User talk:SINPariah

En bloc sale of private property in Singapore

{{helpme}} Previously, I piggy-backed on the SERS page detailing the collective sale of PUBLIC HOUSING in Singapore and it kept getting deleted. So I have created a new article but I am wondering if it will be deleted again. Could I ask that my article be subject to review before it gets deleted unceremoniously pls? --SINPariah (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at your article tells me that it is completely unsourced, and it is not clear why this topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. I invite you to take part in the deletion discussion linked below, and justify this article's existence. The AfD procedure generally lasts five days. Thanks. --Rodhull andemu 14:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} How do I create a new section heading such that it will show up in the Contents box pls? (SINPariah (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Just type a normal section heading on a new line: == New section ==

BTW your helpme tag does not work. You must type {{helpme}} (copy the code as it is displayed, not from the edit box). Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dear Kimchi! I'm such a klutz, eh? Because I even need help with a "help me" tag!!! Anyway, you'd have noted that I have done a massive clean-up, added a slew of citations to facilitate verification/review, and changed the tone/style. A kind friend sent me an assortment of links to online property portals that reproduced the articles - that should prove to the Wiki panel of editors/reviewers that my assessment of this en bloc law being an "unjust" law is fair comment. I still need to clean up various bits - too tired today. In the meantime, could the huge banner preceding my Wiki page be similarly toned-down? Why is my Wiki page tagged as "contain hoaxes"? :(

SINPariah (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to display verifiable sources?

{{helpme}} I tried to attach my jpeg files to show the govt statistics from the Urban Redevelopment Authority and from the Singapore Academy of Law Journal - failed miserably as you can see from the blank boxes in my page.

Also, the web-link to the Singapore Attorney General's Chambers that I have just added to my Wiki page doesn't lead the user directly to the pertinent statute "Land Titles (Strata) Act", Cap 158. Instead, it requires the user to know the name or chapter number of the legislation and to click further. How do I make it a direct link for the reader's convenience?

Likewise, the web-link to the Singapore Supreme Court contains written judgements that get archived every calendar quarter. So although the link that I've attached works for now, it may no longer display the judgement once the Supreme Court webmaster archives the older cases. Can you help pls? (SINPariah (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please see this link for how to format citations, and this one for help with pictures. //roux 06:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore

I have nominated En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newbie to Wikipedia. This is my first attempt at creating a page. I have tried to attach the jpeg files to show the Business Times statistical charts and the Singapore Academy of Law Journal page that sets out the comment from the academia - but am not successful. I have also just added the links to the Singapore Supreme Court showing the High Court Judgement but this may be archived every calendar quarter. Could you contact me at <singaporeenbloc@gmail.com> to help me put up the attributions for verification and reference purposes pls? (SINPariah (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Talkback

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

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Business Times, Singapore, 27 March 2008.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Business Times, Singapore, 27 March 2008.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:New Paper 26 August 2008Vandals.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:New Paper 26 August 2008Vandals.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Singapore Academy of Law Journal March 2008 P96.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Singapore Academy of Law Journal March 2008 P96.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Business Times 27 March 2008SA.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Business Times 27 March 2008SA.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Business Times 27 March 2008NN.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Business Times 27 March 2008NN.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Today 27 December 2007Refugee.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Today 27 December 2007Refugee.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including sources

Please do not include your sources as image files. Wikipedia only accepts non-copyrighted content. Since all our local newspapers are copyrighted material your uploaded scans will disappear within a week.

Instead, use the system detailed on this page to cite all your sources. Again, we don't allow scans of copyrighted magazines or newspapers or website screenshots. Kimchi.sg (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it another way: Do not upload images for sources. State in text form what your sources are. For example, this is a possible citation for an imaginary statement:

April Fools' Day was celebrated in many countries.<ref>"April Fools' Day celebrated in many countries", The Straits Times, 2 April 2009, page W1</ref>

The big bold text is an example of the way we cite a newspaper article. Not by uploading a scan of the article to Wikipedia - that is copyright infringement.

For a simple example, see the second paragraph of the Seraya Energy article. Kimchi.sg (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Dear Kimchi: I'm eternally grateful for your very useful advice and the "how to" tips. Unfortunately, unlike the Seraya Energy article, I don't have the archival URLs for press articles older than 7 days.

I note your warning about 7-day disappearance. So I will follow the April Fools' Day citation example. But in this interim 7-day period, I will post the jpeg files so that the Wiki review/editorial panel can independently verify for themselves BEFORE the images disappear.

If there is some Wiki technie who can trawl-out the archival URLs based on the full source citation that I will plaster on, that would be extremely helpful, especially for the graphs/charts. Kimchi, if the jpeg images are limited to just 3-4 graphs/charts, can't we attribute it to "fair use for public good"? Sigh ... I find the Singapore "system" very oppressive.

The Today paper is a paper distributed free-of-charge - So no copyright issue, correct?

The Straits Times Forum Letters from members of the public are also free access for 7 days from publication - So no copyright issue, yes?

(SINPariah (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"Freely available for viewing" does not equals "free of copyright". Simple rule of thumb: Do not upload scans of newspaper articles onto Wikipedia, regardless whether it is Singapore paper or Malaysian or other country.

If you do not have the URL for the article, just state page number. Anyone can go to the National Library archives to verify page numbers, even if no URL is given. Or they can use databases like Factiva, which store articles from many newspapers going back to 1980s (and maybe even earlier), to double-check the given source. Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading scans of newspapers

Please stop uploading scanned images of newspapers. They are all copyright violations. They cannot be considered fair use because the content is easily replaceable with a in-text citation. Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Singapore Academy of Law Journal March 2008 P96.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Singapore Academy of Law Journal March 2008 P96.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 02:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Business Times, Singapore, 27 March 2008.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Business Times, Singapore, 27 March 2008.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 02:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A notice on Tendentious editing

Please read up on this Wikipedia essay on some general rules and regulations, and keep them in mind when you edit again. Thank you. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 06:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SINPariah for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 09:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refute it. Arbiteroftruth has made spurious claims of socket puppetry. The comments by vijust (a practising lawyer) and itshometome (a minority dissenter who are amongst the rare few who won the en bloc battle at STB level are NOT by me. I trust Wiki should have IT tools to detect IP addresses. I came to know of these individuals in my active citizenry efforts. I have repeated this defence in the Wiki Editor Assistance talk page as well.

(SINPariah (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I see no evidence of sockpuppetry, as claimed; just because I have never used Wiki before, never edited anything on Wiki (it's way too complex for a start)does not mean I am not who I say I am. I am not a sockpuppet for SinPariah but an individual who has first hand experience of the matter at hand. I do not know how this can be verified, other than direting you to google Tampines Court enbloc/antienbloc, and that is me. Thousands of people in Singapore search for en bloc information on the web and as there is a paucity of information I welcome SinPAriah's attempt at putting facts out there. No doubt a certain amount of editing of tone, has to be done but the facts are true. Itshometome (talk)itshometomeItshometome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Clerk note: from the comments that you have made, both here and in the SPI case, it would appear that both editors are known to you other than through Wikipedia. Could you please explain (at the SPI case page) how they are known to you, and what role you played in their deciding to participate on Wikipedia. Many Thanks Mayalld (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Mayalld suggested that I go to SPI case page (I take it that SPI = Sock Puppetry Investigation), I did so accordingly on 9 Apr but found that (a) the discussion has been archived and (b) the archived page has been closed.

Hence, I will explain it here. When the first "deletion" banner came up, it asked for others to "corroborate". So, I asked the people I know who are familiar with (i) en bloc law (eg, a lawyer Vijust) and (ii) en bloc consequences (eg, owners who went thru or were going thru en blocs such as itshometome and suntzeren) to "corroborate". As even Arbiteroftruth acknowledged, being a non-resident in Singapore, he/she does not have a good grasp of this en bloc phenomenon and Singapore press media is not considered "free" press by world standards and hence non-residents (especially, non-resident AND non-legally trained persons) would NOT be able to "corroborate" and "verify/validate" effectively even when specific sections of the statutes are cited and hyper-linked.

It is NOT about having an axe to grind. I found out pretty fast that the style/tone of my initial posting is inappropriate for Wikipedia's format. Hence, I made substantive efforts to re-frame it and the various sections of my last saved versions (EXCEPT that last section which I haven't cleaned-up) hyper-linked to, for example:

Government urban planning web-sites to set out the context. Without context, contents merely become data, NOT info.

Hansard parliamentary reports with ISSN numbers to set out the historical background. Without history, contents are not contextualized.

Statutes and regulatory circular hyperlinked to govt web-sites. Without reading these clause-by-clause of a very short segment of a statute and cutting thru the legalese (as someone with legal training would be well-placed to do or as someone who would have learned the hard way in the process of battling en blocs), Wiki reviewers/editors would have NO basis to assert that this sub-section entitled "Land Titles (Strata) Act is skewed. If the law is skewed, reproduction and highlights of the law similarly mirrors the skew-ness. It is NOT because I skew it because I "have an axe to grind", so to speak.

Numerous press articles over the course of the past two years hyperlinked to property web-sites. Again, these are mainly of local news content. Unless one is resident in Singapore (even then Singaporeans don't follow en bloc news because > 80% own public housing flats), these would not be featured in international news coverage. Hence, public knowledge is generally lacking. That was why I thought Wikipedia would serve public interest by putting out this unique Singapore law in public domain.

The issues are complex because it deals with statutory provisions. It wouldn't do justice to reduce it to three paragraphs. As itshometome pointed out, if Wiki is meant for trivialities, then so be it.

(SINPariah (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to publicise a finding or conclusion that has not been published elsewhere before. This includes unpublished conclusions derived from either published laws and statutes or first-hand personal observation. If this type of information is the only thing you have to contribute, then I kindly suggest you make it known to the world by other means, not Wikipedia. Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Your Sockpuppetry Accusations

Firstly, I would like to apologize if you feel like you have been persecuted. The reason why I brought forth the charge was because I have recently seen Singaporean editors here who uses sockpuppet to aid them in creating articles, or enforce a change in an article's format, against the wishes of the general public here, or (worse) commit massive vandalism efforts here. I thought you have used two, up to three accounts to make sure your article does not get deleted. If you are not using other editors (or using meatpuppets, which is similar to sockpuppets), you will be cleared.

However, I would still like to impress upon you a fundamental fact about Wikipedia: it is not a soapbox for political activities. We are not a tool for wedge issues, and that applies to the entire political spectrum in Singapore, government or not. I do not live in Singapore, so I cannot say for certain that the issues mentioned in your article is a genuine one or not. However, based on news articles that I've read, I have found it to be a minor, if non-existent, issue (unless you can prove it otherwise).

Also, please remember that attacking other editors are not allowed here. That will certainly get you blocked, or worse.

Happy editing here! Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your page got deleted

I see your page has been deleted. I wish I can say that was a bad outcome. Unfortunately, it was an appropriate one to take. Consensus in the AfD favoured deleting the article and your edits were insufficient to overturn the established consensus. Yes, I can see them even after they're deleted.

I seriously advise you: read the following Wikipedia policies 10 times over before making any more edits. They will help you to contribute to Wikipedia in a productive way.

From your edits (especially the type of site you linked to with your very first edit), you seem to have an axe to grind over this en bloc thing. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place to write your personal essay, which consisted of:

Long quotes from selected pieces of legislation.
Your interpretation of the above-mentioned legislation.
Unnecessary UPPER-CASE BOLD and italics everywhere (Try writing to your MP in that style. He might give you a free bed in a hospital in the north-east of Singapore.)
Lastly, large sections of your essay consisted clearly of your own personal opinion, to bring out the point that the government's legislation is skewed, wicked, unfair, unjust, whatever. Unfortunately, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. (Please do look that up in the nearest dictionary you can find.)

You want to attack the government? The corporate developers? Anyone? Do it on your own blog. Do not do it on Wikipedia. I repeat, keep your personal opinion off Wikipedia. Here we stick to writing out only what reliable published sources (which excludes blogs and forums) say. See again no original research.

Again, stick to what your published sources say. Do not insert your own personal opinion. And the list of policies and guidelines four paragraphs before this one - read them again. They are not optional parts of Wikipedia. People who violate or ignore these guidelines get pushed out from the exit door in double-quick time. Don't say I didn't warn you.

I'll be gone for long periods in coming weeks. Please politely ask for assistance from others. Even if someone accuses you of wrongdoing, do not make insulting remarks against them. And hopefully you can learn to edit harmoniously with other editors. Failing which, I do not foresee your editing time to be enjoyable. Regards, Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kimchi: I do not know if you saw the final cleaned-up version before the page got deleted. Most of the sections were hyperlinked to press articles over the past two years in property web-sites to substantiate the comment.

You may want to read my responses to Mayalld as they in part answer to your points too. As you seem to know more of Singapore from what you said above, you may have followed the long-running saga of Horizon Towers en bloc battle, finally won by the Minority Dissenters at Appellate Court level. The extremely long judgement would go some way to substantiate my Wiki page. It is NOT about having an axe to grind. It is about highlighting what the law provides in essence. What is black will mirror out as black. What is white will mirror out as white. Black will not mirror out as white, nor vice versa. So when it comes out white, one goes back to the source (and NOT presume that it wasn't white originally). Or if I am allowed a pun - should I whitewash?

(SINPariah (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"It is NOT about having an axe to grind." Really? The tone of the deleted article flatly contradicts what you're trying to portray. You're biased against the government or developers or both, face it. And your article was to have been the crowning centrepiece of your attacks. Unfortunately, here we stick to what the sources elsewhere have said. Our criticism of X can only be as vocal or as quiet as criticism of X in other published sources is. If there is little criticism of X elsewhere, there cannot be non-proportional amount of criticism of X on Wikipedia. Period. Kimchi.sg (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Encouraging others to register accounts for the sole purpose of supporting your position in an AfD discussion is disruptive, and future disruption of this kind will result in a block Mayalld (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mayalld - Pls refer to my reply under "Sock Puppetry Case".

For the collaboration/corroboration to be effective - where the page involves statutes/law, then I'd suggest that one of the Wiki reviewers must be legally trained. In that way, comments for improvement/change could be specific and would assist the author to re-calibrate to meet Wiki's standards. How does it help to get general comments, eg, those by Arbiteroftruth that it is "soap", or "soapbox" or "damned lies" or "distorted" without being able to substantiate which part is considered an untruth or why it is distorted (eg, which section of the statute that contradicted what I wrote)?

When the "deletion" banner came up in my very initial posting, it asked for "corroboration". If Wiki means the corroborators should be existing and well-established Wiki contributors or other Wiki reviewers/editors, then say so. From my perspective, the only persons who can "corroborate" are people - who in my opinion - understand the law and are well-placed to say yes/no to my contents. Just because they are first-time Wiki registrants does NOT presume that they are sock puppets, surely?

Courtesy is a two-way street. At one of the other Wiki pages where I defended myself, the Wiki clerk marked my sentences about Arbiteroftruth for deletion and said it was "personal". It seems to me that Wiki applies double standards. Arbiteroftruth sparked it with "damned lies" and "distorted the law" WITHOUT substantiating it. No Wiki clerk has deleted such sentences by Arbiteroftruth. Why? Then when Arbiteroftrust followed up with the PREsumption of "sock puppetry" just because these are first-time Wiki registrants. Even in law, there is PREsumption of innocence until proven guilty. Perhaps in Wiki, there is PREsumption of guilt until proven innocent! Even in my replies, I have refrained from further inflammation and instead went about it as rationally as possible - eg, asking for suitability check of reviewer, probing for substantiated basis to challenge the veracity. To date, no replies to substantiate allegations, as you may note.

Quality/courtesy and facilitation of Wiki reviewers becomes crucial, esp for collaborative efforts such as Wikipedia meant for a larger public good. If I may draw a contrast, Wiki reviewers (the likes of SpinningSpark, Kimchi) are much more facilitative and constructive. Esp for newbie Wiki attempts, more nurturing efforts would be appreciated - not cyber-bullying.

Whilst I appreciate Mayalld's encouragement "to stay and contribute more", I am in two minds about it. I do not relish the kind of harsh treatment by Arbiteroftruth. I see a Wiki reviewer who is legally trained "Roux" but I have not heard from him/her to date and unless I have the assurance of a Wiki reviewer who is legally trained, I am NOT assured of a fair review. Could you help to rope in a Wiki reviewer who is legally trained to collaborate and corroborate my efforts pls? On the other hand, coming from Singapore, I am all too familiar with how things could be made very difficult or tedious in the hope that people would learn to shut up or give up and thus comply to a single mould. Unfortunately, my experience to date with Arbiteroftruth is that of the latter and he/she may well succeed in shutting up others.

(SINPariah (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Even the User Page that I created at SpinningSpark's suggestion has been tagged by Arbiteroftruth for deletion (see below). I created it just to test how a User Page works - and I find that the hyperlinks don't even work and I don't know how to make them work even after putting in "External Links" sub-section! So, dear Mayalld, are you sure that I am encouraged "to stay and contribute more", as you so put it?

(SINPariah (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As with your deleted article, you may continue to edit your user subpage even while it is being discussed for deletion. (Right now it seems the consensus in the discussion is to keep your user subpage.)

By the way, most people here type their signature on the same line as the last line of their message. Like this one. Kimchi.sg (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kimchi, for your advice. OK, I note that my user subpage will be retained. I hope that Mayalld or somebody on Wiki review panel can link me up with a legally trained Wiki reviewer for a more fruitful collaborative or corroborative effort. In my User Page, the hyperlinks don't work. How do I make the hyperlinks work pls? As I only put in one sub-section from my deleted page in my User Page, can you access it and see if the tone is ok pls? (SINPariah (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"I hope that [...] somebody [...] can link me up with a legally trained Wiki reviewer" - Whether any of us are lawyers or so trained is totally beside the point. The iron test for whether information is suitable for Wikipedia is whether it has been published or verified elsewhere, not that it has been vetted by a lawyer. Statements that have not been published in reliable sources are not suitable for Wikipedia. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(un-indent) Whether you will last long as a productive editor does not depend on whether you have lawyers, be they online or offline, to back you up. However, it very much depends on whether you are willing to abide by Wikipedia policies and regulations, such as neutral point of view and no undue weight to minority view points.

If you have problems with an editor, please discuss with that editor on their user talk page. Ignoring them is another option. Kimchi.sg (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:SINPariah/En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore

User:SINPariah/En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SINPariah/En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:SINPariah/En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:SINPariah/En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore

A tag has been placed on User:SINPariah/En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 06:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:SINPariah/En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore

Hello, SINPariah. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]