Note

Strong oppose, per both HJ and Mkativerata. Nothing new here; not everything involving WL merits postng. Agree that this is a pointy POV nom: the nom's obviously perfectly capable of communicating in English, it's almost amusing to see him hide behind "it's not my native language" as justification for the POV. StrPby (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC) You misunderstood : POV correction is welcome, I'm not neutral and I never affirmed so. AND English corrections are welcome, English being my 3rd language after French and Chinese, I may have include grammatical errors, as well as I'm not able to write 'smooth & smart' sentence in this 3rd language as the In the News board request to be. From the start I welcomed both of my POV and linguistic aspects can be improve. Yug (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I try my best with a daily life between 3 languages, so free sarcasms are less appreciate than questions and encouragements. Yug (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted?

Can you send me the article on "But For Bunter" that you deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbruce01 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't - I didn't delete it myself as I'm not an admin - but I'll leave a message for he admin who did. StrPby (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Went and posted it on the user's talk. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Vanesa Littlecrow

Thank you for the message, I will look into it in due time. Right now, with the little time that I have, I'm working on an article that I would like to finish. I also want to thank you for looking into "BLP", your work is truly appreciated. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP tagging

Please do not use {{BLP unreferenced}} on articles that have a source such as Mike Ball (politician). For articles that don't seem to be sourced well enough, but do have a source of some kind, use {{BLP sources}}. Improper tagging like this creates more work for other editors. Gigs (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Influence in SEA

The point was which SEA country is MOST influenced by China, doesn't have to be absolute, it's all relative. Would you say Vietnam or any other SEA country is more Chinese-influenced? The term "Chinese" includes all aspects of Chinese culture, not just PRC-related influences. (In which case, LKY's policies are very China-oriented anyway.)

You changed the article back to Vietnam.. I don't see how Vietnam is more Chinese-influenced than Singapore in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.21.177 (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Swedish player Hogge Nurmela

I can point at some pages with information for you. They are in swedish, though. But Google translate can be your best friend in situations like this, I guess. :-) obituary: http://www.svenskafans.com/hockeyzon/90234.aspx Hockey stats: http://www.eurohockey.net/players/show_player.cgi?serial=28495 SOK: http://www.sok.se/5.7a959f3610ab70abcb080006835.html Player stats in swedish national team : http://www.swehockey.se/ImageVault/Images/id_537/ImageVaultHandler.aspx, more at http://www.swehockey.se/Om-forbundet/Historikstatistik/Tre-Kronor/Spelarna/ http://www.swehockey.se/ImageVault/Images/id_542/ImageVaultHandler.aspx Swedish champs: http://www.swehockey.se/ImageVault/Images/id_550/ImageVaultHandler.aspx Hammarby player: http://www.hammarby-hockey.se/holger-nurmela/ Hammarby manager: http://hifhockeyhistoria.se/Historia/fakta/ledare.html Hammarby history: http://www.hifhistoria.se/ see for example http://www.hifhistoria.se/Historia/1947.html, Hogge is part of teams in icehockey and football that year (26 years old) or http://www.hifhistoria.se/Historia/1956.html http://hifhockeyhistoria.se/Historia/1947.html Football: http://www.bolletinen.se/sfs/allsvenskan/varen1940.pdf http://www.hammarbyfotboll.se/se/aktuellt/artiklar/?articleid=25242 http://www.hammarbyfotboll.se/se/lagen/a-laget/spelare/?playerid=460&teamId=177 Handball: http://www.hammarby-if.se/web/Historia.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durator (talk • contribs) 09:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Vanesa Littlecrow

I noticed that you tagged an article about me here on Wikipedia, and I actually am in complete agreement of your rationale. I believe that a lot of the sources it originally used are gone, and were never cited properly. Also, the article is rather outdated and it does not reflect my current career. This is particularly frustrating for me, since I cannot ethically edit an article about myself. I too agree that I am not especially noteworthy as far as "celebrities" go. Maybe when I was an "Internet model," but definitely not now. So, if you decide to tag it for deletion, know that I, the subject, am in complete agreement of your decision.

Vaslittlecrow (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the revert on my alternate talk page. Much appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Btw, if you fancy an ITN credit for a few minutes' work, Sargent Shriver is sitting around with decent support at ITN/C. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the "hatting". I wanted to put an end to the blather on the nomination, and since it has never been my style to drag people to some forum about incivility, it seemed best to pull the plug. Your action will hopefully seal the deal; much obliged. Jusdafax 02:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Signpost

Thanks for contributing to this week's issue! I have replied to your suggestion in the Newsroom. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

ITN for 24 January 2011 Iraq bombings

--Thanks, and thank you for reverting the crap on my unprotected talk page recently, as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

List of 1952 Winter Olympics medal winners nom

Hey SP, just a quick note, I would recommend you remove the "holier than thou" comment. No real need for that (although I wholly sympathise with you sentiments...) let's get on to encouraging people to be positive in the review process! Hope you understand where I'm coming from... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove it, but that's still the way I perceived (and still do) the admin's attitude. Just want to be clear I'm not removing it because I no longer believe that, but rather I agree that the best way forward here is to focus on this nomination and not go back to that ridiculous crap which is now no longer relevant. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

ITN

I've reworded the blurb using your suggestion, timer has been reset to when I originally updated ITN. It seemed to me that getting the story on the MP was more important that sorting out exact wording. ITN is not my usual area, hence I'm a bit rusty. Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ravinder Singh as first non-Chinese COA?

Actually the first non chinese COA was T J Campell (or rather CDF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound66 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The COA (and CDF) are both new posts, created in the 80s-90s. StrPby (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: DYK nomination of Gleno Dam

Thanks for picking up on that error, I fixed it.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Survivor: Slovak Republic

According to the infobox, it's primarily reality television, so I don't see it as qualifying under db-web. If you try a prod or AFD, I'll not complain. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Nyttend per request on that page. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 05:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Buy ya a drink?

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Jusdafax has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 11:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Say, thanks for hatting that section, which was wise. We can agree to disagree and move on, I trust. Best wishes, Jusdafax 11:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. We were both getting way too worked up. No ill will harboured. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 14:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Chief of Defence Force (Singapore)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Otsuchi tsunami

Well the story is being carried by several websites, in addition to the two I provided, maybe you can find a different more appropriate place for it instead of deleting it?--Tallard (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Which are these "several websites"? Unsourced information, or information sourced to non-RS, should be removed especially from such a high-profile article like this. If you can find any official confirmation, or if it's being reported by any reliable (and I mean that in the wiki sense) news source, then we can include it. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 11:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

CNN [1]. Brian Barnes is a professional storm chaser working in collaboration with Ric O'Barry, so it is a person/group of some notoriety, not just a random individual. They were in Otsuchi filming for documentary work. CNN should be acceptable?--Tallard (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue I have with that is that CNN doesn't actually mention the wave height in that clip. Furthermore, he's not actually a meteorologist so how are we to judge the veracity of his claims? I think if you really want to include it, you should bring it up on the talk page, but personally I wouldn't support its inclusion for the reasons I have outlined. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 12:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ITN: Warren Christopher

-- tariqabjotu 16:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

CDF

NONE of the references you included under role state that that was a role of recent CDFs. They stated thre accomplishments under which those people did. That is NOT a ROLE; that is a actionthey undertook. I am reverting it. You did not contribute to the CDF talk page.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a two-party dispute (as of now) and I have conducted all relevant discussion on your talk page, at the article's peer review, or in the edit summaries on the aritlce — there is no policy saying where disputes must specifically be discussed. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian constitutional referendum

Can you please help with the page? I write now in Egypt voting and using my phone to edit the page but its very hard to do. I need all the help I can get so if you know anyone who can help please ask them too. thanks. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Need your support here -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

ITN: 2011 Mazar-i-Sharif attack

-- tariqabjotu 02:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of 1982 Asian Games medal table

I've tried to answer all your queries, please take a look; and thanks a lot for your suggestions. Bill william compton^Talk 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Fukushima earthquake

I'm not sure why you bothered to post on my talk. You just went ahead and did it anyway. While you're at it, why not do the same to 2011 Miyagi earthquake. It is an identical situation. Of course, you might want to enter into the discussion with the several other editors on this very matter first at Talk:2011 Miyagi earthquake. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Miyagi earthquake is a viable article as has been proven by its subsequent impact. There's no reason to redirect that if there's enough for a standalone article. At the moment, there isn't any for today's. And I left the note on your talk as a courtesy. I could've just redirected and left it, of course, but I don't do that. If you'd rather I have done it unilaterally, let me know and I'll be fine with not alerting you if a similar incident occurs in future. StrPby (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The courtesy note was appreciated, but after the fact. What you did was unilateral. Doing it then telling someone you did it after is unilateral, not consensual. So, yes I'm fine with you not alerting me. I have a watchlist to see what happened after the fact.

It is also courtesy to give a new stub a chance before redirecting it or speedy tagging it.

You wrote in the edit summary: "an earthquake occurred on Y with a magnitude of X" is not a viable encyclopaedia article"

2011 Miyagi earthquake

April 7th: [2]

and four days later:

April 11th: [3]

I'm delighted that nobody came along and redirected it without any discussion five minutes after it was created. Please consider slowing down a bit and discussing things first. This has been a huge, and avoidable waste of keystrokes. I will not challenge your action any further. It's not worth the hassle or the time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong. It became obvious quite quickly after the April 7 quake that there had been considerable damage and casualties, so it probably would have survived at AFD or been recreated had it been redirected. Like I said, there's still no indication of that with today's quake. If something develops, then yeah, I'd welcome the article being restored to whatever title (although people who search for "Fukushima earthquake" might expect it to be about March's quake due to the reactor troubles, even though that's inaccurate). StrPby (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's sort of my point. It was first redirected 22 minutes after being created, which was about 20 minutes after the quake happened (I think). I feel that editors should slow down before redirecting or speedying an article, especially quakes, where information about consequences rolls in for days afterwards. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What about this article? http://earthquake-report.com/2011/04/11/m7-1-shallow-aftershock-in-japan/ I think you undid a previous edit to the after shock page. you said non RS? doesnt tally with current article cite anywayas the reason for the reversion. I don't know what you meant. Is the article not trustworthy? I thought another 4 people were found dead from the 6.6, I just need clarification. Will you let me know? Tman7776 (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The link povided doesn't, on first glance, appear to constitute a reliable source. If the additional deaths are reported in a RS (any major news outlet), then the update should be made to the article along with a link to the new reference, not the existing Asashi one. StrPby (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Smile

Hello Strange Passerby, Anna Frodesiak has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Giro FLC

Hey, just to let you know I've addressed all your comments, so whenever you've got a spare moment I'd appreciate it if you'd have a another look at the list. Cheers NapHit (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Spurious data on userpages - I changed my mind

I wrote: "a more useful alternative might be for someone to politely explain what these icons are customarily used to indicate on a userpage, and ask him to make some changes".

I changed my mind because:

1. A similar but arguably much more misleading type of silliness is at User talk:GiacomoReturned and is just seen as an amusing joke once people "get" the joke
2. Communication with Rcprinter123 seems not to be the easiest of tasks, and in any case he is likely to be overloaded with instructions/advice/ban notifications/arguments in the next 24 hours, so this is really not a priority --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Manila hostage crisis

I've been careful not to touch anything related to the content dispute while editing through the lock, which is entirely appropriate according to the policy. However, since you raised this up, I'll stop editing the article altogether until the lock expires. (PS: I understand what you mean by "not kosher", however as a Christian I don't approve your metaphorical use of this phrase.) --Deryck C. 23:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Chief of the Defence Force

You are removing correct content. TJD Campbell was a Teacher seconded to the Ministry of Interior and Defence. Vij was fromthe civil service and the finance ministry. Deputy CGS was the same as in carge of the army as well as second in command of the armed force. Go look thorugh the ST archives. I've enough of you reverting correct information. Adn since you are based in Singapore, you can virw all the articles in the National Library. Don't rly on just MINDEF articles and don't Singaporeanise the page.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I take offence to your accusation. The citation (which you provided) says that Campbell was principal of St. Stephens' School, rather than a teacher. Information in tables should be kept precise, therefore I am listing only the role each individual held immediately prior to becoming DGS/CGS/CDF. I'm not denying that they held the other positions. I will again remind you of WP:OWN. Neither I, nor more importantly you, own the article, and you have no more right to dictate what should and shouldn't be included than I do. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You filled the article with solely MINDEF sources without bother to check out theri histories.I don't need reminding when you tried to make the article biased.Amnd deespite what you cite, I don't see Choo as th e de facto leader of the armed forces back thenOther dictionaries are better (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You'd best back up your claims that I violated WP:NPOV, one of Wikipedia's five pillars. I've obviously reviewed your ST citations as I'd be hard pressed to convert them to the correct citation style otherwise. Mindef sources were a start, and I am definitely not opposed to other sources. But they should contribute something useful to the article and not be present simply for reference padding. I don't see anywhere in the article where it's said Choo was the de facto leader of the armed forces; the term de facto only applies to GKS in the article. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

!votes removed?

Any particular reason you removed !votes from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cause For Revelation? If it's just a slip of the finger, fine, but it might look like vandalism to others. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

These !votes were made by indef-blocked accounts meant to impersonate long-established admins. Note the subtle differences in spelling in their names. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birdeatsbaby

Please strikeout comments instead of deleting them when they are made by indef-blocked accounts. This might avoid a few misunderstandings. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

These !votes were made by indef-blocked accounts meant to impersonate long-established admins. Leaving them in might only cause more confusion than removing them. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

a small BLPN issue

You may have relevant opinions on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Janil Puthucheary ... in particular, the cited source "The Online Citizen" uses some very strange wording in the cited article, but I'm not really sure whether this is because it's wildly biased or just a style of writing with which I'm not familiar. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left an opinion there. I think this is probably worth raising at WP:RS/N in addition to BLPN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Fukushima earthquake

Well, I guess it turned into an article after all. Pity we had to go through all those keystrokes with you defending the redirect you made. I do hope next time you will leave such stubs for more than an hour before redirecting them. Also, I do hope your future arguments in justification will be less obfuscated.

By the way, you're welcome for the wikilove I sent.

(In case I'm not being clear: It sucked having my article redirected, wasting keystrokes replying in opposition to that action that was made on erroneous grounds, responding to a defense made in an obfuscating manner, conceding, offering an olive branch while being the offended party, not having the offer responded to, and then seeing the article rightly being recreated. Just so that it's clear.)  :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the new article. With regards to the wiki-smile, it was appreciated, but I honestly had no idea you expected a return gesture. I (apparently wrongly) assumed that our fairly amicable discussion regarding finding (and failing to find) sources to justify an article at that point was the end of that discussion, and that the subsequent wikismile was added reinforcement to that. It's just a horrible misunderstanding of communication here, and if you feel/felt slighted or offended by this I unreservedly apologise. Best, StrPby (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Glad the wikismile was appreciated.

Just to let you know, though, the issue was not "failing to find sources to justify an article at that point". It was that failing to find enough sources immediately is not justification to remove the article. Articles about earthquakes etc. should not be removed within an hour, and remaining in a stub state for a day or two is perfectly acceptable, while waiting for information to come in, (which it did).

It greatly bothered me that I raised this exact issue a number of times but you never directly addressed it. Instead, you seemed to digress while defending the redirect. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Singaporean general election, 2011

A small word of thanks for helping to cleanup the above article. Meanwhile, vote wisely! :D--Huaiwei (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ITN

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

ITN

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

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. [4] Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

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 [5]--Nmate (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/1951 Asian Games medal table

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 compton^Talk 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Gone already. Thanks for your contributions in regard to that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It was reflective of the criticism of him at the time. It was a screenshot first uploaded by The Online Citizen [6]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)