User talk:Garfield 3185

February 2021

Hello, I'm Pentagon 2057. I noticed that you recently removed content from Talk:2020 Singaporean general election without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. As a side note, removing content does not do anything as it can still be viewed and retrieved from the history of the article Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 07:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't like this person tone and attitude. I trying my best to help out and this person has been accused me of anyhow making edits. Garfield 3185 (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garfield, it was never my intention to make you feel that way. But when you engage in changes across dozens of pages without edit summaries, it is hard to discern your reasons for the edits. For example, you recently changes the sequence of events on the lead of Lee Hsien Loong and Low Thia Kiang's pages without a clear reason.

In the case of LHL's page, you placed his role as finance minister and deputy prime minister between 1990-2007 after foreign policy events in 2014-2020.

In the case of LTK's page, you placed the leadership renewal between 2015-2020 before the Aljunied GRC win in 2011.

If you genuinely feel I am a nuisance and interfering in your work, I will disengage from responding to your edits here on out, especially since you have made no effort to try to even start using edit summaries, despite frequent request from me and other editors. I am sorry I have made your stay on Wikipedia an unpleasant place. Seloloving (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok noted. Garfield 3185 (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

adding election results to politician's articles

Hi there~! I noted that you are adding election results to politician's articles. As a whole, the article looks unwieldy and life long politicians will have a big chunk of the article just showing election results. I think prose in article will be much better instead of copying and adding the election boxes to their articles. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As reference to Mr Low Thia Kiang there is a history of his past elections. Garfield 3185 (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noted on that. It's unwieldy and I appreciate that you have removed his as well. Thanks. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On partner parameter in artist BLP infobox

Heya! Noticed that you had added these Special:Diff/1011850145, Special:Diff/1011849766, and Special:Diff/1011849829. I have reverted these. According to {{Infobox person}} documentation, this field is reserved for partners in Domestic partnership. What you had added were not verified or proven to be domestic partnerships. Also, if you are attempting to insert dating news into the articles somehow, please don't. They are considered news. That is unless they lead to something significant, i.e. marriage or baby. – robertsky (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important

Please stop linking to redirects. This is a disservice to our readers and could be construed as disruptive. If you have issues with article naming please discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Tiderolls 04:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gan Siow Huang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NTUC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello, I'm Seloloving. I noticed that you recently removed content from Prime Minister of Singapore without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

When removing content, please leave an edit summary so we can understand the reasoning, even if it's done in good faith. This advice to you has been given to you many times. I regret having to give a warning to you even if you are not a vandal. From now on, all edits where you remove substantial content without an edit summary will be reverted and a warning issued. Seloloving (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New cabinet appointments

Garfield. The new cabinet take over their new appointments on 15 May. Please do stop changing the present Ministers' end terms to 23 April. Update the pages on 15 May, not now. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okie. Got it didn't know when the appointment takeover. Garfield 3185 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

U see. Other people go and edit you never make noise at them when I change u go and made so much noise. So you are clearly picking on me. Garfield 3185 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I adhere to consensus. If two editors make the same edits, I do not revert any further, because the consensus is on your side even if I disagree with it. I have also just posted a note on the Wikipedia policy governing this at User_talk:TheGreatSG'rean#New_cabinet_appointments, please do read it when you have the time. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"GRO"

Hi Garfield - just a gentle note that unless "GRO" is already spelt out elsewhere in an article, you have to write out its full form. It's not otherwise clear what it means. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okie. Will made the changes to the GRO. Thanks Garfield 3185 (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to State Counsellor of Myanmar does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Garfield, please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#In_biographies_of_living_persons. The lede (first few paragraphs at the top) must "correctly summarize the article as a whole." It provides a basic outline of their entire career and is not meant to be a single sentence of their current appointments. Please do not make mass changes like this which goes against the manual of style. Seloloving (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Seloloving. Garfield, I came to offer similar advice after seeing what you did to the Jamus Lim article. You probably mean well, but please familiarise yourself with the manual of style (and perhaps brush up on your grammar too) before making any more edits like these. I have gone ahead and reverted what you did to other biographies too eg Raeesah Khan and Louis Chua. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alsoooo, please cite your sources... Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do note the other gnomish things that you've been doing, like fixing infoboxes and adding abbreviations, and that's great, keep it up. Maybe you should focus on those instead Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hi, I just want to reach out to you again on edit summary. With a simple edit summary like removing duplicated information, or not suitable for lead, for this edit, it will reduce misunderstandings and hence conflicts (for example). A lot of monitoring is based on edit summaries and how much data is added or removed. The moment there is no edit summary, it raises a red flag that it maybe vandalism related so even an edit summary of 5-10 words will be great! Thanks for all the hardwork~! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning regarding disruptive edits to infobox images

Please stop making edits like this. Images in infoboxes should be of consistent size – making one image double the size of the other is disruptive. You have done this repeatedly over recent months and had to be reverted by many other editors. Please consider this a final warning that if you make any further edits along these lines, you will be blocked. Number 5 7 11:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Always use block method. Have you ever checked on yourself before saying people. Are you saying that you are perfect. Nobody is born perfect unless you are born perfect than I got nothing to say. I believe that God will not let someone as wicked like your mouth to say and do as you please. If you want to block me is ok but let me warn you too there is always karma for your actions. Garfield 3185 (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edusave Scholarship Awards and School Excellence Award

Hi Garfield, do you know that are literally thousands of Edusave Scholarship Awards and School Excellence Award awarded each year? See here, we are talking in percentages of a school cohort, not even numbers. Also such events are part of their duties as MP of the constituency, there is zero significance as they are just doing the duties. Thanks --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As usual everyone is right while I am wrong Garfield 3185 (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand you wish to improve the articles but there is no need to include every single event. Is the event significant for newspaper to cover? Is the award significant? All these are considerations for inclusion. Also, even for the awards, the significance is on the awards and not the presenter. The presenter literally just pass a piece of paper to the awardees. Do consider the significance of what you add to the article.

Please stop having a siege mentality and discuss things through. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2011 Singaporean general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sam Tan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copy attribution within Wikipedia

Do read through the WP:COPYWITHIN policy and write in edit summary (please write something) that you copied text from other wikipedia articles as what you have done at List of political parties in Singapore. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's Sentinel Security Assessment: Southeast Asia 2017

Hello Garfield, I note that you have recently added a huge list of base locations to the SAF pages. Many of your sources are cited to a "Jane's Sentinel Security Assessment: Southeast Asia 2017". Would you have a link to a source which proves this exist (a photo of the book would also help)? I have tried searching and as of now only come across 1996 and 2003 editions. Also, please try not to use Facebook sources if possible, even if it's published by the official agency. I have also reverted your additions to the navy page as the information is outdated. Seloloving (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1997 Singaporean general election

added a link pointing to David Lim

2001 Singaporean general election

added a link pointing to David Lim

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello, I'm Denisarona. I noticed that you recently removed content from Nanyang Polytechnic without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Denisarona (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Republic Polytechnic, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then u got a valid reason ? Garfield 3185 (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Defence Science and Technology Agency, you may be blocked from editing. Denisarona (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Always want to do the blocking method. U not scared that there be karma if you threaten people. If you want block then go ahead but there will always be karma. Someone will be watching you when you do something in afterlife. Garfield 3185 (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making all these random edits? I'm genuinely curious. Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I undid all my edits now ok ! Stupid people ! Nobody ask me to do it. I undo it myself Garfield 3185 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Kinu ^t/_c 17:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, calling other editors "stupid" after you've been asked to explain your actions, as you did here and here (the latter of which also vandalized a user page), is a bad idea. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope karma will punish you this evil person ! Garfield 3185 (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope u get knocked by vehicles when u stepped outside and struck with bad luck on your every move Garfield 3185 (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's going to be an indefinite block now, with your talk page access revoked. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Kinu ^t/_c 03:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deeply apologize for my attitude. Please unblock me. Garfield 3185 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield 3185, do you know why you were blocked? It's not just about personal attacks. If you can give a short paragraph of the reasons which led to the block, I will support your return and assist in helping you find a mentor. As Justanothersgwikieditor said above, this siege mentality needs to stop, and you should listen to some feedback from other users. All this depends on your statement and what an admin reviewing your block thinks. Seloloving (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will never edit pages unless is required. Please unblock me. Garfield 3185 (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Doug Weller talk 11:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply regretful and would like to apologize. Please unblock me. Garfield 3185 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what are you apologizing for? Doug Weller talk 16:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]