User talk:Zhanzhao/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Lee Kuan Yew. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

On From Third World to First

Hi Zhanzhao.

I've managed to get a copy of LKY's memoirs (second volume) from my brother-in-law. I realized all three editions of this book (SPH Times edition, Marshall Cavendish edition, US HarperCollins edition) have different pagination. What I have is the SPH first edition, and it appears some references on the article use the US HarperCollins edition. Should I change them to correspond with the first edition? What do you think? DORC (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi @DORC:, as long as you indicate clearly the exact edition you are using, it should be fine. I don't usually use physical book references, but I do see that is the standard other wikipedians follow. More info in ferencing is better than less. For example see how the China Sky article references the print from the "Times Triangle Edition". Zhanzhao (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks! DORC (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Zhanzhao, I want to publicly thank both you and OccultZone for coming to an amicable agreement in this matter. Hopefully, everyone involved here can put this situation behind us and get back to furthering the aims of the project. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

DoRD, Actually, I should be thanking you and all the other admins, with a strong dose of apologies; this dragged on longer than it should and on hindsight I think every single person involved would rather have put our energies to better use. Would have preferred to have encountered you under much favorable circumstances. Cheers to you as well. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Zhanzhao had you read my last message? Remember this is a new start. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi OccultZone, I didn't meant this in a bad way. I was also at fault too, guess I should have thought of asking for advice and could have been directed to AN earlier so this did no escalate. This affected everyone, you and me especially, but also everyone who got pulled in. I am sure this had taken away your attention and time from other stuff you would have loved to do on Wikipedia. Again, this was not meant to be directed at you, apologize if it came out that way. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate that! Ok I have restored prior version of your userpage.[1] Remember to read userpage guidelines as well, whenever you add any new material there. Thanks again. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sooooo, let's all move on, n'est pas? Let's get on with editing articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yee

I've lost interest in that article. Plus it needs a trim. Good luck with it! starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it gets tiring... think it may be better to just let the case play out and edit afterwards. For content edits at least. Will still keep an eye out for obvious disruptive edits. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Holy crap. I just read this. Amazing. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Too much stuff happening and almost everything is being added in too much detail; as mentioned in the talk page, I feel that the article is getting too bloated because of this. Will probably go in and start to trim down after the case when the whole thing dies down or at least slows down. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sentencing's on June 2, if you don't know. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There's too much to keep track of at the moment, but from what I read, it seems like he's perpetuating drama just for the sake of perpetuating drama. Many online are frowning on his recent made-up allegations against those who just wanted to help him - "biting the hand that feeds" him seems a common saying about him (first Neo, then his parents, then Law). And the cycle of getting into trouble, acting remorseful to solicit a truce, then after he is forgiven/given a lifeline, going back to whatever he did except in escalated degrees does not look like it will stop any time soon..... hence I'm not touching the article for now until everything blows over and it would be easier to summarize and trim off all unnecesary extra detail. As unbelievable as it sounds, the article is now even longer than J. B. Jeyaretnam and Chiam See Tong.... Zhanzhao (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Need help

Hi User:Zhanzhao, can you please help me with the recent changes at Alex_Tan, tryed to revert his changes but he did it in multiple steps, looks like I need to learn more about reverting multiple-edits. Thanks!

Hi Huggi, I've removed it per WP:BLP policies for now, as those were unsourced comments about living persons. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again!

FYI

I'm not sure if "meetups" are relevant for you, trying to bring more folks together for a "local" discussion: Wikipedia:Meetup/Singapore_8 Thanks for your attention and have a good evening! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

List of awards...

I know nothing about the Asian music scene, so I shall leave it up to you to include or remove whichever awards are considered notable in Asia. Also, it's hard for me to verify notability from non-English sources. thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Tired of content removal rather than improvement

As I stated the information in Singapore censorship is not displayed either the page is wrong or it is right. So either go delete any mention to Singapore's censorship or put a tag showing that the information is wrong. You can't rule a country and actively censor pages without it being ed. To explain further first removed for not quoting sources then removed for quoting sources. Can't have it both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Councilscribe (talk • contribs) 10:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again deleting another users addition rather than simply putting the reference in.

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2015/08/09/singapore-lim-chin-siong/

Is the reference why not add rather than deleting important information. Councilscribe (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor introducing a claim (especially one that is likely to be challenged) to provide the source. If you had the source, why not add it before? If you only found it after the removal, why not add it now? In any case, for the edit I assume you are referring to [2], I have read through the source, which just mentions that "Lim was eliminated from the political scene". It did not mention that he was competing with Lee for leadership which was what the edit claimed. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just following your deletes now to see what else your removing and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Councilscribe (talk • contribs) 10:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever rocks your boat </shrugs>. So long as you stay on the right side of WP:Wikihounding. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No worries mate. The stats tell the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Councilscribe (talk • contribs) 10:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Katong Laksa

Dear Zhanzhao, if you have time, please involve in creating page for our own Laksa, Katong Laksa. If you have picture for Katong Laksa,very appreciated. Thanks. Lee788 (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Need your help

Dear Zhanzhoa,i need your help. For the page Singaporean Teochew porridge, the issue is somebody requested for merge Teochew porridge into Congee-see Talk:Congee. I hope you can give an opinion and support not to merge for this page. Lee788 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited J. B. Jeyaretnam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Amos Yee

Wait a minute, i saw you revert my Amos Yee edits? I thought the news has issued two reports in 2016, so i made an article with two more reports. Then why you revert it. And you said 2017, but it will be more and more reports don't you know (if he won't cyberbully on internet). But maybe you try reverting it?TrenSpark (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I undid for 2 reasons. 1) No sources were given, which makes it hard to verify reliably. 2) Your writeup mentioned a 2017 event, written in past tense, when it is still 2016 - see WP:Future_event for the policy. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Zhanzhao. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Requesting review

I'm wondering if you are interesting in reviewing the article on Kingdom of Singapura as you have contributed to articles on Singapore before, and I'm inviting reviews for the article - Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Singapura/archive1. The reason is mainly because I believe it needs to be overhauled, but it may not be easy because of the extensive amount that's written already, therefore I would like suggestions (or even edits) that can improve it. The main problem is the uncertainty in the history and what appears to be skewing of the narrative (some points raised in Talk:Kingdom of Singapura). Historians believe that many of the kings may be mythical, but the article is written in a way that is skewed towards the view that they are real. Suggestions (or edits if you are so inclined) would be welcome. Hzh (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Singapore independence DRN

Hello, I have opened a DRN case regarding a Singapore discussion you participated in. If you wish, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty. Best, CMD (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(Remove unrecognized designation) The Honourable

There is an unknown user who has been going around adding this unofficial prefix/puffery despite of removal many times. with mobile edit no user account. I have noticed that you have removed the vandalism many times in the past too. Not sure if there is any way to stop the user, I've had removed 30+ of this type of edit recently.

UPDATE: this previously anonymous user has setup an account on 18 March 2017 and revered the unrecognized designation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Yeo&diff=prev&oldid=770937950

Borderline doxxing?

I appreciate that you're trying to investigate my history if I'm a potential wikipedia vandal/shill so you can monitor me, so I'm here to tell you that I'm not. Regarding the recent edits to the 13th members of Parliament and other pages that I have edited that fall within your "jurisdiction", I have no relations or interests in any of those persons involved. My motivation is simply in making minor superficial edits in my spare time. In response to your previous question, yes. I am from Singapore, if you are wondering. I post from either accounts from time to time. Unlike some editors, I don't post behind the anonymity of IP addresses. So I will actually appreciate that you try and focus on the edits and less on trying to ascertain my identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodennature (talk • contribs) 04:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. However, maintaining 2 different accounts for what amounts to the same purpose is very peculiar, and inconvenient - i.e. if there is a need to get your attention and people happen to ping to the account you are logged out off, as well as not knowing if we are addressing one or 2 separate editors, especially in discussions where directing a question or answer to specific editors is very important. In any case, please just explain your rationale at the SPI page so that the clerk can note this and advise you on the proper procedures for multiple account usage. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

And doxxing is the wrong term to use in this case. Editor histories are open to even non-registered accounts, and your identity is not being compromised. Unless your real name is Woodeennature or Woodysee - in which case you are the one who outed yourself, actually...... 14:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Borderline doxxing. Anyway, call it whatever you want, that's your prerogative. I'm just here just to signal my displeasure at your overreaction, from my point of view. Woodennature (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Amos Yee shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, my recent edit was actually in reply to your edit summary that Mythcon 2017 was not mentioned in any decent refs, hence the removal akin to a citarion needed rationale. The Independent has been used repeatedly thoughout the article, so I thought that was a qualified source, plus I was actually using a more updated report (my last addition was from a report on 15 Nov, while the previous ones were from 12 Nov. Just trying to understand where I went wrong here. If look at my edits the past few days on other articles, you will notice that most of the time I had been addressing citation needed, so I thought this is a similar issue? Please advice. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Saw your reply in the article talk page. Thanks for the clarifications. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Your repeated damage to the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge article

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You have repeatedly damaged this article, restoring inaccurate content, restoring spelling errors, damaging citation format, deleting important and well-sourced content, restoring poor grammar, and mischaracterizing the edits you've made with abbreviated, misleading edit titles. The damage you've caused has been repaired by me, by a bot (in the case of the citation damage), and by the very competent veteran editor NorthBySouthBaranof, but you have persisted in restoring your inappropriate edits, even though you've known you've caused a format problem that you weren't able to resolve by yourself. You've even requested that other editors not undo the damage you've caused. I have very little time to spare, but because of the repairs made by the bot and by NorthBySouthBaranof, a simple "undo" can't fix the problems you've caused and I've spent considerable time trying to remedy the difficulties. This is a very complex article, but your edits even restored the wrong name of the victim of the shrapnel at the roadblock shooting. I'm not disputing that you're doing this in "good faith," but I would hope that you would leave it alone in the future. I've taken great care with my edits, and have read dozens and dozens of stories from reliable stories concerning the incidents in the article, even finding mistakes in stories written by good reporters and notifying them of their errors, for which they've thanked me. I would rather not have to notify an administrator to block you from editing the article, but please don't bring it to that. Thank you. Activist (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

My dear @Activist:, as I specifically pointed out, my only purpose was to fix the formatting problem you introduced in your prior edit. It was even specifically mentioned in my edit summaries, and explicitly mentioned I did not know enough about formatting to fix it (as I had not used those tags/syntax before).

Screencap of effor

• Previous edit seems to have broken some formatting which I could not diagnose. Please fix formatting issue before just simply reverting, thanks!
• Hope this is clearer about the broken formating: https://ezgif.com/optijpeg/ezgif-1-2fd348412d.jpg

The old screencap hyperlink to the broken formatting seems to have "died", so I uploaded another screencap from your old edit again for easy reference.

In any case, @NorthBySouthBaranof: eventually fixed the mistake that was introduced by you, with this edit, after first reverting to your initial broken version. I even thanked him in-system for fixing it, notification of which he should received shortly after I noticed him fixing the formatting error.

In future, please make sure your edits do not break any formatting, and chill, yeah? It only takes a second. On my part, I'm always learning more about the formatting/syntax as I use Wikipedia more. If you had notified an administrator on this, when you were the one who made the mistake first (with clear edit history on top of my screenshot, to boot), you would have just embarrassed yourself. We're here to collaborate, not feud ;) Zhanzhao (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: The text, as of 8/14, before your deletions, read:

[[File:FinicumShootingFBI.webm|thumb|FBI surveillance footage shows Robert LaVoy Finicum's truck being pursued by police vehicles on U.S. Route 395. In this one-minute excerpt, Finicum encounters a police roadblock and drives into a roadside snowbank. Non-lethal weaponry, rubber bullets and flash bang grenades, were employed at the second roadblock. Ryan Payne is hit in the hand by a 40 mm sponge bullet through the open front passenger window as he hesitated, contemplating surrender. A bullet penetrates the roof of the truck, with shrapnel wounding Ryan Bundy in the shoulder. Finicum then quickly exits his vehicle walks away from his truck, and an OSP officer pointing a Taser approaches from uphill to the left of Finicum, while OSP SWAT officers and FBI HRT agents with rifles position themselves to his left. Finicum repeated raises and lowers his hands moving his hands from over his head to toward the inside of his jacket, then turns around slightly to the right to face the driver's side of his vehicle from which he had walked. He is then shot three times in the back by two OSP officers. (One-minute excerpt from 26-minute FBI aerial footage.):

The text, after your deletions of 8/19, read::

[[File:FinicumShootingFBI.webm|thumb|FBI surveillance footage shows Robert LaVoy Finicum's truck being pursued by police vehicles on U.S. Route 395. In this one-minute excerpt, Finicum encounters a police roadblock and drives into a roadside snowbank. Finicum immediately walks away from his truck, and an OSP officer with a Taser approaches from his right, while OSP officers and FBI agents with rifles position themselves to his left. Finicum moves his hands from over his head to grab his jacket, then turns around to the left to face the way he had walked from. He is then shot three times in the back by two OSP officers. (One-minute excerpt from 26-minute FBI aerial footage.)]]:

Surely you can see the difference. Activist (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

And as I am saying YET again, the only thing I did was revert to a previous unbroken version. Surely you can see how your edit broke the formatting CLEARLY from the screenshot I just appended above.

Like I said, chill. We're here to collaborate. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

On your work against ColourWolf

I want to thank you for your work in battling that pesky vandal in recent years. I entered semi-retirement at Wikipedia for a few years but I have decided to return. It's rather sad that this man (who probably has no life) is still doing the same thing, 10 years after he started. I have begun a comprehensive analysis of his edits. Please contact me in private on what I have discovered. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 06:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi There, Sorry I took so long to reply, have been busy in reallife. Wikipedia-ing it a bit low on my priority list at the moment due to more pressing issues. But I appreciate seeing fellow editors keeping vandals at bay! You'll have noticed that even when we were less active, other editors and admins have been keeping an eye on things and reverting the vandal's edits. No one likes vandalism :) Zhanzhao (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you my brother synopsis

Looks like you got yours from Toggle, while I got mine from MediaCorp's program page, and translated it into English from Chinese. I wonder which one of ours is the right one? They kinda differed in content.

Actually both are official. Toggle is the streaming division under Mediacorp to re-broadcast their shows online, if you look at the bottom of the link I provided, you can see that it's owned by Mediacorp. Official Mediacorp press release about Toggle here [[3]]. I guess the difference in writeup is cos one is a general synopsis/teaser while the other is more detailed.

But on a sidenote, we probably need a wikipedia article on Toggle, or mention Toggle more prominently on Mediacorp's article.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I am fully aware of Toggle's relationship to MediaCorp, as I use the service myself (via VPN, that is). I watched the three seasons of Mata Mata on Toggle :). You're right about Toggle. We need an article on it. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

People's Action Party

Thanks for weighing in on the problem there. For me (and in line with AGF, SegataSanshiro1), the issue is not one of pro-PAP, anti-PAP, pro-Singaporean, anti-Singaporean, etc. (heck, I'm not even Singaporean). Segata and I merely wanted to make sure the article is fair, and that it presents the PAP fairly. We can't deny the PAP did a lot of good for Singapore, but it has also done things that, at least to some, are controversial. Segata and I merely wanted to ensure the controversial stuff is presented fairly, without interference from others (PAP/SG Gov't agents or not). Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries, just reminding everyone to keep a cool head. I seriously suspect that there are people on both sides that are just throwing controversial/troll edits that cause one side to retaliate and start an edit war, then egging everyone on just so they can pull out the popcorn for some free entertainment while the other editors try to fix whatever mess they started. These days 90% of my activities are just correcting errors rather than adding/improving content :P Zhanzhao (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Zhanzhao. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (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) 02:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Zhanzhao. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:La goutte de pluie

Hello Zhanzhao. I notice that you have been editing WP lately, specially Singapore-related articles. And I wanted to ask you if you think there is a chance that La goutte de pluie may have returned in another avatar and resumed editing Singapore and Singapore politics-related articles again in the same manner, using unreliable sources and misrepresenting other sources, over the past couple of years? Yours, — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm more of an on-and-off editor these days, more focused on correcting vandalism when I do log in and haven't really been paying attention to the editing behaviours of editors, so can't help there. For all we know, even if it is her, she would have learned from her mistakes (not necessarily in the good way) and learnt how to mask her behaviour better. But even if she is back, the same rules would apply to every editor whether it is her or someone else, especially with the usage of unreliable source and misrepresentation: Throw the (wiki rule) book at them. If I recall correctly from her given profile, she was apparently studying overseas, so she is most likely traveling about, which makes checking her IP pointless as well. We can only keep vigilant ourselves for off behaviour. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response, Zhanzhao. I think it's a big problem if a banned user returns without acknowledging their previous conduct which got them banned in the first place, and then continuing to game the system with their crusade of defamation by either misrepresenting sources or using unreliable ones. As you probably already know, the Singapore government is preparing for the passage of a legislation to curtail "deliberate online falsehoods", and this means Wikipedia could also find itself in their crosshairs especially if we allow such editors with malafide intentions run amok. In any case, you might probably already have an idea whom I am referring to. I hope that if you see any problematic user conduct, or similarity in their pattern of editing, you will take note and not hesitate to bring it up on the administrators' noticeboard. I will probably start gathering some evidence in the coming weeks as well. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

July 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Calvin Cheng. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not a one-way street. It would be fair to post the warning to the other party involved in constantly reverting my changes as well. Just saying.

Zhanzhao (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You were trying to add unsourced (or poorly sourced) and irrelevant information to a biography of a living person, and Anachronist was reverting those edits due to the requirements of the policy:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

If you continue on your current course, You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)