Talk:Sim Lim Square

Tone
Certainly not in an encyclopedic tone but definitely provided some good advice for my next trip to Sim Lim Square! Bactoid (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This wikipedia article appears to just be an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.35.244 (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Need substantiation of "scam" claims
Almost the entire section relating to scams needs to be substantiated. Most of it reads like broad sweeping claims based on either personal experience,, original research, or hearsay.

The blog linked as a source also appears to have much of the content copied into the wiki page. This is not encyclopedic, and judging by the blog author they are also the contributor to the wiki page addition. If the author intends to have more hits on their blog, then linking from Wikipedia is unethical. Wdyoung (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: I am the author of the scam claims. The blog was linked for the purpose of providing a citation (my previous entry was deleted when a citation was not provided.) The scam claims are true, though there aren't many written references. It is very informational for those wanting to visit Sim Lim Square to not get scammed. detach8 (talk)


 * Yes, I agree it is useful to link to somewhere. But my original assertion still remains that the vast majority of the content in the wiki page is copied from your blog. It also gives the impression that you are trying to increase the hits to your blog. I strongly suggest you re-write your wiki page contribution to have a neutral point of view, have proper citations, and eliminate  weasel words.


 * It will take a lot more effort to do these things, but it will substantially increase the value of the page and your contribution. --Wdyoung (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that citing news sources equates a reliable source and a blog post equates an unreliable source. Journalists are humans as bloggers are. Just like blogs, news can be biased for either political or monetary reasons. I am more than happy to remove my blog link if not for the requirement of a citation. I agree the language needs some fixing but that's beyond my language capability - Wikipedia is made of a community and anybody can contribute and edit my entry. detach8 (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC+8)


 * Citing a news source like Straits Times has a much higher level of repute and recognition for news reporting than the "citizen journalist". There are certainly some bloggers with a high level of repute in the community, but I have to admit that I'd never heard of your blog until I read this wikipedia entry. And doing some basic Googling didn't show much referring to the blog either.


 * Some news sources around the world can and have been biased for political or monetary reasons, however despite some of the Singaporean citizens concerns, the news sources (many are part of the Mediacorp network) are generally independent and fairly balanced, within the laws of the country. Singapore is also a country with very low levels of corruption in comparison to much of the democratic world.


 * Your blog is essentially independent and unverified (or at the least, unreported in the general media) research. I strongly suggest it needs another source for qualification and substantiation, and the blog would be much more relevant (possibly as a way to summarise all the claims in a single location). I'd much prefer if you can do a bit of research and find some other sources to support the claims, since it'll be all of your contribution and you'll get a lot more experience from it too. --Wdyoung (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the user of this page is trying to promote his forum and because this page other IT dealers who do not practice such things are affected due to few shops dealing with mobile and camera products. It is not wise to hurt business in such extensive manner for over 300 families and their employees also losing jobs and causing losses to a major group of people. Those shops which cause problem will not be affected as they will take rebirth but then what about those sincere companies which are also there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.128.61.110 (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is Sim Lim Square a hotbed of lowlife scoundrels and scammers for decades whereas the vast majority of merchants elsewhere in Singapore are perfectly honest? The management of Sim Lim Square appears to have condoned and perhaps encouraged such despicable behaviour for far too long.

The honest merchants should organize to name and shame the scammers, and force the management to evict the scumbags.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, and to inform the public. It is not here to help the honest merchants. By suppressing information on the notoriety of Sim Lim Square, more visitors to Singapore, and more Singaporeans too, will fall victim to the Sim Lim Square scammers.

The public interest has a stronger claim on Wikipedia than the interest of the honest merchants, who should take effective action to help themselves.-- Palaeovia talk 11:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Countering effort to remove information on Sim Lim Square scams
This edit removed useful information on Sim Lim Square scam tactics and added manic and comic sales pitch.

For the record, this is the current version after reverting the cover-up.-- Palaeovia talk 03:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sim Lim Square (I presume) has once more removed useful information on its notorious scam tactics, and has placed its advertizing pitch here. My effort to revert its edits has been reversed.

Would anyone care to suggest an appropriate course of action?

Perhaps a letter to The Real Singapore or TR Emeritus to bring the spotlight on its scammers? -- Palaeovia talk 09:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to delete information on Scam Tactics
I posted the following message on User talk:203.117.153.170

Sim Lim Square

Kindly refrain from deleting existing Talk page content. This is considered vandalism.

Please discuss in Talk page your reason for deleting information on scam tactics used by Sim Lim Square shops.

Many editors have contributed to the Sim Lim Square page with such useful contents. Please respect the effort of previous editors.

If you are trying to hide Sim Lim Square's notoriety, please stop.-- Palaeovia talk 06:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

-- Palaeovia talk 06:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, User:203.117.153.170 has today been blocked by an administrator for 72 hours after again erasing the "scam tactics" section of the Sim Lim Square article, removing existing content of this Talk page, and repeatedly issuing threats (such as "Scammers/Unauthorised Editors are being tracked for defamation and shall be liable accordingly by the Singapore Law", "Wikipedia Legal Team to Assist to identify Spammers / Defamation Registered Users of Wikipedia" [which are lies]).-- Palaeovia talk 05:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A similar message to the one above was sent to User Talk:119.2.64.110 after the section on Scam Tactics was again deleted without reason. -- Palaeovia talk 21:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Attemp to delete useful information for Tourists against scammers
I have been trying to put the message across to all tourists about the advisory being published by CASE(Consumer Association of Singapore) for avoiding rogue shops in Sim Lim Square. User Sni56996 is repeatedly deleting it without any solid reasons. Can anybody take actions and bar such users from deleting the contributions others make please. Ref : http://www.case.org.sg/consumer_alerts.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverline on darkcloud (talk • contribs) 09:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Too much focus on scams
While I agree that the information about scams is important, I think that the article focuses too much on this. I think that the section could be condensed down, but I don't want to be seen as removing it entirely, had I done this. Should this be done? 58.182.109.215 (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)