Talk:2011 Singaporean presidential election

Conflict of interest concerns

I would like to strongly urge anonymous contributors with potential conflicts of interest to either declare them or register usernames. There have not been any large problems so far, but the magnitude of the issue may compel a semi-protection. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

abusing your tools again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.228 (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry problem is large enough that some measure must be taken to compel compliance with policy. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just who may that person be? I think we need to know more details, and until you give more details, elle, I'm removing the COI template. It has a chilling effect on editing, I believe. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 00:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You should check out the controversies and the editing behaviour of the IPs involved. Furthermore, there are employees of Tony Tan working on Tony Tan's article. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have seen what has transpired, and I must say that no one in that debate is lily white. I disagree with the COI tag. Like you said, there are no large problems thus far, so I feel it is unwarranted. Please kindly point out which section has been affected. Also, as the COI tag says that a major contributor has a conflict of interest (and I am a major contributor), I feel like I have been wrongfully accused of something now (I have never been, nor will I ever be, connected with any presidential campaigns in Singapore, for the simple reason that I am not Singaporean.) In fact, I could go out on a limb and call this a borderline infraction of the NPA rule, but I will AGF. Please point out which section is affected, or I will have to ask a third-party Wikipedian to intervene. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 00:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the allegations of COI are baseless, and the COI tag should be removed. Virtuaoski (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Dr-tan-cheng-bock-smiling.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dr-tan-cheng-bock-smiling.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Necessity of Party:Nonpartisan

Is this really necessary in the tables regarding the candidates and current president? I was wondering if it should be removed. Considering the fact that its the same for every one listed and its already stated as one of the criteria for candidacy. DanS76 (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried to list their "ex-affiliations" a while ago, but I was reverted by anonymous IPs who wish to enforce the technical facade of non-partisanship in the elections. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

@Dan: I did try to do that; I'm not sure if it's technically possible.

@La goutte de pluie: Presidential elections are officially nonpartisan, there's no point trying to list their former parties in the infobox since it would be erroneous anyway. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 19:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A large part of this election is the label of "independence" — not declaring their former party affiliations (with the remark that they are former) could be needlessly deceiving. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

All candidates are necessarily nonpartisan. As such, it is not necessary to have "Party:Nonpartisan" in the table. Virtuaoski (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

By technicality, only are they nonpartisan. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's all that matters in an infobox. Context can be explained in the body of the article or in the respective biographies. Anything else would be trying to push an opinion. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 19:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is only by technicality that all candidates are non-partisan, I think we can still remove the tag because it is redundant. Anyone who is interested can and should look up further details on the candidates, their track records and party alignments. This is after all why the links to the respective articles exist. Icedwater (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Singaporean presidential election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110602205813/http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC110531-0000075/Expect-a-different-kind-of-Presidential-Election to http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC110531-0000075/Expect-a-different-kind-of-Presidential-Election

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)