User talk:DanS76

Lim Biow Chuan
Stop removing the controversy section. Online newspaper are reliable sources. There is no copyright infringment.


 * Blogs are not reliable sources as per WP:RS, and by copyvio I referred to you taking the text word for word from the sources. Despite what you think, under Wikipedia policy, taking chunks of text verbatim from news sources still constitutes copyright violation. With reference to Channelnewsasia, the site specifically states "Copyright © 2010 MediaCorp". Please get yourself more familiar with what is allowed and not allowed under WP:Copyright Violation policies. It would make one wonder if the rest of your edits are similarly in copyright violation, whether you are committing it on purpose or not.DanS76 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ahnan, do note that blogs are not reliable sources as per WP:RS. I see the blog is a political blog, which makes its neutrality in doubt. If possible, please use news sources instead.


 * TemasekReview and TOC are not political blogs but online news sites with their own reporters. Stop trying to protect PAP. What's the matter? Can't handle the truth? Ahnan (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the copyright violations, I referred to you taking the text word for word from the news sources. Despite what you think, under Wikipedia policy, taking chunks of text verbatim from news sources still constitutes copyright violation. With reference to Channelnewsasia, the site specifically also states "Copyright © 2010 MediaCorp". However, you are allowed to reference the news site then paraphrase the content. Please get yourself more familiar with what is allowed and not allowed under WP:Copyright Violation policies. It would make one wonder if the rest of your edits are similarly in copyright violation, whether you are committing it on purpose or not.DanS76 (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * HAHAH! It's called under fair use, ie, not more than 10% of the text. Go read fair use under wiki. It's impt to quote what Lim Biow Chuan was quoted to say in both version (ie, the citations). What's the matter, too embarassing to let the public know about the controversy? Ahnan (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use - Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term "fair use" originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.


 * The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use.


 * Another user already corrected you on that. Note that you are allowed to use the information, all you need to do is to paraphrase it such that it is not using it word for word.DanS76 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately your threat to "report" me for edit warring only exposes your own lack of what is or is not allowed under Wikipedia policy to the more senior editors. As per the edit warring instructions, Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption. Anyway Angus McLellan has also provided his own feedback on where you went wrong, so hopefully you learn from your mistake and don't re-commit the same mistake the next time. And by the way, I'm not 116.14.4.32. It does not do you justice to jump to conclusions and group anonymous IPs with log-ed in editors just because the lot of us rejected your edits for being not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Or next you'll be implying that I am Angus McLellan as well. DanS76 (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My dear friend, it's not over yet... It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings Ahnan (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're cetainly a friendly fella aint'cha. Well as long as you edit within the rules of Wikipedia when contributing to Wikipedia you won't be faulted by anyone here.DanS76 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And if you want to fault me, pls familiarize with the rules yourself before starting your hunting season. Things may backfire. For example, understand the concept of fair use rules under copyright laws... Ahnan (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Too bad you seem to be the only one here who thinks your misunderstanding of the concept fair use rules gives you permission to practice copyvio. Considering another editor already pointed out your misintepretation on the Lim Biow Chuan talk page, backfire indeed. And by the way, your 3RR report does not have a foot to stand on, as there are multiple editors reverting your un-wiki-like content. On the other hand, the only thing editors will see is you practicing 3RR. Cheers.DanS76 (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I've said... It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings Ahnan (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Aren't you a little busy somewhere else to be bothered over little ol' me on my talk page? ;) DanS76 (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh no, I like you a lot... I like to stay close to you... Ahnan (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What you are doing could come under "stealth canvassing". Canvasing is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. If you feel any of the editors have been biased, you are free to raise the issue via WP:COI, WP:ANI or some other suitable venue in Wikipedia to other editors and admins previously not involved and hence impartial to the debate to weigh in. It will do you well to read the whole article on "canvassing" and see why it is discouraged to protect both Wikipedia and you as an editor.DanS76 (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "canvassing" says: Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Are those fellas on 3in1 wikipedians? Ahnan (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As replied on your talk page, you're asking the forumers there to come to Wikipedia to help. The only way for them to do so would be to come in here to "contribute". Which would make them editors. So yes, that meets the definition of canvassing.DanS76 (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "canvassing" says: Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Are those fellas on 3in1 wikipedians? Ahnan (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as they do not edit, they are not editors. Note however that asking them if they are free to "pls go in and help" as per the 1st line in your request, and once they come in here to help, they then become wikipedians. And you are explicitly asking them to do so. So, yes, its still canvassing. DanS76 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Once any one of them makes a comment (an "edit") on WP, then he/she becomes a "Wikipedian". May I refer you to  this discussion with specific emphasis on point number 2? Bielle  (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, I'm talking to non-wikipedians. Ahnan (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an even more specific term for this action called Meatpuppetry. Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. You would do well to familiarize yourself with this so that you do not get into trouble with this.DanS76 (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a puppet master. I don't control their actions. How do you know if they come in here they would naturally agree with me? I don't even know them in the first place. They are all anonymous netizens, just like I don't know you. Ahnan (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It would actualyl do you well to READ what Meatpuppetry is. It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate..
 * Its the action of advertising itself rather than the follow up action of the recruits that makes one guilty of Meatpuppetry. Just do not commit this same mistake in the future.DanS76 (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Read carefully, it's recruiting people WHO agree with you. How do you know they would agree with me? Ahnan (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your post has you explicitly asking for help. Obviously any logical and smart person would want to ask for help from an avenue where he is likely to get agreement to help. From the thread, I see 2 posters suggesting how you can continue to sneak your edits in, non asking you to cease and desist. Yes, Agreement.DanS76 (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Read carefully, it's recruiting people WHO agree with you. How do you know they would agree with me? Ahnan (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your post has you explicitly asking for help. The key point here is you putting out a call for anyone out on that forum to help you. You are the one searching for someone who agrees with you. From the thread, I already see 2 posters suggesting how you can continue to sneak your edits in, non asking you to cease and desist. Yes, Agreement.DanS76 (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They may want to help but they not necessary agree with me. They may, after coming in here and reading all the contents decide that I'm wrong. Ahnan (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You can keep at this all day, but your actions speak for itself. If it escalates, you'll be trying to convince the admins, not me. And they are pretty strict on this stuff. In such investigations, they they base it on evidence they (In this case your "recruitment" call) rather than what the defendent claims. Even removing the thread from the external forum now won't work since this conversation is are now permanently logged on Wikipedia. Just behave from now on.Zhanzhao (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How come I see you here, Zhanzhao? Does this qualify as stalking or hounding under wiki? HAHA! Ahnan (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, refer to your talk page.Zhanzhao (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Compromising on Lim Biow Chuan's article
Dan, we are fellow Singaporeans. I do not wish to fight with you further on this as there is a big storm brewing over at the CHC article. I'm willing to compromise with you. I've already agreed to remove the STOMP reference and also the "under fire" statement. Do you agree then? Truce? Ahnan (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing discussion on Ahnan's talk page
Please try to keep your comments indented and in time order. When you insert your remarks ahead of others who commented first, it makes reading difficult and often makes nonsense of what was there before. Thanks for your consideration. Bielle (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, the thread was getting long and I wanted to make sure I was replying to the right part. Trying to avoid that in the future. DanS76 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah ha! This is an infringment! HAHA! Ahnan (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it indeed? I wonder if you actually know the meaning of "Infringement" here.DanS76 (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Wee Shu Min elitism controversy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wee Shu Min elitism controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Wee Shu Min elitism controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:TinPeiLing.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:TinPeiLing.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)



ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You and your brother
Per our policy on WP:FAMILY, "When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." -- you and your brother must both to add User shared IP address to both of your user pages, OR stop editing the same topic areas altogether; otherwise both accounts will be considered in violation of our policies on the use of accounts and will be blocked until you agree to comply. I will give you a few days to respond. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said in the SPI page, I don't mind my account being cancelled, which would effectively mean I won't be editing at all, much less on ZZ's topics anymore. Have to deal with office politics in real life, its too tiring to deal with it here at as well just cos some editors are editing as if the own the page and keep whitewashing stuff for whatever reason. Luckily new editors are coming in to provide balance so I leave in peace. If not Wikipedia, at least on conflicting articles. DanS76 (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if you retire the account, I'd have to have to block the account for that in case you do decide to come back, so instead I've put two userboxes on your talkpage. If you ever do decide to start editing the same topis as your brother, you can remove the "retired" banner, but please leave the "shared IP" one there. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)