User talk:Justanothersgwikieditor/Archive 1

City Harvest Church
pls read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#City_Harvest_Church I see that you are complaining against me over there. I have no trouble with you. Only NCC and CHC members who repeatedly trying to hide the truth from public. Do you have a problem with me? Have I infringed upon you in anyway? Ahnan (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * lol. I have only one desire, to see a fair wiki article. Your edits are not that fair. Please follow the guidelines set by wikipedia, especially Verifiability and NPOV. As mentioned by yourself, since you have a vendetta against them, you have no NPOV and your edits are not backed-up by proof.


 * Hi there, would you happen to have a link to the edit where Ahnan mentioned the vendetta? It would be useful to keep track of these just in case things escalate, which I hope it does not progress to such a drastic stage. Mediation/wiki investigations can be a messy process from past experience.Zhanzhao (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Saw your reply. Thats quite a safe statement actually. Good to take note of though, thanksZhanzhao (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Do Not Destroy The Harmony
I have added back the notability tag. Per WP:NALBUMS, even if the singer is notable, this is little more than a track listing. It makes no claims to notability and is completely lacking in references. – ukexpat (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion
Hi Justanothersgwikieditor, based on this edit, I have sent the pages to AfD. --ZhongHan (Email) 06:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony Tan
So until you actually find those sources, it will be deleted.

remember wikipedia's Ts&Cs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mllcg (talk • contribs) 07:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page for my comments. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Singaporean records in swimming
You edit a short course record under a long course record table.Montell 74 (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Billy Koh for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Billy Koh 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/Billy Koh 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Cabayi (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SDEP, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elgin ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/SDEP check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/SDEP?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Impromptu Meetup on 22 August (Hari Raya Haji, Wednesday)
Hello Wikipedian! Andrew Lih (User:Fuzheado) of Wikimedia US Consortium is in town next week and he is asking if anyone of you can come at Han's Cafe, #01-01 National Library Building, 100 Victoria Street (S)188064 on 22 August 2018 (Wednesday, Hari Raya Haji). Should you wish to reach me directly in real time, please contact me using the Telegram mobile app @Exec8 --Exec8 (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

SG Wiki board
No one responded to your Teahouse question, and I know nothing about what you are asking. Did you get answers somewhere else?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, no answer. It's okay actually since I am just looking at stats which is not terribly important which I can forgo. Thanks for following it up! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mya Lay Sein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Win Myint ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mya_Lay_Sein check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mya_Lay_Sein?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Holy Spirit Hospital (Berlin), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hermitage ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Holy_Spirit_Hospital_%28Berlin%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Holy_Spirit_Hospital_%28Berlin%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sincapore (ship)
Hi Justanothersgwikieditor, thanks for your contributions to the index page and the ship. Until I came across the ship I had never heard of the now obsolete variant on the name. I created the two items in great part to make it easy for someone who comes across the name to see that they were not typos, and so shine a minor light on Sing's early history. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I only added the wikiprojects but as I understand disambiguation pages normally have just the disambiguation project on the talk page as it will be one messy talkpage if the particular disambiguation has a lot of entries across different projects. Do excuse me if my understanding is wrong. I am actually more appreciate of your contributions for the 2 pages as I have never heard of the name before and thought someone created a wrong page in lieu of Singapore. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was wondering about the index page, which I am more familiar with disambiguation page, so decided to just check about the SIA class you set and realise it is WP:SIA. Thanks for showing something new to me! and I finally understand what you are getting at! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Justanothersgwikieditor, That's the great thing about WP. We are always learning, whether about subjects, or about WP technology. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asian Children's Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Public Library ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Asian_Children%27s_Festival check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Asian_Children%27s_Festival?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Seletar Airport
Thanks Justanothersgwikieditor. I had reduced the subtitles under "Seletar Airport" as you had recommended and will try to minimise the timeline approach to a prose style, while eliminating lopsided views. I agreed about writing it under as a new article, but I think a better way might be to moved the section and link it with Seletar Airport. However I am not familiar with moving the section (Instrument Landing System (ILS) Controversy With Malaysia) and placed it under a new article and hope to have some feedback and assistance on this. Thanks and have a great festive season and a great 2019.SAaphIrEblUE (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's one way to handle it. Expand the section before detaching it to a new article by itself. You can refer to Merging for help on that. The wikipedia guide on merging will help on the copyright aspect, you can treat as a full copy and merge first and then clean up the article accordingly. I will suggest that you can prepare a short summarised description of the incident to be placed in the current section you are expanding and then the link to the new article, you can refer to Template:Main to create the link so it will look something like this. You can ping me again when you have done the move (u can edit the talkpage and see how I ping you first on seletar airport talkpage or otherwise drop a message here for me) and I will help with any cleaning up etc and I dare say the article looks much better now! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Justanothersgwikieditor. Thanks for the advices. Will write up a summary prior to detaching it and once I have done so, I will update you accordingly. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAaphIrEblUE (talk • contribs) 06:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Browhaus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Browhaus check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Browhaus?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Royal Albatross part of RWS
What is your evidence that the Royal Albatross is not part of RWS when it is sitting there between Adventure Cove and SEA Aquarium? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.57.20 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply on your talk page --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kenneth Gin Ying Doon has been accepted
 Kenneth Gin Ying Doon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Kenneth_Gin_Ying_Doon help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! – robertsky (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

COI at Pronoyi article
Hi, Can you tell me how you decided that I have close connection to the article I published earlier? Newteacher1 (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, usually editors with COI will like to use Wikipedia as a source of promotion of their related companies. Based on your editing history, you inserted redlinks before the article is created is possible indication you are related in some way. Also, the COI tag is merely suggesting that you have a possible COI and not that you definitively have it.. Nonetheless, if you do not have a COI, feel free to declare on the article talkpage. Thanks --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, I inserted the red-links while I wasnt know that it is forbidden to do so under "see also" section and Thanks to you that you informed me with this rule, Also, the reason I did it was to prevent tagging the article as Orphaned article. Then you inverted my edits and again thank you that you did. However, since the article is published now, is there any other reason to not link those related articles? Newteacher1 (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is possible to re-insert provided it is not considered Wp:linkspam. Do read MOS:ALSO also first. I like to ask you now again, do you have any COI with Pronoyi? --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, If COI means that I am paid to publish this article, then No, Also I see Now the article is tagged for speedy deletion, can you help me to avoid that? or it will be deleted anyway? I still new at Wikipedia and I am still learning. Newteacher1 (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am making regular appearances here. lols., COI doesn't mean that you are paid to publish this article. You can be connected to the company, even as a relative of one of the staff, or even as an unpaid intern (not paid position). I placed the CSD for unambigious promotion because it simply is. 4/6 of the sources are of a press release on different websites, one from bizfile, one from the site itself. Search for Pronoyi on Google throws up limited news results (and it is the press release), and numerous hits for the song Pronoyi by the Vikings. – robertsky (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , You can try contesting on the article's Talk page if you want to argue for a non-deletion of the article. – robertsky (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do read WP:COI clearly, you do not need to be paid to publish this article to have a COI. Are you working for the company? Are you related to any of the company staff and hence there maybe an incentive to publish the article? When the article is marked for speedy deleted, you can click on the contest button and write your reasoning. While you keep saying you are new to wikipedia, your editing shows otherwise to me actually. Unfortunately, I have no interest in this article and I only come across this article while doing general maintenance on Singapore related articles so you are on your own here. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the clarification about COI, and I have been on Wikipedia for 4 months now, with 148 edits most of them on my sandbox just trying to learn by not damaging others works and I am sorry If I was annoying you. Thank you Newteacher1 (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Quantum Apocalypse for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Quantum Apocalypse, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Quantum Apocalypse until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: To Singapore, With Love has been accepted
 To Singapore, With Love, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=To_Singapore,_With_Love help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! – robertsky (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brother Joseph McNally


A tag has been placed on Brother Joseph McNally requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_682_2005-01-12.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kenneth Michael Byrne


A tag has been placed on Kenneth Michael Byrne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_77_2005-01-18.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Two-Way Contract Page
You shouldn't have deleted my page and changed the name because the players who are on the list are just the first players who signed two way contracts for every team. It wasn't the players who currently have two way contracts. WarriorsFan30112335 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, First NBA Players to Sign Two-Way Contracts is not deleted by me. I am not an administrator and does not have any power to do so. Read the timeline. did it. I moved the page as it is simply a list and zero context and significance being shown why is that page notable. Moving to a list page will save it, given the right context. I done the first part, I leave it to you to give it context. A list of first people doing certain things will not survive WP:AFD. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Your contributed article, First NBA Players to Sign Two-Way Contracts


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, First NBA Players to Sign Two-Way Contracts. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of NBA players with two-way contracts. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of NBA players with two-way contracts. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there, you might have posted this in error. created First NBA Players to Sign Two-Way Contracts and I moved the page to List of NBA players with two-way contracts. See edit history here. A quick look at pages I created will easily indicated this. Thanks --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See below section as well. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I used Twinkle to mark the article for CSD, and it must have posted the notification to your page instead of to original author's. Sorry for the confusion!  Jmertel23 (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Seems to be an issue with Twinkle as the opposite happened here (see last section) or the move happened too fast, the tools cannot pick up the original Page name and creator. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about that WarriorsFan30112335 (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Page I created
I know it wasn't your fault, but I am deeply disappointed that my page was deleted. I worked hard on that page. I created a page titled Preacher Lawson, and that didn't get deleted. Have a nice day or night! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorsFan30112335 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I got a few pages deleted, redirected before and I learned from it. The page still lives but in another name and format. The new page (based on name) is still created in your name. Learn to let it go. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dover Court International School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dover Road ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dover_Court_International_School check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dover_Court_International_School?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

New message from Dave1185
You have my full support here. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Tips on running a Wiki workshop
Hi there Justanothersgwikieditor. I would like to find out if there is any way to correspond with you via email as I am planning to run a conduct a Wiki workshop. I've seen your posts and would like to seek your expertise and advice in how to improve the Wiki ecosystem (for Singapore-related topics). Many thanks. ArchDrake86 (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For a first post, this seems suspicious. You can send me email via the Email function, for details see WP:EMAIL. Thanks --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, as I created my account to ensure that I can correspond this way. I could not see the 'E-mail this user' option in the left tab for your account (unsure if I am wrong). Could you try corresponding with me instead? Thanks. ArchDrake86 (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not check the checkbox for Allow emails from brand-new users. Done. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Email sent. Thanks for the follow-up!ArchDrake86 (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I decided not to reply you via email as I think we can further discuss here. I posted the welcome message on your talkpage which I think it is a great beginning source and also wiki's WP:VERIFY policy which I think you can pick up some materials as well. In fact, another active sg user,, will be better placed than me to advise for what you intended to. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

what sort of workshop are you planning on running? What topics do you intend to cover? To whom is it aimed? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the recommendation . Hi . The workshop is aimed at the general public (via sign-ups), and one of the key objective is for participants to understand the importance of research and citation in whichever topic they want to contribute in, which is crucial in further bolstering the credibility of a Wiki entry. At the moment, we would most probably be sticking to the basics (e.g. creating a Wiki account, creating/editing an entry). After our first session and based on popularity/attendance, we would see if we could expand it further into contributing to the articles listed under the SGpedians notice board. ArchDrake86 (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple issues (or not)
When you remove a maintenance template from a multiple issues wrapper leaving only a single issue, as you did with this edit to Raza Obrera, it's good to remove the multiple issues template as well. (I also noticed this with Music in Dresden, but I added another tag, so the article does still have multiple issues.) Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am using the deOrphan tool which does not remove the multiple issues wrapper but generally I try to check before or after clicking the deOrphan link and clean up the wrapper once done. I will keep that in mind in future use. Thanks for the reminder. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Political violence in Germany (1918–33)
Hi, I keep a weary eye on Political violence in Germany (1918–33) and keep thinking how such a massive project could be tackled. In a way, what prevents me from digging deeper is that the page seems entirely superfluous, the various articles on the Weimar Republic cover this aspect completely.

I'm not sure how one would organize this because there were dozens and dozens of important organizations that are covered on EN Wiki already.

Some kind of timeline would be extremely complicated, and seems a near impossible task -- I'm not even sure if there is a reliable list of murders committed, in total it is estimated between "thousands" and "more than 10,000." There is no corresponding article in the DE Wiki other than Rechte Gewalt in Deutschland (right-wing violence in Germany) but that covers the "Fememorde" Feme murders only, a very specific form of anti-republican violence.

You de-orphaned the article, how did you do this? Are you interested in working on it?

My personal view is that the article should be deleted: nobody is working on it, and it seems superfluous.

== Peter NYC (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article actually has a navbox Template:Campaignbox Political violence in Germany added to it by User:Mangokeylime, said navbox is created by the same editor as well. The navbox is under the infobox on the right. This article used to not have any incoming links till the creation of this navbox and placement of it into this article and other related articles. I am just wiki-gnoming on maintenance tags (specifically orphan tags). A quick glance means all the political violence are tied together via the navbox and can be further fleshed out with information from these articles. Discussion with Mangokeylime will be more fruitful on this subject instead. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Tanglin episodes (Episodes 509-824) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, List of Tanglin episodes (Episodes 509-824), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Justanothersgwikieditor, I have moved your page above to draft space. Pls note that list articles do need sources to support the content claimed as like other article - pls see Stand-alone lists. Sources can be any languages and can be group sources. Pls provide the sources and resubmit. Inform me if you want so I could review for you and ge the page publish. Thank you. 06:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:List of Tanglin episodes (Episodes 509-824) has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of Tanglin episodes (Episodes 509-824). Thanks!  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake
Hi Xavier, apologies for the edit on SMU School of Law, I was intending to revert the previous editor who had added trivial and non-encyclopaedic content, but took too long and your edit happened in between and got reverted instead. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies accepted. I saw the issues and I thought the time gap was good enough to do the references fix. My apologies also as my comment sounded harsh also. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All good and no apology necessary - the time gap should have been plenty, I think I was probably doing multiple things at once and got distracted :) Happy editing! Melcous (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Damien Lim (June 3)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Clarityfiend was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Damien Lim and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Damien Lim, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Damien_Lim Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clarityfiend&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Damien_Lim reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Deorphaning Ayam Geprek
Hello. I see that you deorphaned the article Ayam Geprek. I was wondering if there's a specific reason to why this action was made, since it seems like the article still doesn't have any incoming links from other articles in article space? Ilyushka88 &#124; Talk! Contribs 14:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * At its current state, yes, it is an orphan. I have just put the orphan tag to the article. The deorphan tool that I used did not indicate any other links as of now. As I did not link other articles to Ayam Geprek, it could possibly be some other editors removing the original link. It could also possibly be my mistake but since I used the deorphan tool (see edit summary ), it is more likely someone removed the original link, . Nonetheless, the tag is back on the article as it should be. Thanks! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Found the issue, the link was reverted, see here which lead to the article being orphaned again. Seems like its a good faith edit by User:NaidNdeso to link the articles. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I did a simple see also link from Ayam Penyet as they are similar dishes so it is not an orphan again! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This was in no means meant to sound like an interrogation. :D Just asked in case maybe I didn't notice something/made a mistake. Thanks for fixing it! Happy editing. Ilyushka88 &#124; Talk! Contribs 16:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My explanation probably too detailed but I get more and more curious about the chain of events and lead to more and more things :x. WP:ORPHANAGE tends to get a bit of flak for maybe a bit overzealous deorphaning so I might over explain and not antagaonise another editor for it! Happy editing to you also! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

References for "Lists of..." articles
Hello! Just wanted to drop a note to say there's probably no need to tag "Lists of..." articles as unreferenced (as you did at Lists of problems). These articles don't actually contain any information that can be referenced. They're just a disambiguation page to other Wikipedia lists. The fact that the links at Lists of problems are blue verify the only claim on that page (i.e. that those lists exist). If that doesn't make sense let me know. Otherwise kudos for your work on the orphan backlog! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I never get to ask about list of lists articles whether is it designated as disambiguation pages, so your message clears things up. Are they officially disambiguation pages? If yes, shouldn't we not tag them as such and hence automatically they are not orphans (by definition)? --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * or perhaps set them as set index be better? --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've never seen any "official" guideline on what to do with "lists of" articles, but I suppose a set index is the best description (rather than a disambiguation). A quick search for articles that are orphaned and have "list of" in the title only pulls a few dozen results. So I think it's a relatively uncommon issue. But you could probably remove the orphan tag from each, since the "lists of" articles are merely navigational aids. Thanks again for all your work on this! Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Tanglin episodes (Episodes 509-824) has been accepted
 List of Tanglin episodes (Episodes 509-824), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! – bradv 🍁  04:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=List_of_Tanglin_episodes_(Episodes_509-824) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

ANI report that may be of interest to you
Regarding misuse of automated tools: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Superside
Hello Justanothersgwikieditor. I declined your proposed technical move of Superside back to Konsus. Please take a look at two new references which I added to the article (refs 4 and 5). These confirm that the company has changed its name. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

List of rural localities in Bashkortostan
Hey, don't worry about updating this list manually - I have a script that does the whole thing automatically. Since there's about a thousand new ones that aren't currently on the list it's not worth it to try doing it by hand, lol. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I noticed about it, just clearing the orphans as it comes. Thanks! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * S'all good, just saves the work :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the script can be shared and altered/used by me, can you link me to that? I see we have more similar articles coming up~ zzzz --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a long setup process, you need a bot account and stuff, it's not just a .js thing that can be installed on wiki. I'll run it tomorrow and update the article, don't worry about it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah okies, I was guessing that but was hopefully it will be something simpler. No worries, not sweating about it, it's just like an itch which cant be scratched easily. Thanks for the work! --01:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Criteria
Hi Justanothersgwikieditor. I will need to ask, in terms of opening of companies, what will be notable? Will it be when it's a Singapore brand or etc? I need clarifications on that. Besides, I will be reinstating the PSI 108 as it was the highest in 2010. Please explain why it is not notable. Just because there are worse haze crises recently does not mean the event is not notable in 2010. Thanks. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For significant company opening, it needs to be notable, generally is that enough wide coverage in news and other areas? The reference only shows the opening speech by a MTI minister on MTI website. Meaning it is likely not notable enough for an entry in a Year in XXX page. Compare this to Google opening their own building in 2016, there are plenty and easy news coverage. Just because a minister is invited to have an opening speech is not significant. If other editors find it significant enough, I am okay with general consensus, if there is a one, to revert it.
 * For PSI as a gauge, it is only the second level in a 5 level ratings (0-99,100-199 and so on). General news coverage is quite low when it is still below 200 but only gets wider and deeper only when it is reaching 200. Hence I felt that it is only significant when PSI exceeds 200 and then to be noted. However, it is considered a rare moment to exceed PSI 100 in Singapore, hence if you want to revert, I am okay with that. Give it some context, like this is rare occurrence for Singapore. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the info. Will let the editors decide for notability. Cause to be honest, news organisations in Singapore don't usually keep their archives for many years unlike other organizations. I bet some of these events were reported back in 2010. Nonetheless, once the editors rule, I will consider the decision final. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some legwork required, either subscribe to some of the news portal which keep archives, or search with NewspaperSG, which if the microfilms are not displayed online, you have to go down to the library to get the reels to read and then write. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's kind of true. Not all the articles on NewspaperSG are freely accessible at home. Only Today articles and SPH's articles up to 1989 can be publicly accessed. Nonetheless, I will do it. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Ernest Steven Monteiro
Hi,

I have just removed the copywrite violation portion from the article. Can you help to reviewed if it is acceptable? If yes, please remove the copyvio template. If not, please advise how can I proceed further. Thanks. Flipchip73 (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am unable to see the copyvio portion so I cant help in that. For copyvio issues, just have to wait for an administrator or relevant people to take a look and probably do a revdel for the previous revisions. Do not worry about it, just be genuine about the issue and mistake. You can use the tools listed here and check the page against it. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for the reply. Diannaa (admin who put the copyvio tag) has replied. Do you have any idea how low of a percentage is considered acceptable, if you happen to know? I'm in the progress of removing or rephrase some sentences. Diannaa provide a tool to check. It is a bit slow to chat with Diannaa as he/she lives in Alberta, Canada. Flipchip73 (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not know of the maximum percentage allowed but the version's percentage looks good to me! Green is good, Violation Unlikely 24.2% confidence so I guess it will be fine. The line In 1973 he won the coveted International Award for Distinguished Service of the US National Kidney Foundation. need to be rephrased though, the whole line is red! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Football Association Footballer of the Year
Hi, Justanothersgwikieditor.

I find that you have merged two articles 'Chinese Player of the Year' and 'Chinese Football Association Footballer of the Year'. As the founder of 'Chinese Player of the Year', I need to point out that these two awards are separate two different awards. Could you undo the merge and resume my article 'Chinese Player of the Year' as it was? I have no idea how to undo your change.

This is the link. The two awards should be in two independent articles. Please revert this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Football_Association_Footballer_of_the_Year

Many thanks!
 * Do remember to sign after commenting! I assume too fast on it and realised it is two different awards. I see that you have since removed the redirect already. Thanks. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Twinkletoes (book series)
Hi Justanothersgwikieditor,

I have read the general notability guideline and I believe the article I created, Twinkletoes (book series), does deserve to have a Wiki page of its own. The book series has been around for 10 years, 18 books have been published and more than 60,000 copies have been sold as of 2016 in Singapore. Everything written in the article is informational and factual, and I've tried my best to put in the appropriate references such as news articles (as secondary sources). The parts where I have used the website and books as references/citations, they are used because they were necessary eg. which year the first book was published.

As far as the COI is concerned, I do not represent the publishing company, Flame Of The Forest Publishing, and chose this username, FOTF1989, just sort of a way to deter others from editing and writing things that are not true in the article (as usernames can be seen in View History).

Again, everything written in the article is informational, factual and accurate, with no thoughts and ideas that's simply my own.

In any case, I plan to only do minor edits in this article going forward such as updating the book list, and if I do add anything substantial, it will be properly cited.

Having said all the above, please consider removing the COI and notability tags you added: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (March 2019) and The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (March 2019)

Additionally, may I ask why did the article get a start low rating?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOTF1989 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarification on the possibility of WP:COI, as per the tags said, there is a possibility and you had clarified that you do not have it. Will clean up the tags shortly and refer to this declaration! The issue is due to the closeness of the username and publishing company, it is very suspicious and I am glad we cleared this up.
 * Your initial references are WP:Primary sources and one unrelated source (no mention of the book) which cannot establish notability, see WP:GNG. Your 2 new sources from straits times and nyp established that from a non primary source. Once notability is established via secondary sources, primary sources are okay to be used (though sparingly if possible). So we are good here now.

"Flame Of The Forest - Books by Thomas Koh and Titian". Flame Of The Forest Publishing Pte Ltd. Retrieved 2 March 2019. (Primary source) Thomas Koh & Titian (2008). Twinkletoes #1 A Star Is Born. Singapore: Angsana Books (Flame Of The Forest Publishing). ISBN 978-981-4193-60-3. (Primary source) Inside back cover of Twinkletoes #1 ISBN 978-981-4193-60-3 (Primary source) Kor, Justin (2018-06-20). "Chia Boon Leong – The only Singaporean to play football at the Olympics". Singapore Olympics. Retrieved 2 March 2019. (unrelated source)
 * I am using automated article rating which has a predicted Start rating. Some articles will never move pass a certain rating due to length and information available. Personally reviewing, I will still rate as a start class, perhaps at most a C. The rating is based on certain criteria which you can view here. If you are interested for a better review, you can bring the articles to Peer review for a better look and review, they may also advise on what can be improved also.
 * Thank you again for willingness to discuss the various issues! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Mandai Bus Depot
Hi!

Why revert this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandai_Bus_Depot&diff=prev&oldid=885455418

It's clearly not completed in 2018, and will not open in 2020+ either with very high probability. So 2019 it should be... at least according to the most recent LTA statement: https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=e9e38ac6-8e96-4a8a-8870-5feacadaaa5d

In any case, your revert to 2018 is worse than:


 * using 2019
 * removing all scheduled dates from the article until it actually opens

— Zertrin (blabla) 16:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The initial dates are without a reliable source, the only source with a date (2018) is from land transport guru which is not exactly reliable. Even though it is not that reliable, at least it indicated it is 2018. Arbitrarily changing to 2019 without a source is not helping the article either. I only removed one instance of a scheduled date which is from the infobox, which specifically indicated 2018 as the opened date. Since we do not have a source for this information (opened date for the depot), we can certainly remove any unsourced statement. I refer your LTA source, I saw that and that's talking about the train depot and not bus depot. Even if it is integrated, it will be WP:OR to assume the same. And based on your own words, you are making assumptions which is original research (clearly not completed in 2018, will not open in 2020+ with high probability. so 2019 it should be). I understand your rationale, and hence undo the change, marking it as a good faith edit but we still need to fall back to reliable sources and such when making such statements. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand your statements, but then it seems to me that instead of reverting, you should have removed all references to 2018. The fact that it opens in 2019 might not be backed by a reliable source, okay, but the 2018 date is wrong and it is not original research, it is a real life fact (go see by yourself on the terrain if you don't believe it).


 * — Zertrin (blabla) 08:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If you understood my statement, you can be bold and removed it as suggested by yourself, I would not have reverted the removal. 2018 is supported by 1 unreliable source, it can stay till someone updates it with a reliable source or remove it completely. 2019 as you now admitted is completely unsourced and original research, which can be deem vandalism. As said, I removed the opened date as it is blatantly false as physically not open and unsourced. Wikipedia is meant to be backed up by reliable sources so people can trust the content. You might be frustrated by the need of reliable sources, it is nonetheless how Wikipedia works. I actually spent time searching for any articles to support your changes. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It misses my attention, as I was searching for bus depot but your source listed here indicated completion should be on 2019. It is usable as a source and hence I had updated into the article. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I might have forgotten to cite the source I provided here in my initial edit, and that's my fault, but your first answer was very off the point in light of the source I provided. But more importantly, what's so annoying are people loving the quick revert button of the "live edit" tool, and then throwing WP:xxx pages and then finally calling it vandalism (heck, I invite you to actually check the definition of vandalism!) without considering whether what they did is better or worse than what they undid. Reverting to "2018" when today is 2019 and it is clear that the depot did not open yet is just stupid in my very humble opinion (good luck finding sources announcing things that did not happen, --- indeed, no one does a press release "2019-01-01 we are pleased to announce that the depot did not open in 2018" ---, even if it is clear to people on the terrain (ground truth cannot be referenced in wikipedia sadly...) that it did not happen) — Zertrin (blabla) 04:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your opening remarks are off. You said I removed all mentions of 2018, I did not. Again, go check the history, I reverted your changes, and in a separate edit, removed the opened date in the infobox since we know it did not happen. This is Singapore, we know that there will be fanfare, newspaper reports etc. It was unsourced so hence removed.
 * When I revert your changes, I marked your changes as good faith edit in the edit summary. I did not mark it as vandalism nor did I just revert the changes with the default vandalism tag. That is an unfair accusation. While you invite me to learn what defines vandalism, I ask you to read all the edit summaries, changes properly when you calmed down.
 * Again, Wikipedia required sourced statements, when you make an unsourced statement, I can leave it and tag citation needed. Since the change is made about dates and does not match the source given, I decided to revert your unsourced changes to match the source. Some editors will simply mark your changes as a waste of time, making no meaningful changes. If we cannot find sources that update the scheduled dates even if we know it expired, we just wait for the next official updates and update accordingly. Articles get outdated, we let it get outdated, we wait for sources then we update based on these sources. We do not update based on what we see or anticipate. Reverting to 2018 is stupid in your opinion but that is the only sourced date at that moment. Again, just because you think it is stupid, we cannot just change it because we still have to keep to the policies of sourced statements. If you still think that it is that stupid, I invite you to go to the various official noticeboards and express your opinion there. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "You said I removed all mentions of 2018" --> where did I say that?
 * "It was unsourced so hence removed" --> my mistake for forgetting the source, your mistake (IMHO) for reverting to a version which is worse from the point of view of ground truth + common sense under the blanket argument WP:OR. Yes WP:OR must be respected in general, but not blindly and without common sense.
 * "That is an unfair accusation" --> just reacting to your statement "which can be deem vandalism"
 * "even if we know it expired [...] We do not update based on what we see" --> I think we will need to agree to disagree here on whether this is stupid.
 * — Zertrin (blabla) 10:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad on the first line - read revert to 2018 as removed 2018. I take that back.
 * Common sense - remove the opened date (you changed to 2019 which is WP:OR, I removed it). If an article is outdated, let it be. If you do not have a source for what you write, it is either unsourced or WP:OR.
 * Unsourced or WP:OR can be vandalism because you altered dates without a source supporting it. Without the sources, how do people deem if this is a genuine edit or vandalism?
 * This is the very foundation of Wikipedia, sourced statements to update the article. You can try on other articles using this line of reasoning and see where it will get you.
 * Seems like we are not getting any further from the first replies, we can stop the discussion. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Unsourced or WP:OR can be vandalism because you altered dates without a source supporting it. Without the sources, how do people deem if this is a genuine edit or vandalism?" --> from WP:Vandalism: "If it is clear that the editor in question is intending to improve Wikipedia, those edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some other core policy of Wikipedia."


 * "You can try on other articles using this line of reasoning and see where it will get you." --> I think you did not understand my complaint at all. I don't disagree with the fact that everything needs to be verifiable, and it was my mistake to forget to include the source. I disagree with how you dealt with that (by simply choosing the easy path of clicking revert on the live change tool even if it leads to something clearly wrong) that's all.


 * "we can stop the discussion" --> well, I tried, but you insisted in reverting my edit on your talk page (for which you indeed have every right).
 * Sorry for this unpleasant discussion, to reiterate clearly, initially I was only complaining about your usage of the live changes revert button.


 * — Zertrin (blabla) 11:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Self-Published Sources
Hello Justanothersgwikieditor! The issue is different here, as this is a new international forum: in that PARTICULAR context, quoting their website ("self-published source") is perfectly fine. I am told a feature article mentioning them will be published later this week in a leading, peer-reviewed, European financial quarterly => Will link to that article as soon as I have it. Thanks for your help. B.Andersohn (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I tagged wrongly and should be tagged as primary source. I do not write new articles as much and I know I can always skip the AFC process but I always try to keep in mind will the article passed AFC submission? At least three reliable secondary sources and notability. That article is notable but lacking three reliable secondary sources. It could likely become a draft once it is reviewed in its current state. You can search for related articles in The Straits Times since it is Singapore based. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No worries, & thanks encore for your help. I also keep the AFC criteria in mind (without necessarily going through the process). Like I said: it's a recently established Anglo-Asian conference. I know the Forum will soon be mentioned in leading financial journals and pension industry media in Mainland Europe (this week) and in the UK (next month) etc. Will update & enrich the article as soon as the said publications are out. There may not be any article in Singapore itself before say October 2019 -- recall: this is an international event held in Singapore -- as opposed to a Singaporean event. etc. B.Andersohn (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

**Para infantry brigade**
Hello dear regret to inform para infantry brigade and para commando brigade is not same I happen to know alot abt about Military Targaryen-Daenerys (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And this is with regards to which article? --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, as we meet up every few days near the middle of orphans with incoming links I thought I’d drop by and say hello. Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yes, I believe we been "fighting" over the report haha. I like to check through those with large number of incoming links as they are likely to have navbox links to them and make sure the navbox are inserted into the article~! You can see that I am lazy to check those with 3 links~ hahha. My activities are dropping a bit due to COVID-19 and had to work from home, lots of things to do in the house and no time for wiki! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes it’s pretty serious this coronavirus thing. We’ve only had a couple of well contained cases in the U.K. so far, but who knows? Anyway I don’t mind starting at the bottom and working my way up. I’m happy to leave the top ones to you. All the best Mccapra (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

ONIX AUDIO
Please can you help me to stop the user MR OLLIE in the article ONIX AUDIO a well established and historic article from his contnnued vandalism of editing it .. I beleive he is paid to do this as its clear his iterest is not that of the WIKI resource .. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyb1961 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will take a look but it will be a neutral stand. If you think it is better to be resolved by administrators, please report to WP:ANI. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Please do I am sure anyone will see this persons edits are crazy and he clearly has motives to make them so . Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyb1961 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * After a quick review, I think you have a conflict of interest and you need to respond to that. I am currently of the view that is doing the right thing instead.--Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi I have responded I am not employed or have a conflict I enjoy the research and have been active in building the resource .. I do not think his interest is honourable in the way he is detstrying the articel built over years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyb1961 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Your personal attack is not appreciated. Any edit dispute, please talk it out on the article talk page and not by reverting edits. Please do read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:OWN. The original article is almost unreadable, had trimmed it up nicely. Any unsourced or promotional information can be removed at anytime. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit tracking
Hi Justanothersgwikieditor, apparently a user UltraSGuy is tracking my edits again and claims that he knows me when I don't know him in real life. Besides, he also claims he's behind the IP edits back in September 2019. Is there anything I can do about it? Will need help on this. Thanks. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see he has been blocked as I was not on wiki during the CNY period. You had done the correct thing by going to ANI but we know it is a temporary fix until the person got tired of harassing online. For real life, I will suggest that you change different places to do ur wiki editing and see whether are you still hounded or not. Do stay vigilant in real life as well, take note of possible stalkers and report to the school administration if such stalking really occurs. Stay safe! It does not matter which gender you are, both (or all) genders can be at risk. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Welcome. Anyway, I don't even know the real-life identity of UltraSGuy, so I will just treat it as an online case for now. I will keep a lookout. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Chua Chu Kang
On the usual standard of most articles accross en.wikipedia, it should be noted that it is ==References==. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000</b> (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Lim_Yit_Min
Hi there, Thanks for your edit on the above page. I have made further edit and added additional citation in my attempt to remove the multiple issues highlighted by other editors. I sincerely hope that you could help me to review it accordingly. Thank you. Luminosity123 (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Kwong Weng Yap
Hello there, I've just weighed on on the AfD you initiated. It seems to me to be grounds for a speedy delete under WP:G4. It obviously was created in breach of administrator protection and so has no chance of surviving an AfD discussion. I think it's worth bringing it up on an admin noticeboard or with an admin directly. The subject is in the spotlight now because of his dispute with Cherian George, and it's unpleasant to think of Wikipedia being manipulated to convey notability that he does not possess. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am pretty much a wiki gnome so not much familiarity with CSD etc. I understand the surrounding circumstances so maybe an extended AFD will close the issue better (though looking at previous AFDs, meatpuppetry might be involved). As I understand, since it is now an AFD, speedy delete is not possible? If so, we let the seven days run or an admin to speedy delete it (if applicable). --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also G4 states they must be sufficiently identical copies, which I have no idea how the original pages look like also. So it might fail G4 also. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, I too hate wading into aggressive discussions, but my little experience with them suggests that this meets the criteria. It's a clear circumvention of a block. If you know of any admins, it might be worth just dropping them a message on their talk pages, and seeing what they think. Otherwise, you're right that you'll probably have an uphill and unpleasant battle with meat and sock puppetry over the next week. No one wants to be dragged into that kind of mess. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an admin who's helped me with an AfD in the past. I'll ping them and see what they think. For the moment, it's probably fine to leave the AfD as is. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I've left a message on the talk page of the admin (Sandstein) who protected the original page. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - what you wrote below  (I moved from top of section to here as per chronological order, so superwifi is referring to above)  sounds so wrong. You are trying to get others to gang up against the subject, and yet, you claim you have no COI politically. @Justanothersgwikieditor, I think your reasoning is reasonable and found out there are past AfDs. Perhaps we should look at how to be fair to the subject with a clear conscience. He does have notability Superwifi (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I rearranged comments so chronology order is preserved. Please append latest comment at the end of the paragraph. On behalf of Kohlrabi Pickle, I like to reply that he has not gone against policies, he went to the AFD nominator, aka me, for discussion. This is not a gang up, he ask me (AFD nominator), ask admin for help on review whether G4 is appropriate or not. He followed policies through and through. Although it is not exactly the best practise to come straight to me but it is also inappropriate in the AFD.
 * I know of the controversy surrounding Yap, so I tried the long route instead. What he had spoken here is what you have mentioned in the AFD as well, there is a controversy, we all know please, and Kohlrabi is correct to say notability manipulation is a common problem on Wikipedia and we both agreed that Yap is not notable. I will strongly advise making personal comments against another editor, either in comment or edit summaries. Also, you are borderlining on harassment --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I like to ask you on your potential COI again, please declare upfront do you have any COI with Yap. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

, I will try and explain my perspective to you because it seems to me that you created the article in good faith, and your breach of Wikipedia policies was inadvertent. There is no intention on my part to disrespect the work you have put into the page.
 * On two past AfDs, Wikipedians determined that Yap Kwong Weng was not notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry. The page was persistently recreated, presumably by people close to the subject. In 2015, following the second AfD, an administrator placed a protection on the page, so that it could only be recreated by an administrator. In 2016, you (not an administrator) recreated the page, circumventing the protection by rearranging the subject's name to fit English rather than Chinese conventions. I have no opinion on whether this was accidental or deliberate, but as I said on the third AfD page, I note with concern that it the other pages you have created all fit regular Chinese naming conventions.
 * I think it is egregious that this page has been up in breach of that protection for almost 4 years now. This is why I approached the administrator who placed the protection on the original page.
 * Notability is a term of art; it does not mean "well known". The guidelines for establishing notability are available at WP:GNG. If you think that the subject crosses the thresholds there, give me your reasons. As it currently stands, I have concluded that the subject is not notable under Wikipedia's standards. I am open to changing my mind on this, provided there are good reasons for it.
 * You are right that neither justanothersgwikieditor or I are focused on improving the article. This is because neither one of us is persuaded that the article warrants a place on Wikipedia.
 * In 2019, another editor put up comments on the talk page questioning whether the subject of this article is notable, and pointing to the promotional tone in which it is written. Instead of responding to the substance of those comments, you responded aggressively towards the editor. An uncivil debate ensued. You then blanked that editor's comments, which is a breach of the rule that one does not modify another editor's comments.
 * As far as COIs are concerned: there are three photographs of the subject on the article, one of which was taken in close proximity with the subject in military gear. All the photos are linked on Wikimedia Commons to your account as "own work". This means that you took these photographs (copyright would otherwise rest with the photographers of these images and they would have to be taken down and retagged). It is difficult for me to see how you could have taken that photograph if you do not know the subject personally. I'm open to an explanation. (I should say that if in fact if you are in touch with the subject himself, then this doesn't stop you from editing his Wikipedia page and uploading photos that he has given you, but then you must appropriately declare a connection.)
 * I am very happy to help out with building knowledge of Singapore on Wikipedia and support every initiative to do so. I think Wikipedia is a superb repository of knowledge. But this has to be done in line with Wikipedia's policies. There are so many highly notable subjects in Singapore that don't have articles. Just last year, I created an article for Bilahari Kausikan; there are pages and pages of articles on him, but there was no Wikipedia page. Subjects like these could benefit from your attention.
 * I hope this explains my position. I also second 's comments. I don't want to clutter this talk page - if have any more questions to ask in good faith, you are welcome to drop me a message on my talk page. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the summary and replies. I am fine with the cluttering, I think I have the archive bot setup correctly! It is also better to consolidate the comments in a few places only. Also to point, either superwifi himself is up there and personally taking the photos, or it is not of his personal works which makes the licensing void and need to be removed from wikipedia commons. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor @Kohlrabi Pickle Please allow me to explain my rationale. I have no intention to harness. I created the article because I thought the subject is worth to put up an article in 2016 after I read his story on the news/ST. That’s where I Also started to write more on Wikipedia. I didn’t know why his original name could be used to create an article so I used Kwong Weng Yap instead which seems ok in American language. Checked with a few Editors years back and made sure I went through all the Wiki processes, same with the rest of the articles I put up.

On photos, I took the pictures myself in public functions (same for Lim Teck Yin and Gan Siow Huang) except for the military one which I made a screenshot. If that’s not ok, please kindly remove it. I have no connections with the subject/COI. I have an interest in ex-military folks who represent Singapore. Simple as that.

On notability, he has diverse range of experiences with the latest setting up a first AI lab KPMG-A*STAR in professional services in 2018, which I just read this morning. There are quite few mainstream articles that state so which I will put up references for your considerations too. This is notable in the business world.

On past arguments and being uncivil, I was quite offended when someone who uses an IP address and other sock puppets gang up from a certain overseas IP to make unpleasant statements. I did not agree with the statements and took off the paragraphs on my page because it looks horrible. I simply don’t wish to see it. I joined wiki to try and write, edit, better. Improve articles that I believe in.

On recent political spats, I am not really sure what’s going on but there’s definitely politically so areas of politics involved when I look at the sudden spike of views on the page. I don’t usually look at it but was alerted about it when it is asked to be deleted. But I do hope that you consider not involving politics in this discussion. Maybe we should put up the controversy to dispel all questions instead? I am not interested in politics but it might be worthwhile to explain the facts.

I disagree with both of you trying to get other admins to shut the article down. I mean it could be better if there is some respect given to the work I have worked on. I also feel that its unfair to point this out four years after the article was approved simply because the subject is brought out in public light again. Please let me know and I have no intention to disturb you Superwifi (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , I take your point and I regret that you received inaccurate advice from other editors. I appreciate the difficulty of your position as well; Wikipedia has quite a labyrinth of rules and it's sometimes difficult to know when one is falling foul of one. Even so, the rules on notability are meant to prevent the indiscriminate inclusion of information on Wikipedia, and to preserve its reputation as an encyclopedia.


 * I accept your point about the photos. Please note that the copyright for those photos lie with the photographers; you can't screenshot a photograph and represent it as your own work. Doing so is a breach of copyright. You now need to go to Wikimedia Commons and remove any photographs that you haven't taken yourself (including the one in Myanmar; I assume you were not the one who took that photo). It is generally very difficult to get freely licensed photos of living people, so it's fortunate that you even managed to get the one that you took yourself. Despite how well Bilahari Kausikan is covered, for example, I have still not been able to find a copyright-free photo for his article.


 * To your point on notability; you have to justify it against either WP:GNG or one of the rules in Notability_(people). It is not enough that someone else (e.g. the business community) considers him notable.


 * I understand that you were offended, but the statements he made were critiques of the article, not of you. It doesn't matter where IPs come from; they are also entitled to edit Wikipedia. He was not, of course, entitled to make personal attacks against you. Once he did that, you were free not to engage with him. But his initial comments were not personal. Separately, if you have issues with sock puppets, you should bring them up at WP:SPI. If they are confirmed sock puppets, an admin will block them, and then you can freely remove material they have posted. This is part and parcel of working on Wikipedia; we have to learn to work and collaborate with other editors.


 * You can put up details of the political context at the moment if you like, but I doubt it will sway an admin, because it doesn't have any bearing on whether he is notable. Admins will make decisions based on fidelity to WP's rules and policies. (this is why I say, if you want the article to stay up, you need to give evidence in relation to some rule on the pages I linked for you.) I don't intend to comment any more on the AfD at the moment; I think I've said all that I needed to.


 * The "other admin" I approached was the one whose article creation protection, accidentally or otherwise, you breached. I thought they should have the opportunity to respond to the breach. I also believe that a breach of this protection is grounds for a speedy delete. I explained this in my first comment on the AfD.


 * As a fellow content creator, I appreciate the effort and work you put into Wikipedia. However, see WP:OWN. This is a collaborative enterprise, and none of us own the articles we put effort into, even if we feel possessive over them because of the time and effort we spend on them. I wish I could help you; but I simply do not believe that this subject is notable under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If he is eventually elected as a PAP MP, this page can be restored, probably in its entirety, because he will have crossed the notability threshold for politicians. But Wikipedia cannot hold pages of potentially notable people.


 * It will be a great pity if this discourages you from spending time on Wikipedia. I very much hope that we will be able to work cordially on other things. If you feel as though you're running into trouble because of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then you might find WP:Adopt-a-user helpful. An editor more familiar with how Wikipedia works can then ensure that everything you're doing is correct. I had one as well when I was first starting. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am disinclined to believe what superwifi is saying now, if you check his past contributions, there is no evidence that he Checked with a few Editors years back and made sure I went through all the Wiki processes, same with the rest of the articles I put up. Based on history, he asked around for improvements for articles and not about the title, see here and the url is the draft of the current article. And following his edit history, he turned on you after I refuted his claims and then subsequently turned on both of us after clarification. Now he is pleading innocence and pushing responsibility to other editors. This could be a severe case of WP:OWN and he is trying desperately to ensure that the page does not get deleted. It is also interesting that a new user (without any editing history) will remove AFD notice twice and blanks the AFD discussion, four hours after the notice it went up . --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fair enough point. Based on what's been presented at the AfD page, I think it's most likely that the AfD will pass and that the article will be removed anyway. I'm just thinking that assuming good faith is helpful here so that we don't inadvertently chase Superwifi off of Wikipedia. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, likely the AFD will pass and article deleted. I am just taking issue with how he conducted himself and let you be warned. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the caution, thank you. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Kwong Weng Yap 2
Just created another section so that our discussion isn't interspersed with Superwifi's. I think you've explained yourself very clearly on the AfD, and there's no real need to respond to the personal attacks; they will be obvious to a closing admin. I might pop up to reconsider my vote if new evidence surfaces, but for now, I'm going to move on with my life. All the best. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am quite done with it also. All the best in your studies! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am actually considering taking the issue to WP:ANI, asking another admin another editor for advice at the moment.
 * Strike the above, hahaha. i genuinely thought he is an admin but will follow his recommendation of admins to seek advice. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'd suggest posting on an admin's talk page before going to ANI. I've got exams starting in a week, so I'm going to let it go on my end. Also, I missed your message of good wishes above - thanks very much! Need all the good karma I can get. :) Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah good luck and all the best then! Yeah real life is more important and sign out of your account till its over! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"wikipedia committee"
I didn't realise that you are "wikipedia committee" per edit summary. LOL – robertsky (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * RfA is a brutal process, I go there to see the bbq fest but not to be meat to be bbq~! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * hurhur. wish me luck for Singapore's artistes BLP articles! another bbq session in there soon. lol. – robertsky (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Damn tired of the IP editors zzzzzzzz..... --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Seah Kian Peng
I would typically push the page to mainspace, but there is a block on the article name. In the meantime, if you can, please help to improve the draft. – robertsky (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Made some changes. Only major change is the lead which seems to be the norm for most of local politicians. Do check on language also. I suggest seeking the blocking admin, GiantSnowman, in help to move from draftspace to mainspace directly, as this is a new article and not a recreation of the old article. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have pinged GiantSnowman about the move. – robertsky (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Responding to your message
I received a message from you on Conflict of Interest, but I don't think I fall into that definition, I'm not sure what to do next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiatyuan (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not seeing where you got a COI message, however WP:PSCOI will give you the guidance you asked for - <kbd style="color: Red;">Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 15:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The COI welcome message is on User talk:Kiatyuan page. I was just looking into this too. – robertsky (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first edit is a fully formed wikipedia page in your sandbox a year ago then one year later, you made 11 minor edits within 20 minutes to clear the 10 edits bar to publish the year old article in the mainspace immediately. With the Singaporean general elections (likely) coming soon, even though he is an existing MP and not some new possible candidate, this still looks suspicious. To make things clearer, possible specific COI are, are you related to him (family ties and connection)?, do you know him on a personal basis?, do you work with him in any organisations (co-workers) in any form (political, business, voluntary, charity, community etc)? If anything (non-exhaustive list written here) is yes, you have a COI with him and you can either not declare your COI and cease editing related pages or declare your COI and request edits using the method described in WP:DISCLOSE. You can refer to User talk:Wamprong from an recent interaction by me with another editor who has a COI. If you need any more guidance, please feel free to message me. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me to answer! Woke up to a flurry of notifications! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance, I have done as advised. I guess the potential COI would be that he is an MP in my GRC which I volunteer (unpaid) in. May I know what else do I need to do to make this article "legitimate"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiatyuan (talk • contribs)
 * (lurker here) You may want to read further on Biographies of living persons. Rule of the thumb: all facts needs to be backed by a verifiable and reputable source as much as possible. Primary sources should be avoid as much as possible. There are leeway like backing up an undisputable fact or use in conjuncture with another source to fill a gap. i.e. primary source has some dates to an appointment, while secondary source has further details to the appointment. No copy and paste work, you will need to reword/synthesise as accurate as possible based on the different sources. Otherwise, it will be struck out like for a paragraph in the article you have created. I just wrote on Seah Kian Peng, whose page was deleted twice before due to copyright issues. You can take a look at it as an example. – robertsky (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, then I think I'm good, the page is 5 sentences long, but with 6 sources. If it is ok, then I will leave it as it is.Kiatyuan (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we are all good here. As what robertsky has written, just be careful of copyvio violations. Close paraphrasing might fail Wikipedia copyrights requirements also so do watch out on that! I hope you can continue to improve other areas of Wikipedia, be it article writing (robertsky doing some of these) or just fixing broken things (I mostly do this and robertsky likes to keep all the Singapore related articles nice and readable). --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Kiatyuan (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)