User talk:Aldwinteo/Archive 2

Happy New Year

Hello Aldwinteo, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! ...Keep on rocking and enjoy youself on the sunny island!.... ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate! May u be well & happy always. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Email please

Hello,

Could I have your email as it is to invite you to read a private blog related to Wikipedia. Thanks. Terence (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh didn't see that. I asked you 'cos I couldn't email you through the Email this user function. If you want to write on it, do let me know. Terence (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good to initiate & create a private blogspace for fellow SGpedians to mingle & talk freely. I got nothing much to write about there, as I'm more of a doer than a talker type. Moreover, I'm semi-retired now. Thks for the invitation earlier -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gan Eng Seng School

Thanks for responding to my suggestion that someone write a GA pertaining to education in Singapore by considerably improving Gan Eng Seng School for GA. Unfortunately, I doubt the article is ready for GA as it is not broad in its coverage. My attempt to restructure the article revealed major gaps in information (check the history and read my edit summaries). Consider withdrawing the nomination, expanding the article, nominating it for the GA drive and posting a peer review. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint u, the above article & the 5 mentioned ones were not nominated as per your suggested postings all along, but were based on what I've plan to write on & nominate 9 mths ago! (I hardly follow the discussions on the talkpage earlier & now) Fyi, my current nomination list covers categories such as history, geography, biography, arts, social science etc. As mentioned on GESS page, some of the mentioned sections were removed in Aug 2007 during a cleaup to remove "laundry list" or so-called "advertisement" such as CCAs, Values, & other what-nots... Like the previous GA nominations & follow-ups which I undertook on my own initiative, let's me handle this on my own here too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you are the primary contributor to Gan Eng Seng School and an experienced GA writer, I will leave it to you to make the necessary expansions. Several months ago, I was considering writing a GA on a Singaporean school. To understand how articles about schools should be structured, I read several GAs about schools and the structural guidelines developed by WikiProject Schools. My suggestions are based on the precedent set by existing GAs about schools, as well as the structural guidelines.

For example, most of them either list all the CCAs or have subsections for each type of CCA (such as sports, performing arts and uniformed groups). Similarly, the "Academics" section needs a little information about teacher and student demographics. A short paragraph will do; the GA reviewer will hopefully understand that referenced information on Singaporean schools is difficult to find.

By the way, I notice that you are also the primary contributor to Gan Eng Seng, a well-written and well-referenced article. Do you intend to nominate it for GA soon? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it was not part of my original plan to nominate the GESS article, but a WikiProject School reviewer prodded me to do so in July 2007 but I choose to put it on the backburner instead, as it was not my priority to do so then. Yes, I'm fully aware of the issues & its GA criteria mentioned earlier. I'm currently nominating 2 articles at a time. Once the shortlisted WWII & heritage-related articles are all successfully cleared. I'll move on to religion, biographies & others. As initially planned, I want the scope of my writings to be diverse as it was one of the 3 challenges I placed upon myself and also for the benefit of SGpedia in the long run: Diversity, DYKs & GAs. If u chk out the classification of my previous GAs, u will be able to understand my game-plan soon. Pse note that I'll not be answering any more questions now. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Kent Ridge Park

I have reviewed the Kent Ridge Park article. I found that it was a very good start, well researched and full of information. However, I have removed a lot of the POV terms that were used. Adjectives such as brave, important, or beautiful are not encyclopedic unless they are direct quotes from a referenced source. Also a good third of the article had very little to do with the park and more to do with the Battle of Bukit Chandu, which is now briefly covered in the Battle of Pasir Panjang. You have enough info about that battle to create a separate article, you seem very interested in that battle so I'd suggest you do that. I have moved this info to the talk page of the Kent Ridge Park article. Finally, I found the section on the wild life and plant life in the park very interesting. This is the kind of info people will definitely be looking for when they are doing research on this park. However, it is not necessary to list the genus and species of every organism in the park. That kind of detailed information is already present in each species' article. I also did some spell check and grammatical corrections on the article, however I might have changed some of the words to US spellings, and since this is not a US article, they can and should be changed back. Finally, one that that you can convert all your measurement figures into standard and give those as well. This is a requirement for featured articles and will increase the accessibility of your article to a wider audience. Let me know when you've done more work on the article and I will support it for GA. --The_stuart (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me here. Pse refer to my reply at the article talkpage. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for being more cautious than usual in closing this GAC, but I want to make sure that The stuart has ample time to make any aditional comments that (s)he feels might be relevant. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem mate, I've always trusted & value your comments, copyedits(as per native-speaking) & judgement ever since the l-e-n-g-t-h-y 'Santikhiri' episode. Kindly post your final review when the on-hold period expires so that the SGpedia community & myself can have a closure on this case soon. Thanks! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll be relieved to know that I've finally listed Kent Ridge Park as a GA; thanks for all the work you did in dealing with my irritating comments. I bet you won't be asking me to review any more of your articles after Santikhiri and now this. :-)

On the subject of the ghost story you quite properly raised, the issue of the incomplete referencing apart, it never occurred to me that some might consider it disrespectful, so I'll leave it in your hands to do whatever you think is best. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure mate, as an English saying goes: "No pain, no gain!". Nevertheless, u r most welcomed to review any of my nominated articles (which I think u enjoyed & discovered much in return) posted at WP:GAN in future. As this case is finally settled, I'll be taking a long wiki break from this GA drive, which I've undertaken on behalf for SGpedia since Sep 2007. See ya! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have indeed enjoyed learning about topics that, to be honest, I had very little - if any - previous knowledge of whatsoever. But more than that, your recent comments about respect have given me some pause for thought. Enjoy your break, and I hope to see you back soon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Selarang Barracks Incident passed GA

Hi Aldwin, I have passed the Selarang Barracks Incident as a Good Article. Well done! Please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the backlog. --haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate for your support & the final touch-ups done in passing the article. Fyi, I've been approached to be a GA/FA reviewer earlier but I find it's not my cup of tea. Due to personal commitments, I'm currently semi-retired, but I do help out in other areas where I'm more comfortable with now. Rgds -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot

Damn bot... anyway I was under the impression, after reading all the responses and so on, that there was consensus to have a topic ban on GAR/FAR (with all the argument surrounding any additions to that proposal), and when I posted it up in explicit terms noone objected. A topic ban can't actually be enacted like a normal ban, it's more a situation where it's agreed by consensus and upheld on that basis. I will ask a couple of people though and see if anything formal needs to be done to record the outcome. Orderinchaos 02:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Talked to others, I believe this should be sufficient. I'll place a record of it on the AN/I archive itself. Orderinchaos 07:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a real Wiki Wizard!

Hi Aldwin! Thanks for the sprucing up! Whoa...i never knew you could do something like that! :-O I'm really impressed by it, and it does inspire me to contribute more towards creating info for Singapore heritage. Let's work towards the better-ment of Singapore historical literature!

Cheers!
Marcuslim (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Dear Aldwinteo,

Request for Info. I just wonder, what is the policy to add external link on Wikipedia ?

Recently, i just added eGuide Singapore link on article about 'Singapore'.

Regards, Rbiahk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbiahk (talk • contribs) 10:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyril Wong Publisher

Hi Just wondering why you deleted the link to Transit Lounge. I tried to create an entry for them (as they feature in several lit profiles) but this page also got pulled. Is it not okay to link to a publishers website? It seems that Pengiuin and several other companies have links here. I'm new here so I'm really just asking as I don't understand the rules about this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgieFamingo (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member of WP:FACT & a RCP in Wikipedia. Pse read Wikipedia's policies & guidelines at WP:SPAM, WP:EL & also WP:COI. Already mentioned the rationale in my edit summary earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ho Yeow Sun

I removed a link to copyrighted material which, by rights, should be deleted from the edit history. Corvus cornix_talk 20:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One can always point to the place where the copyrighted material was taken from. One can also believe in good faith and assume that a knowledgeable editor knows that editing other people's Talk pages comments isn't appropriate. Corvus cornix_talk 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Gan Eng Seng

On 14 March 2008, I nominated Gan Eng Seng for the GA drive, commenting that the article "needs a copy-edit and contains several minor NPOV violations". You removed it with the comment "will update/copyedit & follow-up on its nomination once I'm back in Singapore" and nominated it for GA twelve days later. However, a cursory scan of the article suggests that the article still has several prose issues and NPOV violations.

Would you like me to:

1. File a peer review for the article? After posting all the prose issues and NPOV violations I can find, others can comment at the peer review.
2. Post all the prose issues and NPOV violations I can find on the article's talk page? I will leave it to you to address them.
3. Get one of my IRC mates to copy-edit the article? If you are busy, let them take care of the issues.
4. None of the above. Leave you to your own resources and trust you will address all the issues in time.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Option 4: As usual, I've informed my circle of interested history/heritage buffs to review the article earlier. They'll either copyedit the article directly or give feedback if nec for my follow-up later. Thanks for your concern. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I will let you and your friends copy-edit it. I know you prefer to be left to your own resources, but was a little concerned when I saw that you had nominated the article without addressing the prose issues and NPOV violations. All the best and may Gan Eng Seng achieve GA status! By the way, do keep me informed of any plans you may have to write DYKs (or GAs) for the National Day celebrations. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If commitments permit, I'll contribute as & when I can. As such, I do not follow any suggested agenda & timings (also I rarely participate in SGpedia but do support its community spirit & aspirations) & that's one of the reasons why I've always contributed independently of SGpedia all these while. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sembawang Hot Spring

Hi Aldwin, I think its best to be prepared for the above article for deletion by Rifleman82. Like you, I researched the article through at least 3 different sources and put it up about a week ago and that guy just promptly put it down out of commission within 24hours, citing that it was a "NEAR VERBATIM COPY" of the original NLB version and I see shadows of it in this one as well. Come my talk page and you shall see what I meant by that. So from now on, I will be contributing more towards military hardwares, formation and information rather than dwelling in such "useless" content whereby admins (such as that guy) would flush my work down the god-damned drain with just the blink of an eye. By the way, it was called the Sembawang Hot Springs because of the three different spring sources in the area which was later merged into one. Regards. --Dave1185 (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fully aware of its etymology & history but I adopted its present name as per official sources & publications to date. Fyi, I've read your talkpage last week before this article was written after sifing thru' my previous research materials done months ago. Unfortunately, I've not seen the earlier versions of the 2 deleted articles & so I'm totally clueless on the specifics of contention between u and him earlier. Besides, my sources are derived mainly from the newspapers archives, not the mentioned NLB source (See references cited). I know of Rifleman82's actions rather well, so does he & fellow senior SGpedians on my SG-related writeups all these while. Fyi, I've contributed a total of 42 new articles without any known incidents or clashes with him, other admins or even official bodies on such issue to date. Being a free-lance writer myself, I've always write my works in my own personal writing style & perspective as compared to the sources I researched on earlier. As such, I'm not so concerned at all even if they come under scrutiny. Thank u for your heads up mate. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad you noticed that, I told him that I actually went down to NLB in search of the related articles from LianHe-WanBao / ZaoBao as well as ST, it would seem that a lot of the NLB version was copied from ST, so I said to him "Talk about plagiarising" in my talk page, he still didn't get it. I also look up past issues of cyber pioneer for some clues and more info before I reopen that page. Anyway, if he chops this one off as well... then forget about me contributing anymore. Reagrds. --Dave1185 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

u r not alone here mate, it's fairly common to encounter admins of such bahaviour in Wikipedia. u can check out the past few cases & their outcomes, whereby I took on some individuals (even all at one go singlehandedly for days) to task previously for their poor judgement or nitpicking: 1. Multiple deletions, 2. Bureaucratic behaviour, 3. Non-action etc. Besides, as one of the remaining experienced SG editors left who actively contribute DYK & GA quality articles for SGpedia to date, one has to think carefully of the fallout unless they want to lose their credibility or have their adminship challenged later like in the mentioned cases. Besides u, there're people who have noted my contributions & are concerned about my welfare too. As a comparison, u may want to reread the article again on its writing style, content & perspective or to monitor the page if u like. Thank u. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

There is a separate forum for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. In general, that's the better forum when multiple IPs have been vandalizing an article. I have reviewed the history of the Singapore article and decided that yes, protection is warranted for the article text, so I've gone ahead and done that. —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 29 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sembawang Hot Spring, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 03:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the Sembawang Hot Spring article. If you're not aware, Sembawang Hot Springs has been deleted twice as a copyvio of the NLB article. Your article is much better! Everything looks good, though I think that a few paras still follow the NLB article a tad closely. From your refs, I don't gather you are aware of the NLB article. Do take a look though. Cheers! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

P/S Do you have ref 1? I'm not convinced that the temperature of the water is 131 °F. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they may be similarity in certain parts, but not in its entirety as per writing style, perspective & content, which u have examined the article as a whole earlier. I try to avoid but at times it can't be help, when mentioning certain historical events in chronological order and scientific findings which I can't deviate much for factual reasons. In fact, many of the newspaper references which NLB used earlier, were based on some of the same sources (esp the historical & scientific account by Dominic Nathan) which I used too. Nonetheless, you are free to copyedit the affected paras further if u think it's necessary. As for Ref 1, I have the mentioned reference on hand, and also the newspaper archives I used previously for all my past Wiki writeups to date. Fyi, a dude changed the temperature scale to Fahrenheit (I've corrected this later [1]) when this article was in the DYK limelight earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice on talk page of a vandalizing IP

Hi, I see that you posted a notice on the talk page of an IP concerning vandalism. I removed it because the IP has not a long history of vandalism, has never been blocked or even issued a warning higher than level 2. This template is to be used on this kind of IP with an outstanding history of vandalism and blocks. Regards, Cenarium (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of its usage but some of these IP vandals are probably the same sockpuppets (according to their edit history, IP range & tone of edits) which I've encountered & dealt with previously. Fyi, the latter example u show was a notice that was added by me previously. [2] Rgds -- Aldwinteo (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I made a google search for this one, I also found this discussion. In case of repeated vandalism, the established template is {{repeat vandal}}, as you can see at CAT:IPV, WP:WARN and other places. This template should not be substituted for a variety of reasons and it's better to have a centralized template. Both IPs are indeed close in location and editing pattern. Cenarium (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm no newbie to vandal, troll fighting or acts of sockpuppetry in Wikipedia. I evaluate each cases based on the severity, history & tone of edits as a guiding benchmark. As such, I find it hard to believe or condone that blanking a country-level page or adding wholesale crap into a related article a few days later, despite prior warnings, as "misguided edits made in good faith". -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we had some talks on overly aggressive vandal patrols, for example here, I suggest that you take this into consideration, and use the established templates, from wp:warn, the chain {{subst:uw-v1}} {{subst:uw-v2}} {{subst:uw-v3}} {{subst:uw-v4}} is the most used, with some variants; sometimes, levels are dropped, but this is done only at rare occasions, in case of repeated or extremely bad vandalism. There are really only a few cases where you should report a vandal before he received enough warnings, for example, when he moves a page to H A A G G E E R R ? ?? ?? (it'll certainly be Grawp or one of his fan). Also, don't forget that IPs may represent a lot of people, and it's better to avoid making connections between IPs except in clear cases. Cenarium (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done my job to monitor, warn, revert & to report to AIV if necessary, and will continue to do so, as long as recalcitrant vandals or sockpuppets are encountered during my watch. Whether the admin in charge wanted to take further action or not, it's their call to make & their karma to bear later. I've seen my fair share of their 'cat & mouse' tactics & the sense of hopelessness & despair felt by the affected users as a result of non-action, bureaucracy or poor judgement. On certain cases, I would not hesitate to promptly take them or even the admins to task until the case is satisfactory settled. Likewise, I suggest that it wld be more constructive to focus your time & energies in dealing with the vandals/trolls, rather than going after bona fide folks in Wikipedia. I'm a tough vandal fighter but not the full-time hardcore type seen in some to date. I've understood your point, but I hope that I've make my stand very clear to u on this issue too. On this note, I would like to end our discussion here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

May 1st Incident

May I make a suggestion? I'm apparently well-known for being outspoken, and sometimes calling a spade a fucking shovel, but even I would be inclined to tone down the nomination statement for this article. I understand that you're upset, and I would be too in the same situation, but insisting on a GA reviewer of the month or whatever is more likely to put potential reviewers off than attract them. Hell, just think about it anyway. How do GA reviewers of the month get through so many articles? By spending time on them, or by quick-failing them? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what u meant, & like u, I can be as frank as my outback mates back Down Under & even when I'm back on this sunny island of S'pore too. As u have reviewed some of my past GANs before, u shld have know me fairly well by now wrt my passion & commitment in researching & producing good quality articles for Wikipedia & SGpedia. When u failed Santikhiri previously, I accepted your decision in my stride without much ado, 'cos I fully understood & agreed as per the highlighted GA criteria & issues raised. I moved on to redo the article even better - sacrificing much sleep & weekends on end, digging for hard to find materials on a near forgotten subject, which was highly challenging esp for someone who is a non-native of Thailand... u know the rest of the story too. Whether the stated request will put off any potential reviewers or not, or even a subsequent fail, a bona fide reviewer like u, would get my msg loud & clear & should be able to stand under a spotlight to fully account on their judgement or actions later, just like the cows when they know it's time to head back home at sunset each day! (I lived in a kampong in my younger days & farm-stays in the outback of Australia previously). Likewise, I'm not afraid to put my comments on record or even under scrutiny later. Most importantly, one has to know to do the right thing, when the time is given to u. Well, someone did get the msg loud & clear earlier (Also note newer complaints from another respected GA reviewer here). If it ended in a state of limbo, so be it, even if it was foretold by the Buddha or Guan Yin! At least I know or disappointed to know, what are the state of affairs or the dearth of reviewers who lack iron-clad bollocks there. Think I should write a short commentary & named this fiasco as the "May 1st Incident" (Yup, I took the liberty to change this discussion header earlier) in my user space & submit it to some cabals for review for the 'Lamest Review Award' next. 8-) Aldwinteo (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, all I'll say is "Softly, softly, catchee monkey". You must decide which monkey it is that you're after. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the whole picture mate, this goes beyond whether the article get GA status or not now - it's a WAKE UP CALL to any monkeys or would-be monkeys!!! As for more monkey sayings, there's one in our Hokkien dialect that goes: "When the big tree falls, all the monkeys scattered" Go figure mate. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, and I don't disagree. Anyway, it's "game on" again for the Double Tenth Incident. Let's hope it won't be as traumatic as the Santikhiri marathon. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To give u a Super High Definition picture of what I meant earlier, see my latest comments to H2O here mate. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As we say here in the north of England, you're like a dog with a bone. I'm much the same myself. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As u finally realised by now, that was the outcome I wanted to pursue mate. I'm known for being a relentless fighter from young, at times even pitting against 'Goliaths' alone, even in vandal and troll fighting here too (See the above 2 comments). Fyi, I was previously nicknamed the "Pit Bull" (some say, including my teachers, that I was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier in my past lives!) in school debates & public presentations, even right up to my uni days too. Another up to date moniker as "The Terminator", which was given by my peers & competitors in my profession 'cos of the so-called "fear & distress" when they saw my name in official correspondence or my presence is known nearby. Am I that frightening? I'll be back, hasta la vista baby! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

re: A recourse

Hi, thank you for the note, but I wasn't on the receiving end of anything. I saw that the user you are referring to was making a mess of the templates on the GAN page as well as on an individual article's talk page, so I gave them some (unacknowledged) advice and ended up somewhat helping with the review. The article was ultimately passed. That's it. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, just treat it as an additional info but kindly pass this info to those in need in future. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:GAN review: 2nd chance

Aldwinteo, thank you for the advice that you posted on my talk page. I appreciate the help that you are offering. Whilst I agree that the reviewer did a poor job, I will not attempt to appeal his decision. This is because, during the course of the discussion regarding the failed GA review, I was informed that one of the sources I had used is a blog. I had not realised that the source in question was a blog, and I realise that my article will not pass a GA review until I remove all information associated with that source. I will remove the information, replace it with information from a reliable source, and then re-submit my article for GA consideration.

Thanks again for your words.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The same reply like what I gave to María above under "re: A recourse". Do take note & renominate when your article is ready in the near future mate. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple copyvio/COI edits

Hi there, just a note that I've responded at my talk. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See my reply on your talkpage there. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I made my reply, go read. Oh and btw, do you seriously expect a 13/14-year old boy to know the difference between right and wrong when they themshelves don't even want to admit their own mistakes and apologise for it? Let alone grappling with a little thing such as moral courage to not lie by their teeth and expect that we won't even know a thing about all his BS claims? I don't think so! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of one's age, education or religion, one will ultimately realised whether one's actions done now or in the past, is right or wrong, as this is a universal human quality known & inherent in all humankind since time immemorial. It's usually the case of one's ego or courage (sorely lacked of) that prevented a person to accept his mistakes or even to offer a sincere apology. How I came to get myself embroiled in this case too, was 'cos of an automated alert I received from a special program I used earlier (mentioned previously here) to monitor on certain predefined behaviour on SG-related articles (u may want to check out the history of the previously mentioned user & his final outcome too). The automated program I used so far has help me to 'see' & report any hard to detect troll-like behaviour, sneaky vandalism or COI edits, which most patrollers or admins would had difficulty to monitor or detect earlier. After closer examination of the generated logs, I fully understood your earlier frustrations & aggressive actions (which u claimed to others as 'dirty job' previously) in which Rifleman & his cohorts [3] were unable to see or empathised with earlier. As an uninvolved editor, I follow-up by dropping a note on the user's talkpage, under the section which u created a day earlier, as an additional reminder for him to clean up his acts & also to prevent the situation from escalating further. Despite my well-intended actions & neutrality in tone, they were interpreted as 'bullying', 'unfriendly' & worse suspected to be a likely meatpuppet by one of them later! Based on their responses, I wonder who is dumber in this case or has the world turned upside down! The Buddha mentioned in one of his early discourses that the world is 'sick' & that with developed awareness (like regular Vipassana practice) which not only help one to understand His profound teachings better, but most importantly help one to see things as they really are, esp the law of karma, so as not to perpetuate the negative ones in this samsaric existence. As you've rightfully given a full account of your actions to all concerned now, it's not constructive to dwell too much on this case nor get yourself pissed off again over the previous SHS episode too. One can watch passively by the sidelines & let time or karma do the job instead, which no man or forces is able to stop. Let's moved on, as I strongly believed everyone has learnt much on this episode, & would definitely think twice (or thrice) of one's words (even if it was 2 or 5 cents worth), actions & its likely consequences carefully in future. Namo Amituofo -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I fully agreed with what you said. Let me just say this for the last time, I always go all out for things and it won't be just the recent edits when I dig into someone's edit for evidence or truth, hence I tend to observe more than I will comment, but it is when I do comment then they will know who has the edge all this while. As for ball carriers, they are just ball carriers... they won't last long and they will eventually outlived their own sense of usefulness for the ball holder. In short, read WP:DGAF. Peace. --Dave1185 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, a leopard doesn't change its spot. I went digging again and found more images uploaded by him in direct copyrights violation, thus I tagged them again. Let us see what that high-and-mighty-one has to say this time. --Dave1185 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I spotted those too, but did not mention them further after I decided to wash my hands off this dumb case. Besides, I knew somehow they would be spotted & cleaned up someday, as mentioned on your talkpage previously. As per this episode, I find it's more constructive to channel my attention & energies on hardcore vandals & trolls instead, like what I did all these while, rather than on those playing on the fringes like this dude mate. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem again

Please read User_talk:Jbmurray#Your mission (should you choose to accept) here. Tell me what you think of it as I sensed someone has crossed his line this time behind my back (he did mentioned trying to avoid COI issue there). It is also clear that the image (my image resolution is 624x420 pixels) uploaded by me was downloaded by them which was then cropped and cleaned up using Adobe Photoshop (their image resolution is 609x381 pixels) prior to it being upload for use on the website of www.israeliweapons.com . Also, I find this double-headed snake of an admin extremely disgusting and I am utterly disgusted by his Childish behaviour. --Dave1185 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please read this page Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 19#Image:MATADOR_cutaway_diagram.JPG and tell me what you think of it. Thanks. --Dave1185 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikimedia Commons:Derivative works: "Photographs of copyrighted, non-free two- or three-dimensional works of art must not be uploaded to Commons. Pictures of copyrighted three-dimensional works of art are called derivative works, while pictures of two-dimensional works of art are called reproductions. Examples of derivative works include pictures of sculptures, action figures and other copyrighted works." So the image isn't free unless the model/cutaway isn't copyrighted. Exception is given if it can be justified under 'Panoramafreiheit' (freedom of panorama), but such provision varies from country to country such as the American, English, or Singapore law etc. They may be right on a technical note, but it's still arguable on a case by case basis. Read this discussion & Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images for details. If the situation get complicated or slow-moving at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 19, u shld consult the experienced folks at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights for them to review & advise u further on your case.

On moral grounds, I find his 'backdoor act' rather questionable as he shouldn't get himself involved again, seem like wikistalking & likely COI (he admitted it too), in view of the existing bad blood known between u & him. When he approached a third party to do the earlier 'dirty job' for him, with explicit instructions on its follow-up, it sounded dangerously close like someone engaging in acts of 'meatpuppetry'. Seek Wikipedia:Mediation or WP:Arbcom as a last resort, if u have strong reason to believe that his recurring acts constitute an inherent bias or abuse against u all these while. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice, I have posted my queries for the good folks there and am awaiting any sound workable fairuse rationale that can be utilised for the image page and have adjust it accordingly pending the outcome. As for him, we shall see who gets the last laugh. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Permission to reproduce photo of Gan Eng Seng School in educational book

Dear Aldwin

We are in the course of producing an educational book, tentatively entitled Character Building Resource, and would like to seek your permission to reproduce your photo of Gan Eng Seng school from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GESS_Henderson_Road.jpg in our book. Due acknowledgements will be provided.

Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Louisa Mew Learners Publishing Pte Ltd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisa Mew (talk • contribs) 08:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest & the abovementioned notice. No problem, I grant you the permission to use the photo, as long as the necessary acknowledgement is mentioned explicitly. May I know when the book will be released? -- Aldwinteo (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for granting us permission to reproduce your photo. We will dedicate a page in the prelims for all our photo credits. Our book will be published by end June 2008. If you wish us to send you a complimentary copy of our book, please advise me your mailing address. You could email me at shanghui@learners.com.sg. Best regards, Louisa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisa Mew (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sembawang Hot Spring- GA On Hold

I just wanted to let you know that the article you nominated at Good Article Nominations is currently on hold. Please visit its talk page to improve. You have approximately two days. Good luck! Please feel free to ask me any comments regarding this decision. Thanks, ~Meldshal42_{Hit me}^{What I've Done} 19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that this is moving forwards now, and I think it's over the hump. I do have one question for you though, not to do with the review. I recall that during the Kent Ridge Park review you expressed an opinion that referring to ghosts was disrespectful. How is it different in this case? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As expected, I knew u would posed me this question soon. If u read my previous comments again, even as a free-lance feature writer myself, I would usually refrain from including such stories at all, not just a mark of respect to the deceased, but also with due consideration on the impact to any of their surviving families or victims. I do include them ONLY when it was widely reported earlier (like this recent case) or I had received prior official 'blessings' or 'permission' given either by the relevant authorities or caretaker on-site. The ghostly story (even the Buddha mentioned about their existence in His teachings, along with the Devas (heavenly beings) & Asuras (demons)), including a written Chinese curse (I went on-site to verify - It was written menacingly in red, in Traditional Chinese style, within the walls of the red-brick enclosure) were mentioned in this case now, 'cos their stories were previously reported in the local Chinese newspapers due to a spate of unfortunate accidents & a fatality back then. Why all the fuss & troubles I took u may ask next? 'cos my dear fren, I've personally witnessed or read reported account of individuals who had experienced 'nervous/mental breakdowns', 'peculiar accidents' (some fatal like this well known case), or were 'frighteningly lost' (at the mystical Gunung Ledang in M'sia) while visiting such haunting spots, esp historic WWII sites, sites of murder or mass burials. Looking at the places I've visited for my Wiki writeups to date, mostly unaccompanied or left totally alone at certain 'hot spots', with only the Buddha in mind & my offering of prayers & Metta chants for 'self protection'. You'll appreciate my expressed reservation on this particular issue earlier. Fyi, none of my frens or even my colleagues were keen or gutsy enough (maybe no iron-clad or titanium-plated bollocks) to accompany me during the on-site investigation except for this crazy old Staffy here! To add further insult to injury, some even avoided me for weeks like a plague afterwards! With the time & efforts I spent, the likely 'dangers' I may be exposed to earlier (Touch wood or metal!), coupled with my heavy responsibility towards SGpedia (at a personal contribution of 11 out of 23 Singapore GAs to date), u could understand why I took the reviewers to task for the two crappy reviews I received recently. If u are keen to find out more on the paranormal activities in the region, do check out the real life accounts and investigations done by a group of well-known professionals, the Singapore Paranormal Investigators (SPI) -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed and interesting reply. I tend to have more of a Ripping Yarns attitude to including ghost stories but I hope that I can also be sensitive to the beliefs of others. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

When the shit happens mate, it'll not be a laughing matter to u or your family anymore. Who u gonna call? The police? The priest or mental institute then? Are u aware or even ask yourself why a month-long religious event called the 'Hungry Ghost Festival' (See also 'A study of the Taoist Ghost Festival in Singapore' done by SPI previously) is being celebrated annually here & widely in the region for centuries? For a 'month break', the Petas (or 'ghosts' in Pali), return to our human realm to visit their loved ones, old haunts etc. As such, there's an increased spate of reported sightings (Yes, it was reported in our Chinese & English newspapers previously. Even sightings of British & Allied soldiers at historic battle sites, who were killed or executed during WWII, were reported or compiled into a book u mentioned in our previous discussion) esp by those who possessed the 'Third Eye' ability or individuals who are spiritual advanced in their training now, or courtesy of their past lives i.e. former serious lay practitioners, religious teachers such as monks or nun. Man, it's really disturbing seeing these 'extra folks' in our midst, with their frightening visage & behaviour, hanging around at places when u least expected, & worse, u got to shrugged it off as though everything is normal! When their 'holiday' is up, some refused to leave & ended up as wandering spirits living (or haunting) among our midst! Some may even 'lumber' with u for quite a while due to past karmic link - maybe former buddies, close relatives, or your worst nightmares, enemies! - even in your own bedroom or washroom! (horrors!!) If u are aware of their 'presence' somehow, how'll u feel & act then? Namo Amituofo -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to make another admin aware

I wanted to make someone aware of my co-workers experience earlier today. One of our clients Doug Wead as some highly contested and very controversial information on his Wikipedia page. We develop his website and told him we would be willing to work on getting it removed.

I am somewhat familiar with how wikipedia works, but I was sure my co-worker could figure it out without a lot of trouble as it is somewhat easy to use. His screen name is Aarondm. He made some edits to his page and removed some controversial content when one of Doug's critics who watches his page like a hawk kept reverting the changes. Dave1185 began giving him warnings and over the period of an hour threatened to ban him from wikipedia.

My co-worker was yelling and throwing his lunch, so I decided to look into it. I came onto wikipedia and signed up, looked over the information on Doug's page and noticed the information was removed for being controversial. Then I started looking over Aarondm's talk page and saw how harsh Dave1185 was with Aarondm.

He was not a good representative of Wikipedia, and was far to harsh far to quickly. Especially considering Doug Wead is a national figure who is currently in litigation with several national publications for things they have printed.

In the end I would far rather tell Doug that we can remove the negative things about him from his page, or at the very least present the Neutral stance wikipedia stands for.

I noticed that you helped a user who was mistreated by Dave1185 on his talk page. I wanted to ask you for any assistance you could offer. I really do like wikipedia, but as I am no expert or admin I am not sure what to do. I do know that it is completely unfair for a group of Doug's critics to control his page and hold it hostage.

Thanks

Nonpr3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia! For newbies like u & Aarondm, do read & understand the WP:5P well before u edit or comment, in order to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding or clashes with fellow Wikipedians in future. Your case constitutes a likely Conflict of Interest (COI) and/or acts of meatpuppetry, which is widely frown upon by the community here, and greatly despised & acted upon by the RCPs, whom Dave1185 is an active member of this group. To give u a quick understanding of such cases in Wikipedia, do read the following links so that u can make your own informed decision on a course of action to take later:

• Wikipedia: Ownership of articles
• A classic case of COI edits & follow-up action by the community
• The final outcome of a COI sockpuppet/meatpuppet engaging in edit warring
• Check out the lengthy & messy saga at Singapore Airlines (including its archives too)
• Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars
• Wikipedia:Mediation - As a final resort when all attempts failed

As for Dave1185, his intention to uphold the principles & integrity of Wikipedia, though well intentional, has caused some editors, esp the newbies, to find his acts rather harsh or offensive to date. As I've commented on his 'heavy-handed' approach before, it's counter productive & 'ungentlemently' for me to comment or intervene on a similar case again. With patience or hindsight, the Law of Karma will show for all to see whether one's intention or certain acts are right or wrong in due time. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review Second Time

Alright. This is a quality article. I apologize for my nasty messages, I was kind of grouchy. I think the article is rather good, but could you please add some references? That would be all I would need for approval as a GA. Thank you. ~Meldshal42 19:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Sembawang Hot Spring

Well, it appears that my apology was pointless. Apparently you just like to make smart comments and really get on my nerves. I hope that you don't treat other users the way that you treated me in the future. Good day. ~Meldshal42 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pse refer to my consolidated reply at the article talk page instead, as it's messy to reply all over the place. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I need help in Chee Soon Juan's article!

Hi Aldwin! I see that the article on Chee Soon Juan needs a better structure in order for it to become a better article. Can you please help me to find the necessary resources to make it a better article? I see that it has the pictures and references for a GA, now I am quite unsure what will I need for a GA in Chee Soon Juan's article. Please enlighten me. Thank you!

Ruennsheng (Talk) 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To join in the 'GA bandwagon', do read & understand the following guidelines first:

• GA guidelines
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography#Tips_for_writing_biographies

Next, do read & observe the style & structure of similar biographical articles, including past discussions, listed on the GA page too. For additional pointers, check out a silimar discussion which I had with a fellow SGpedian here. As for my views on the current structure of the article, it's rather incoherent with heavy emphasis on his political struggles, court cases etc, which seem to promote certain agenda based on the sources used. To improve the content, NPOV & quality of this articles, listed below are some of my suggestions for your consideration:

Early years:

• Personal info
• His family
• Academia
• Career

Entry into politics:

• Political cause
• Notable personal quotes
• Party association or affiliation
• General elections

Legal suits:

• Major court cases
• Resulting impact

At Present:

• His latest happenings
• His next new goals or mission?

Do include more or replaced with reliable third parties references instead of relying on a few selected sources. u could use Factiva, LexisNexis, the Straits Times News Archives or tap on the resources of the National Library at Bras Basah Rd during your archival search later. That's all I could think of now. Regards -- Aldwinteo (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Though I did find non-CNA and SDP sources, this is a good start for referencing. I am now more sure of what to write about Chee's life. Cheers! Ruennsheng (Talk) 06:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spam Link

I sincerely apologize for the insertion of links to my photo galleries and for not reading the public guidelines on content editing previously. My concern was that, besides self-promotion, existing photos & links in the articles on Singapore were rather dated and lack photographs depicting actual human activity in those areas. I had the impression that I am able to include links to photographs as long as they are of certain quality and is relevant to the article content. Thanks for your clarification and the taking care of the mess I made. --Spadeaho (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, please read and understand our policies & guidelines well before u edit, in order to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding or inconveniences in future. If you want to share your rich collection of pictures in Wikipedia meaningfully, kindly do so under the 'Creative Commons Attribution License', in which u will be credited for your works accordingly. Pse check out the licensing & uploading details here. Rgds -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Hi Aldwin, thank you for helping me to revert to my original creation. Let's jz hope it stays that way, because i'm sure this anonymous saboteur will revert back to his creations again, notwithstanding the efforts made to communicate with him to make him/her understand what we are doing, and to seek his cooperation to work within Wikipedia standards. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this page stays the same way tomorrow morning -- Marcuslim (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's no big deal as his recent troll-like edits caught my attention during my earlier patrols. Anyway, looking at his tone of edit, a likely case of WP:COI too. Do report him at ANI when repeated warnings proved futite. At times, one has to stop 'barking', and to 'bite' (even at admins) when necessary in order to show that we mean business here (See reply also). - Aldwinteo (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Creating a gallery of images

Hi Aldwin, I'm now contributing to articles on Xu Beihong and Cheong Soo Pieng, with images. But often i need to use the 'double-[ ]' first, and duplicate the filename under the < gallery > command...it becomes quite troublesome especially when there's a lot of images to add. Is there a direct way to add images to the '< gallery >'column? -- Marcuslim (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not aware of any less troublesome coding alternative for the abovementioned to date. u may want to check out another formatting option at Bugis_Street#Bugis_Street:_original -- Aldwinteo (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's ok Aldwin...looks like Wiki admin can certainly look into this for improvements in the Wiki engine -- Marcuslim (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If u want someone to address on any issues concerning Wikipedia globally, u may want to post your suggestion to the 'Wiki Gods' at the Wikipedia:Village pump. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Starstylers

Hi, just so you'd know, I have brought this guy's deed to the attention of an ADMIN. Let's see if he will clean up his act or still act so high and mighty? Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Giggy isn't an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops! Nevermind, his deed has sealed his own fate when he attack me and he has been BLOCKED. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

His block was certainly well-deserved, glad it's been dealt with. I hope the abuse hasn't upset you too much, or, even better, at all. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nah... not one bit, at all. I reckoned he's like one of those shadow catchers trying so hard to catch his own shadow but yet not getting it even though we all know that hard work would pay off in the end. Usually, karma determines if you truly deserves it or something else. Hence, his destiny towards his own self destruction, which is in no way dissimilar to Chee Soon Juan. I take that back, at least Chee was fighting for his goal of "true democracy", but that bugga was fighting with his own ghost. Cheerio! --Dave1185 (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Amituofo, I stand corrected as per my message to him earlier. Besides addressing u as "Ms Dave" in his edit summary, I don't know whether u are aware of him calling you a "bencong" - which means "a transvestite" (akin to our local Malay word for "bapok") in Bahasa Indonesia (I understand their language on a basic level) in his recent remarks to his sympathetic supporter after your repeated warnings on his talkpage earlier. In the same remarks, he mentioned Singaporeans as "Singke-pura" or "Singa-Whore" (like this too) in their local Javanese slang I think. It would not be proper for me to translate his text in full as it's deeply demeaning & offensive, esp to fellow SGpedians, to give it a mention again in English. To avoid repetition here, pse see my sum-up reply on this issue here. Ironically, instead of making his edits or comments in style, he ended up as a falling flaming star now, in contrary to his given namesake & his alleged double Masters credentials, including one obtained from the renown UOL in UK! [4] LOL!!! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Aldwin, I was aware of him calling me a bencong and Singaporeans as Singke-pura. I am an ex-RSAF technician and I have worked with my TNI-AU counterpart on countless occasions in Indon before so I know just enough to understand some of their terms in Bahasa and in his native Javanese slang as well. And if there's one thing to say of a person as a frog inside of a well, he definitely qualifies as one, hands down even without those credentials from UOL or Monash, or was it from a wishful figment of his imagination somewhere in Java? Only he knows, and with the style of a star to boot too. Sheesh! Anyway, I gave him a couple of chances too as did three other editors when he made personal attacks on them, so when he attack me for the third time with such degrading remarks yet again, he had sealed his own fate! Anyway, I have compiled a list of his personal attacks or insults to other editors here: -

1. User_talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 12#Elderly Music;
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DOR_%28HK%29&diff=228308720&oldid=227783465;
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DOR_%28HK%29&diff=next&oldid=228308720;
4. User talk:Joseph Solis in Australia#Why do you edit Chinese in Indonesia?;
5. User talk:Joseph Solis in Australia#History;
6. User talk:Huaiwei#Indonesian-Chinese Criminality Facts;
7. User talk:Huaiwei#Debate?; &,

These were removed from my page, now listed for you to read: -

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185&oldid=227786634#Personal_Attacks-_prove_it.3F;
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185&oldid=228001051#RE-_comment_egarding_NIC;
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185&oldid=228047987#What_have_I_done_now.3F - which he claimed he didn't touch the article but I gave him this proof and he zipped up almost immediately; &,
4. User talk:Dave1185#What now Ms Dave?.

Have fun reading them, Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen all of them earlier when I was monitoring him for the 'final countdown'. It's really amazing, as well as troubling to note, that the community is able to tolerate his monkeying antics & malicious comments for so long - gave repeated warnings but no concrete follow-ups, and worse, brought the case up at the admin board and it nearly got 'hijacked' by protracted debates on misguided 'free expression of thoughts' or 'consensus building' crap by self-appointed 'crusaders'. What really counts is someone with the 'big stick', & most importantly, 'balls', to make a fair & decisive action on these hardcore POV nuts swiftly. What matters most at the end of the day, is that the hard work of bona fide contributors & the integrity of this project is not compromised in the long run. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cup of tea?

I say, Aldwinteo, you really look awfully familiar to me, I think I've rubbed shoulders with you somewhere in Singapore before. Anyways, its time to sit down and contemplate deeply or as I would say it, have some Dim sum while drinking some tea. Let me just share this parody with you before I go, one day as I was having pint at a local watering hole a local celebrity (whom for legal reasons I wouldn't name) walked in and pretended to "talk" on his cellphone whilst surveying the room, just as he was happily doing so - the cellphone RANG! Imagine how embarrass he was! Cheerio! --Dave1185 (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm not much of a talker in person, more of a solitary type who enjoys long periods of quietude & noble silence to study the Suttas, history research, computer programming, or simply enjoying the illuminating bliss of Vipassana. On the mundane level, I prefer 'connecting' to animals, nature or historic sites during my weekend walkabouts or overseas travels/assignments as I'm tired of 'ren jian shi fei' long ago. With regard to privacy, my little bots reported that someone been 'buzzing' me online recently:

• July 29th 2008 03:08:42 AM: 180.202-63-134 (qala.com.sg) from Singapore using Firefox 2.0.0 at 1024x768 resolution on Windows XP
• July 29th 2008 01:55:02 PM: 125.161.144.203 (telkom.net.id) from Jakarta Raya, Indonesia using Mozilla 5.0 on Windows XP

I hope their actions won't trigger my nasty 'terminator' bots later. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I've noticed it and I'm monitoring them now but for pete's sake, do you have to announce their IP address here? PS: Wana meet my Jack Russell Terrier? =) --Dave1185 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In computer forensics, it makes no diff whatsoever as one's online trail are easily left behind & not easily removed afterwards (just like spam). They can be easily reconstructed by those who possess the relevant skills, experience, tools, & most importantly, determination & luck, in gathering any incriminating electronic evidence, esp for use in a security system audit or in the court of law, just like the NKF scandal & the recent Ren Ci Hospital investigation case. These individuals are known publicly as the White Hat, Black Hat and the Grey Hat. There is another lesser known fourth group - individuals who doesn't choose any sides, but go about their own business to pursue their passion in computing/web technology & solving coding challenges on other platforms. On this note, I would like to end our conversation here. With Metta -- Aldwinteo (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re last comment @ Starstylers

Dear Aldwin, I'm glad we can metaphorically shake hands and call it quits. I have no bones (re staffy) with you and I sincerely hope that with me behaving appropriately as an adult and not a goading agent provokator we can be as civil and cordial as if this whole silliness were to have never occurred. Though I am not blaming you, I am very upset my private internet connection is explicitly and publicly detailed. These specific and private details are beyond the scope and relevance of a petty Wikipedia hissy-fit. Highlighting my user name would be more than enough. This is an invasion of privacy as obviously the majority of internet usage is not wikipedia related. The computer is a shared resource- what if some moron (outside the parties involved in this case) decides to attempt to hack my computer or what-not? What of possible slander, libel and defamataion? Perhaps you can please advise me on what to do? Starstylers (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Aldwin I have contacted Admin

Dear Aldwin- I was unclear about your intentions and I have contacted Admin for a formal clarification to the cessation of petty hostilities. As I understand we are completely civil and cordial- but I am very disappointed and upset about the public display of mmy IP number- which I view as outside the relevance of Wikipedia. Relevant page: [[5]]- yours most civillyStarstylers (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

At last, u finally learnt how to post a message here, instead of doing so on my archived pages, even when explicitly mentioned not to do so earlier. Firstly, u can be blunt in words, but pse dun add any hidden 'barbs' in them with me or other fellow Wikipedians in future. The intended result could be counter-productive, and could possibly led to unpleasant negative karma later. Secondly, due to the nature of my work & ad-hoc travels, I hardly got any free time left for myself, let alone to 'stalk' u as u claimed. Frankly & technically speaking, u are so called 'stalked' by my little bots, similarly just like many other maintenance bots running tirelessly in Wikipedia, when your tone of comments & edits matches their predefined profile (i.e. vandal or troll-like behaviour etc) that will generate alerts for my attention & follow-up found during their patrols. As I'm semi-retired from writing in Wikipedia, I login ONLY when I received offline alerts like this message u posted now. Get it? Do note that the Wikipedia Foundation can lodge a formal complaint not only to ISPs but also to schools, organisations, govt agencies for further investigation, when their IPs are being used to abuse Wikipedia, or its contributors like this notice, which is similar in style to the one posted on your talkpage now. Since u claimed to know much about Singapore, u should be fairly familiar about our local laws, & how efficient & determined the security forces had worked with Interpol, or relying on its extensive extraditary network to nab crooks, bloggers, terrorists successfully both locally & abroad so far. I would advise u to read the legal terms of the Wikipedia Foundation & our Singapore Law for your own good, before u comment or act in future, as u never know exactly who u have been messing with online. Instead of allowing me time to respond or understanding the relevant Wikipedia policies beforehand, you swiftly removed the IP address itself, and proceeded shortly in reporting me to ANI next! Talk about civility & amicable ways! As such, I'm deeply incensed & offended by your act now, & I also question your intention in which I'm now viewing it as another act of provocation! As a result, there's nothing for me to follow-up on your concern or for us to discuss amicably in future. NOTE: I'll not entertained any new messages from u on my talkpage again. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

ColourWolf Sockpuppetry

This guy has been vandalizing Singaporean pages, and I need help. Can you help me? (PS: please reply in my own page) Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you hadent noticed....

Check this out [6]!--Huaiwei (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I've seen it 2 weeks ago, courtesy of my hardworking little bots, including whatever shit that stretches all the way back to Sep 2007! Although I no longer actively write in Wikipedia now, I was rather surprised that the case not only caught the eye of some of my loyal followers, but also overseas associates, strangers, & surprise of all surprises! - govt officials too! From the feedback I received so far, they are not pleased nor amused at the unwarranted provocative comments made on S'pore & Singaporeans, along with the due process & outcome too - best summed up by a legal eagle (unable to disclose for obvious reasons) who is working for a reputable law firm said: "Who's dumber? - The defendant? The judge? The system? Or all of the above?" LOL! This is BIG bad karma dude! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:GA

I've passed Khoo Kheng-Hor, thought you might want to know. I did leave a few suggestions for you on the GA review page. Good job! —— nixeagle 18:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Long Ya Men.jpg

Image:Long Ya Men.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:LongYaMen-20060813.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:LongYaMen-20060813.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

ref checking

I know you're doing this with good intentions, but I think it's a little harsh to hound editors who (finally) found time to put citations on the Ho Yeow Sun article. They're (finally) finding legitimate ways to make the article look better. Yeah, they might get a few figures wrong here and there, but still. Putting notices on the article's talk page, in addition to user talkpages is a bit much, I think. Pandacomics (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm deeply cynical, as a result of my prolonged exposure in having seen the worst in humanity in my younger days, courtesy of my National Service & humanitarian work (esp the 'politicking' & undue sufferings seen) previously. I uses a 'little bot' which help to highlight some interesting detailed analysis of the related articles that stretches all the way back to Sep 2004. It may be tedious to do so on your own without any programming tools, but go check carefully the tone of edits & the edit history of the suspected users or likely meatpuppets in relation with the master sockpuppet - Compare the style of their edit summary & their replies on the talkpages, the tone & pattern of the previous discussions etc. As such, I find it hard to believe even when applying additional dosage of AGF when checking their edit history afterwards, that it's merely a 'coincidence' that such new users or anonymous IPs (this doesn't inspire confidence when some decided to join in the bandwagon to do their so-called 'NPOV cleanup' previously) would 'pop up' from nowhere repeatedly to start editing or commenting early in their editing history, whenever there're some issues on Ho's related articles so far. Besides myself, I strongly believe that the bona fide folks who are monitoring on these articles, are getting sick & tired of seeing this unhealthy trend being propagated by such individuals in whatever guise almost without end, & worse, with even greater impunity ever since the beginning. On a similar vein, try to do a healthy mental workout on HOW I knew these two individuals are likely sockpuppets, even before the admins did in another case? Fyi, I commented only once when they poked their noses on a case I was pursuing previously, but I did not take any follow-up action against them later. As a saying that goes: "You may fool some people most of the time, but not all the people all the time". If u could find out the truth like I did earlier, well done, & no doubt would greatly appreciate what I meant on this issue too. If u are still clueless despite exercising much due diligence, just wait & see 'cos there're even worse fates than being blocked or a community ban - it's called 'Karma' mate. On this note, this old Staffy would like to retire to his den again. Thank you for your concern. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, playing Devil's Advocate, Jing13 hasn't trolled the page since forever. Pandacomics (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, old staffy

I know this might be a horrendous stretch, but for the purposes of WP:FLC, and the fact that people there can't read a lick of Chinese, could you reference check for the List of S.H.E awards at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of S.H.E awards? (Please?) This is my third time nominating it, and every time, there's always that one person who says "Oh, we can't promote this cause I can't read Chinese. Boo hoo." Pandacomics (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The key issue at hand is that the reviewers concerned were unable to review such articles confidently, where most of its citations/references were derived mainly from multiple non-English sources, esp for use in an article in English Wikipedia, and NOT that its sources were dubious or lacking earlier. As such, I'm not surprised by the repeated setbacks u faced so far, when it was reviewed by non-Chinese speaking editors earlier. Fyi, I never used any non-English sources in all the DYKs & GAs I wrote here previously, except to include them as 'external links' if they're relevant as per the context of the article itself. Realistically speaking, u should try to nominate the article for GAN for a start, with a short note requesting for a GA reviewer who is proficient in Chinese to review the article, instead of rooting it for FA, & 'hitting the wall' again & again. Should the article achieved GA status, it may be easier to move on to FLC next, with a credible precedent at hand. Even if it failed the FLC review later, well, your efforts are still not in vain, as u still got a GA on hand in the long run. Sorry, I don't do ref check or participte in any FAC or FLC-related articles or discussions - I ONLY focus on non-GA/FA articles that lack citations, has multiple misleading or POV content and sources (like the Ho Yeow Sun article), and whacking the responsible hard-core vandals, trolls or sockpuppets, as & when my commitments allow me to do so here. As per the stated notice above, pse refrain from posting any messages, esp unconstructive 'devil's advocate' comments next time. I was busy at the inaugural F1 Singapore Grand Prix event for the past week, & badly in need of a good rest now. ---- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

For confirming here that I should have blocked that user. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I've seen & dealt with such folks on several occasions. As an admin yourself, kindly look into semi-protecting the affected articles if nec, blocking or highlighting the sock accounts/IPs (like this) that this user has been abusing so far, in order to protect the integrity of our project here. Based on his profile & edit history to date, I dun think the community will see the last of him, nor his repeated malicious antics in dragging bona fide users [7], [8] along with him in the near future. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I think I should change my wikidragon UBX to that of a troll-magnet! Seem to be attracting the wrong kind of attention always... or was it something I said? I'm not sure... Sheesh! --Dave1185 (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, based on this thousands of similar-looking namesakes, and if anyone of them turned 'rogue', or someone uses them conveniently as a 'red herring' to instigate another attack on their intended target, whether with good intention or not, I'll not be surprised that u may faced these unprovoked accusations like u did in future. Other than basic intro, it's best not to use, or overly use such superfluous (if u have studied its history & outcome well) or similar 'DGAF-ism' UBXs in the first place, as some (esp the demented kind) may otherwise misinterpret them as a 'legitimate challenge', & it may look silly if u ask again why u are a constant 'magnet' for trouble later. The TRUTH is: "Less is more" and also "action speak louder than words" too. As u have witnessed some previous cases before, it pays to be humble as well, as one will never know who has been watching & following their edits or comments, or worse, who they've been messing with all these while here. On hindsight, they usually realise their folly too late & went on a self-imposed extended 'exile' or 'retirement', after exercising belated due diligence or self-reflection, or maybe after receiving some 'official reminders' next. OK, it's time for this old Staffy to retire to his den for his usual Satipatthana practice again. Namo Buddhaya, Namo Dharmaya, Namo Sanghaya -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on User talk:Tanthalas39

I too thought your report on AIV did not merit blocking. I'm not questioning Bearian's actions at all, but your comments on User talk:Tanthalas39 clearly did not WP:AGF. Please remember that admins are volunteers here and erring on the side of not blocking is significantly better than blocking without merit. Toddst1 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Look who's talking here? Like before, I've done my part in highlighting the case in the interest of this project & its community here - u guys make the judgement call, as well as bearing any of its karma later. To any sensible folks, the 'Immunity Idol' doesn't apply for certain obvious acts or comments seen earlier. Your unsolicitated comments here, as well as the unprovoked name-calling, will not change my opinion now or tomorrow, nor will it stop me in taking any necessary action in future. Similarly in real life, I make no apologies for being pointedly blunt whether in words or speech, as well as my no-nonsense approach in any necessary follow-ups. As a local saying that goes: "In order to see a clearer picture, one should focus on the 'substance' rather than on its 'form' as per the context of the matter". On this note, this old Staffy would like to end this conversation as he need to get back to his outstanding tasks soon. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that at the top of your talk page, you will "only respond" to posts that are polite, etc. As far as I'm concerned, your posts border on personal attacks, assume no good faith whatsoever, and are coming damn close of needing an official civility warning. Tan | 39 19:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm no fan of wikipedia's absurdly Californian civility policy, no secret there, but please Aldwin don't unnecesarily upset those who don't necessarily need to be upset. Admins are what they are, imperfect human beings selected by an imperfect system. I have no more respect for them than you do. Believe me, I know how hard it is to put up with unjustified crap from idiots, but sometimes its best to just smile and turn the other cheek. The last thing the Singapore project needs is for you get blocked. If I'm speaking out of turn then I apologise. I just don't want to see another good editor driven off the project. Hang in there bud, and bite your tongue. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Long time no see mate! Nice to the see the legendary 'Hammer of Fools' popping up here, although I've long retired from the GAN/DYK scene for quite a while now. In a similar vein, like the series of fiasos which u unfortunately encountered previously, I share your sentiments too. No worries mate, I've seen even much worse cases previously, courtesy of my National Service & in some legal cases that I was called upon for my professional skills previously. As such, I'm not easily cowed or bothered here, as I've already got over with it earlier. I greatly appreciate on your take in this issue, but let's not waste our precious time to dwell on such issues here again. As far as the community is concerned, the main issue is the outcome of the case earlier, the rest is just unproductive distractions. Kindly get back to your GAR/FAC tasks in which u are highly wanted & regarded for here. As u are aware that I got a sizable group of fans & supporters, including some official bodies, in webspace & offline, which has been watching this space and my real life works all these while. As such, I hate to see a lengthy useless discussion on my talk page here, as I dun want to entertain all those subsequent inquries, jokes, & retelling that follow afterwards, on the behaviour or outcomes as seen on Wikipedia via IRC, SMS, official mtgs or even when I'm on overseas assignments next! From an uninvolved party's point of view, u are not alone to share such similar opinion if you could hear or see the feedback these mentioned folks have said to me previously, which will no doubt will lead to another round of 'accusations' should I ever quote or reproduce them verbatim here. For example, even a seemingly harmless expression I used - "Ding-dong' as in "Ding-dong-ing" (in Singlish) earlier, which means "running to & fro" or its popular Chinese equivalent of "3 steps forward, 2 steps back", was deem as a personal attack. Despite my clarification above (highlighted in bold), my words were viewed earlier as 'threats' or 'nasty' [9]. Clearly for all to see, a sensible person would be able to see who is the provocateur or playing the 'devil's advocate' [10] in the the name of 'personal attacks', 'assume no good faith', 'civility warning'? [11] Anyway, the more they say or act otherwise, they are creating more negative karma for themselves that they have to bear later. Lastly, I'll leave by my own terms when my primary task for SGpedia is finally completed, or when this place is no longer worth my time & efforts any more. I'm not a lame Staffy here. Thank you. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Aldwinteo, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I disagree with Tan. This edit is a personal attack on him as I see it. You will be blocked if you continue to violate WP:CIVIL. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested to see whether Tan agrees with your assessment of the appropriateness of this final warning. Are you actually familiar with the blocking policy Toddst1, or are you just another admin on a power trip? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Since early last year, when words started to spread that I've a known presence in Wikipedia. Lots of my friends, peers, associates, including strangers etc, have been treating my user space here like some sort of a 'personal weblog' of mine, as I do not have any known active social networking presence in places such as Wordpress, Facebook, Friendster etc to date. As expected, I'm starting to receive a stream of messages offline expressing utter outrage on this case soon after. In one of the messages I received recently, I was deeply surprised & incensed when someone promptly informed me that Toddst1 (talk · contribs) has added me into a Black List (Line 4) soon after my previous post above, at his user space, along with others whom he deem as a bunch of hardcore vandals or trolls here! I have already move on, but it seem someone is showing extreme prejudice or as a follow-up retaliation, is wikistalking me closely now, as well as monitoring my page and contributions, for any slip-ups so that I would be the next target to "bite the dust" soon. This really take the cake in duplicity of one's words and actions! I'm unsure whether the list is being used by any of his like-minded cohorts, as the page concerned could be watchlisted for any collaborated action.

It all started 'cos they do not like the tone of my comments,[12] - they interpret my words literally as being a threat - even though I've not display any outwardly malicious action against them during & after the discussion, other than being persistent in challenging their decision, and that I may take the issue for a 2nd opinion next. When I posted a message that their collective decision was overturn later, after one of them finally understood the logic of my argument after much closer scrutiny of the vandal's edit history,[13] that was when my troubles begin. On top of your earlier comments, allow me to add some observations as a sanity check below:

"Take your holier-than-thou attitude elsewhere, please"[14]

• When you ask someone u dislike to leave your house immediately, which he did as told. Would you come over to his house shortly again, say over 2 hrs later, to take a cheap shot at him after his conversation ended with another person 2 min later, in the name of "personal attacks", "no good faith" and "incivility"? [15]

"I agree the reporter was being a jerk about it"[16]

• Is it unusual to note that an admin making such a remark was not warned, given a polite 'ahem', or having the offending word removed like what someone did earlier?[17] (REM: I've already given a explanation above before this section)

"...erring on the side of not blocking is significantly better than blocking without merit"[18]

• In this case, does it show that a persistent vandal is given more leeway rather than to a bona fide editor who has been contributing tirelessly in writing new DYK/GAs since Mar 2007 by adding him into his Black List afterwards?

"I'm not questioning Bearian's actions at all"[19]

• Why is he involved in this issue? Or is it someone been scrutinising every pixel & scratch marks at my past archives?

Your previous comment to me [20] (Too lengthy to requote here)

• Interestingly, why have u not been added into the Black List before or afterwards?

According to one of my sources, do u see any parallel in this case too? Perhaps, u may have read this & its related links of unflatering reports before? Do u agree that there seem to be a set of rules for admins ('in spirit'), & another set for the rest ('to the letter'), and even different layers in between ('horde or cliche mentality'), even though the same rules (although some sections were badly written or ill-defined in the eyes of those who has legal background) apply to all here! I couldn't imagine if any of my officers, including myself, were to behave in a similar manner during our active NS days or when reporting back to our camp for our annual In-Camp-Training! Because someone, even a recruit, may lodge a formal complaint to the higher authorities one day, & a BOI will be set up next, in which the offender will be swiftly charged & may be given a official reprimand, demotion, detention, as well as having their commission & even their awards recalled! Besides, there're periodic audits, as well as surprise checks to ensure compliance & tip-top discipline too. Looking at this place here, admin accountability or audits, well, almost non-existence in practice at all! As for enforcement, need I say more? As such, I've my own misgivings, likely WP:COI, when I see the same group of admins popping up together like buddies, or jumping from one mopping platform to another if certain cases were being escalated afterwards. Based on the various cases that I've seen or participated in, my doubts seem to rises ever more, whether in the due process or its outcome in the cases that I've encountered so far.

In fact, before joining, I was already being warned & shown various examples & reports (like this), of undesirable behaviour & practices like horde bullying, admin abuses, hidden sub-culture etc. After joining, and personally witnessing the going-on day by day, similarly like u, I get more & more disillusioned as the time goes by, & this case top it all for me as a whole! Despite the unhealthy atmosphere seen, I try to stay away from it as much as possible, & to stay focus to devote my energies more on completing my writing tasks here asap. As u are aware, I went into semi-retirement afterwards, but do return back to do some touch ups as & when my commitments allow. Sad to say, I do agreed with the earlier reports & the expressed views even more strongly now.

Someone even suggested to me that should anything untoward happen to me next, I should share my Wikipedia experience by writing about it at WR, or in the media afterwards. Fyi, some of my peers at The Straits Times did an exclusive on Singaporeans involvement in Wikipedia in 2005, & also an article on the SGpedia support for the anime community in the famous Odex suit case in 2007. Your thots pse. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to Toddst1, Tanthalas39: The above post is meant exclusively for Malleus only. I'll NOT entertained any messages from u on my talkpage (will be deleted straight on sight) or anywhere else in Wikipedia again. As far as I'm concerned, and thru' the numerous feedback that I've received so far, u have already lost the moral right for failure to exercise impartiality & fair judgement that is expected of your appointment. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think some people forget that English isn't the first language of all our editors, and look too deeply into the subtleties of phrasing. Sometimes idioms don't translate well, and language can seem unnecessarily brusque across cultures when that was not its intention. Even those of who are English sometimes find difficulty in understanding what's meant by Americans, not helped by the over-abundance of happy-clappy civility freaks there seems to be these days. Many administrators are rather dishonest and disingenuous in their application of the civility policy anyway. How many times have you seen RfA defended on the basis that if an editor can't stand up to a week of abuse then they are not thick-skinned enough to be an administrator? Yet call an administrator or one of his friends an idiot and you will have plenty of time to reflect on that absurdity while you serve out your civility block.

As to why have I not been put on some black list or other, well I expect I have, I just haven't been told about it. Too much happens in secret. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My sympathies once again on the mental ordeal that u have to endure unjustfully on your 2 previous witch hunt-like RfAs & the 24hr civility block fiasco. As such, I fully appreciate why your unresolved bitterness over the whole affair, as well as my personal endorsement on the excellent content & prose on your much lauded WikiSpeak. What u wrote really hit the nail or on the balls (ouch!) hard mate! I like to reread them from time to time just for laughs! (of course without holding my cuppa in hand for obvious safety reasons), I hope the red-hot buzz that I've been receiving of late from my side, some... eh, in highly 'colourful' words, would simmer off soon. On a brighter note, due to repeated requests that I should look into some previous works for GAN, I've agreed to return back to the scene for a short while only, sometime in Dec after an overseas assignment. Do stay tuned for the nominated articles so that we can discuss "more tales of British colonial derring-do from Singapore" with our usual cuppa in hand, just like old times sake then. Thank you for your concern & support shown to me after all these while. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice: Hey dudes (u know who I'm referring to!), I thank you for your kind support & advice. No worries, I'm fine, not worth my time to be bothered by it. I know u guys are awesome BUT please gimme a little space to breathe here, no more further discussion on this god-damn case again, PLEASE! Kindly note that I'll be in offline mode afterwards. Garuda, kindly convey this message to Yamantaka. With Metta always -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Singapore protection

It's only protected from vandalism moves, not edits. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I knew that earlier but it would be more appropriate to protect the page permanently, rather than letting SGpedians and myself keep reverting or putting up repeated requests for page protection against those IP vandals again & again - It's wasting everyone productive time here. Check the article history & see for yourself whether these anon edits have been constructive at the expense of our good faith previously. On top of the reverts, I've said and done enough already - Do what u think best fit in view of the long term interest of this project & the contributions of bona fide editors. Thank you. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin, so I am keeping tabs on the article. I protected the page for 3 days from IP editing, so it will be calm for the time being. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we'll see no nonsense for the next 3 days BUT it will not stop them each time when the edit protection expires, or changes subsequently with courtesy from the misguided 'civility' folks. For the sake of keeping my sanity intact, I've decided to unwatch the page as it's counter-productive of my limited online time here to be involved in this endless vicious cycle, or to engage in a lengthy discussion here or elsewhere that would result, at best, in implementing half-hearted measures, or at worse - too little, too late measures that I've seen much here to date. Good luck to your patrolling. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

<< Back to current talkpage