Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:56, 16 November 2006

Redundant info

Following is info which i deem redundant for the Misplaced Pages purpose, and which i have therefore removed:

Under Facilities section

Block A
Lecture Theatre 3 (200 Seats)
39 Tutorial Rooms
AV Projection Room
MEP Room
Music Library
Theatre Study Room

Block B
Lecture Theatre 4 (200 Seats)
Lecture Theatre 5 (200 Seats)
14 Tutorial Rooms

Block C
Lecture Theatre 1 (850 Seats)
Lecture Theatre 2 (350 Seats)
6 Tutorial Rooms
Amphitheatre

Block D
10 Seminar Rooms
8 Computer Laboratories
14 "Chat Rooms"

Block E
6 Physics Laboratories
6 Chemistry Laboratories
4 Biology Laboratories
Life Science Laboratory
Research Laboratory
Project Workroom
Students' Council Room
Bookshop

Block F
Parade Square
Canteen

Block G
Tennis Courts
Basketball Courts
Indoor Rifle Range

Block H
General Office
Deans/HODs Office
Staff Room
Media Resource Library

Block J
Performance Arts Centre (396 Seats)
Lecture Theatre 6 (200 Seats)
4 Seminar Rooms

Block K
Indoor Sports Hall
Dance Studio
Chamber Ensemble Room

Block L
Multi Purpose Hall
Health Fitness Studio
Chinese Orchestra Room
CCA Rooms
Spectators Gallery
Track and Field

Under Students' Council section

The 25th Students' Council was officially invested into office on 18 May 2005 with fifty-two elected individuals taking over the roles held by the 24th Students' Council. The councillors were elected into office by their peers after a vigorous week-long campaigning process involving speeches, posters, bio-data boards and display boards in the amphitheatre.

Executive Committee of 25th Students' Council
President: Zhang Junli
Vice-president: Amanda Zain
Secretary: Daryl Poon
Treasurer: He Kangya
Communications Department Head: Senthilkumaran S/o Sabapathy
Welfare Head: Junghans Tasani
CCA Department Head: Mohd Ilman

--Plastictv 04:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wee Shu-Min

I've just reverted an edit which added a "Criticisms" subsection devoted to the Wee Shu-Min incident. While the incident is notable, I'm not sure it merits an entire subsection devoted to it. On the other hand, I'm not sure where a sentence mentioning Shu-Min could be placed. She doesn't seem to fit under "Notable alumni", and there doesn't seem to be a precedent on the articles of other junior colleges that I can refer to. Does anyone have any ideas? -ryand 06:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What about a Controversies subsection? IMO, while a mention of this incident in this article add to the elitism hype, the issue pertains more to the person herself rather than the school. Therefore, just a minor mention in this article will do. —Sengkang 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, a Controversies subsection will have nothing in it but the Wee Shu-Min issue. I agree that the issue pertains more to the person rather than the school; also it should be noted that no other school article has information pertaining to the controversies surrounding their students. On the other hand, I don't have a better idea. -ryand 15:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I had solved your problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icecold1 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 13 November 2006.

No, you had not. Your edit was placed at the front of the article, in the middle of two paragraphs that dealt with the academic results of RJC. Not only was it out of place, it consisted a slightly-POV sentence largely taken wholesale from the Wee Siew Kim article. In addition, your latest edit also includes a sentence under the Affliation section that talks about Annabel Chong and her activities as a porn star, the former of which belongs (and is present) on the Raffles Girls' School article and the latter of which belongs (and is present) on Chong's article itself. I have reverted your edit, and I'd appreciate it if we discussed and came to a consensus about the issue on this page instead of getting into a revert war. -ryand 06:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Protofox. And, oh....look who's here to ignite sparks again. —Sengkang 12:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, whoever ignited the sparks will not be as bright as the one ignited by some elite students from some elite schools. By the way, the person that ignited the sparks are people that delete the contribution of others, which is against wikipedia guideline. Let me highlight some of those :

Do's

If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Dont's

Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof.

Therefore, by simply deleting and reverting others contribution just because one do not have a good idea where to place the writing is not a good reason. Since Ryan do not have any idea how to do it, then my idea will be the best, at least till this point in time.

Furthermore, Ryan does not has any proof what I had written is not true (I am willing to accept any challenge if what I wrote is false, however, I am confident that will not be the case since those thing I wrote is verifiable, again according to the guideline of wikipedia). In fact, I am just trying to present the whole truth to the readers.

Ryan wanted to "discuss and come to a consensus", but did he bother to discuss before he delete other's contribution? I always repect the view of others, and therefore I do not delete other's cotribution. icecold1 07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry. Didn't notice this discussion before I reverted that edit. I'm for a delete, though. IMO the reference to Shu-Min is hardly needed, least of all in the second paragraph of the article. If a section on "controversies" or something similar, with that could be fine. But I must reiterate that one misdemeanour (don't worry, more may come)should not warrant (well, whether it is warranted or not is not up to you to decide) a permanent reference to her on the RJC article. I think ryand has already talked about Annabel Chong, which has nothing to do with RJC except through its' affliation with RGS, and is, as stated, mentioned on the appropiate article - 13:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fiveless (talk • contribs) .

By putting the Annabel Chong segment (totally irrelavant information) up only here, and I wonder why not on the RGS page( it is already on the RGS page, if you care to go to RGS page and check it out under notable Alumnae, thanks to your fellow RJC student RyanD who argue very hard in the RGS talk page to get Annabel Chong's name inserted), you have already demonstrated that you are biased against the school in some way (therefore your accusation of me being bias does not stand). As for the Wee Shu Min incident, if you are trying to express any unhappiness about us "elites" ( I have nothing against RJC, but just trying to present the whole truth) in RJC, please do it somewhere else like on a blog or something, where you are totally entitled to do what you want, and of course fully responsible (for the same argument, if you really have to maintain the "perfect image" of RJC, then you can also put it up on your own blog where you are totally entitled to do what you want). So please... don't make life so diificult for everyone here (who is making who's life difficlt here?), maybe you will want to count (if you have such a great interest in counting, be my guest) the number of times we had to revert your edits on the history page.220.255.165.19 15:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not for a delete, as I have mentioned previously that I respect the contribution of others, and is in accordance to the wikipedia guideline. However, if you want to include a seperate section, please go ahead. As for Annabel Chong, she is from RGS, and it was mentioned in the article that RJC is affliated to RGS. This bring us to the relationship whereby A=B, B=C, and therefore C=A. If you think that Annabel has nothing to do with RJC, then do not state that RGS is affiliated to RJC. You cannot cherry pick the relationship. icecold1 15:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Icecold1, the reason why I reverted your edit had nothing to do with the truth of the statement. I reverted your edit because of two reasons:

• One, it was badly-formatted, was a blatant copy-and-paste off the Wee Siew Kim article, and it was placed in an inappropriate section of the article (whether it is appropriate or not is not up to you to decide). This could have been easily remedied (but instead you chose the easy way out by just deleting others contribution), if not for the second reason: well, as I've mentioned, if you do not have a better idea, than mine will be the best, at least for the time being, you cannot prevent others from contributing just because you do not know what to do. Furthermore, I copy and paste so as to maintain a NPOV, I did not even put in my own perspective!icecold1 01:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Two, I was unsure of notability. As you seem to have noticed, Misplaced Pages does have guidelines. To quote WP:NOT, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Specifically, "that something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages". In this case, while the issue is true and verifiable, the problem I'm concerned with is how much of the issue (and where it) should be placed in the article, if at all (this is a judgement call, which I presume you do not have an absolete authority in deciding, that is the reason why I do not delete others contribution because I think I am not in a position to make such decision.). That is why I asked you several times, both on your talk page as well as on the edit summaries, to please discuss the issue here before re-adding your edit (using the same argument, you should not delete my contribution till we come to a consensus).

Also, your argument about RGS and Annabel Chong makes no sense. Different articles exist on Misplaced Pages for a reason. Should we mention Annabel Chong on the Singapore article, seeing that Bishan is in Singapore, RJC is in Bishan, RGS is affliated to RJC, and Annabel Chong was from RGS? -ryand 18:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC) - Yes, if you want to, of course!

Apparently, you only asked after you deleted the contribution, but not before. icecold1 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just visited RGS page, and in the talk page, Ryan-D is the one that arguing very hard to include Annabel Chong in the RGS page, so speaking of bias POV, I wonder who is having a more bias POV. icecold1

First of all, NPOV does not stop at the wording of the article; but extends unto what information is included in the article. What you are doing is paramount to POV as your edit gives undue weight to the Wee Shu-min issue, as well as to the Annabel Chong issue.

Secondly, everything you say about me not having ultimate authority is right. However, if six other editors not including myself have also reverted your edit, then obviously there's something about your edit that needs fixing. You argue that I do not have absolute authority and should not revert your edit just because I think my stand is right; yet you are the one who refuses to accept any other stand but your own by repeatedly undoing any reverts. Misplaced Pages is based on consensus, and you claim to respect that consensus. In that case, please respect the current consensus that a) your edit should not stay on the article and b) that we should discuss the issue before any further edits are made.

As for your final point, that I felt Annabel Chong was notable enough to be included under the "Notable Alumni" section on the RGS article has nothing to do with your adding a large line of information on a porn star that was not only placed in the middle of the "Affiliation" section where it did not belong, but also in the article of a school that is only affiliated to Annabel Chong's secondary school.

I'm tired of this dispute, I'm going to bring this dispute to the mediation cabal. -ryand 10:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, NPOV does not stop at the wording of the article; but extends unto what information is included in the article. What you are doing is paramount to POV as your edit gives undue weight to the Wee Shu-min issue (undue weight? this is a POV statement as how much is undue weight? One sentence, two sentences?), as well as to the Annabel Chong issue.

Secondly, everything you say about me not having ultimate authority is right. However, if six other editors not including myself have also reverted your edit, then obviously there's something about your edit that needs fixing (I bet that these six editors are from RJC, furthermore, who knows, maybe you just log in using different user account. There are some who did not even log in, it is highly possible it is the same person editing using different computer). You argue that I do not have absolute authority and should not revert your edit just because I think my stand is right; yet you are the one who refuses to accept any other stand but your own by repeatedly undoing any reverts (that is because you guys keep deleteing my contribution, which is a very rude thing to do. I refrain myself from deleting what is currently in existing on the RJC page, which is a form of respect to those who have contributed to the page). Misplaced Pages is based on consensus, and you claim to respect that consensus (in no where in the talk page I said that I repect that consensus, I said that I respect the contribution of others by not deleting others contribution). In that case, please respect the current consensus (anyway, since I disagree, there is no consensus) that a) your edit should not stay on the article and b) that we should discuss the issue before any further edits are made (again, did you discuss first before you delete my contribution? No, you did not, you simply just revert the contribution without discussion).

As for your final point, that I felt Annabel Chong was notable enough to be included under the "Notable Alumni" section on the RGS article has nothing to do with your adding a large line of information on a porn star that was not only placed in the middle of the "Affiliation" section where it did not belong, but also in the article of a school that is only affiliated to Annabel Chong's secondary school.

I'm tired of this dispute, I'm going to bring this dispute to the (ha ha, just like a kid that lost the fight and ran to their parents for protection, I thought RJC's student are much stronger than that, but think about it, it is no surprise, just like WSH needs her father to apologise on her behalf)mediation cabal. -ryand 10:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick straw poll

Just to get an idea of what we all think we should do about the Wee Shu-min issue. Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place.

• Delete
  • ryand 18:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC) - or keep with the provision that the information be kept to one sentence or less.
  • Richardlu yy 08:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep
  • Ryancc 11:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Alpha12 14:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC) it seems that there are more than one WSM around

• • Echo9 01:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC) have been following this episode for awhile, and to me, it seems that ryand is trying to impose his view onto the world
  • icecold1 01:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)