Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:26, 21 April 2005

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Hello Nat

Hello, fellow HG´er! Greetings Doidimais Brasil 18:03, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC).

Hi.

Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians/Singapore

I think you may be interested in knowing about the above-mentioned page, if you haven't done so yet. :) - Mailer Diablo 16:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I assume I'm free to add my name in, correct? :) -- Natalinasmpf 20:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:SGpedians' notice board

Our very own notice board is up! Do try to look through and contribute. ;)--Huaiwei 08:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Military History of the Soviet Union

I fail to see how Somalia shows American crimes against humanity. In fact, Somalia was an instance in which America tried to end crimes against humanity. GreatGatsby

My percetion was that the US military was responsible for much of the collateral damage done to civilians, when this could have been avoided, and furthermore, instead of staying neutral and disinterested from the entanglement, while intervening, they got themselves more factionalised and entangled, and biased, instead. -- Natalinasmpf 23:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How would the Americans kill civilians? They were under attack from the start of the engagement. And there were very few true civilians in the Mogadishu disaster, most were armed and attacking the strike force. America was already against the warlords in Somalia, it was just a matter of acting or not. There was no increased biased or factionalization. America wanted to wrong a right and got a handful of dead soldiers for their troubles. GreatGatsby

It's over

Hello, Natalina. Just wanted to let you know your minion has been dealt with.

Have a nice day. =] --Kaonashi 01:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was it? :{ Doesn't appear so. -- Natalinasmpf 01:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. I was hasty. Didn't think he'd come back again and again.

But it'll be sorted out in a way or another.--Kaonashi 01:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the pages for now... Fire Star 01:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History of Malaysia

Your sentence on Singapore's departure from Malaysia is very badly phrased, and also rather tendentious. Since you are a 14yo Singapore Communist (I hope your government doesn't read your User page), I guess that is not surprising. I will do some research on what actually happened and rewrite that paragraph later. Adam 03:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it? I'm only trying to be NPOV. To standardise the information, and not to clutter up the pages, I've written the bulk of the info in PAP-UMNO relations - it is kind of crude at the moment, I will admit, but that's only because I am afraid to go into too much detail since the issue is being disputed. The event is often termed as an expulsion and against our will in our textbooks. But of course, our textbooks aren't 100% politically reliable for obvious reasons concerning authoritarianism. My general impression is that it wasn't Singapore's choice to leave Malaysia - it was the Federal Government's decision, hence an expulsion. However, since you dispute this, I've noted this as a "ceasing of Federal ties" - meaning that the Federal Government, excluded Singapore because they could, and no longer treated it as a state after two years of ideological conflict. -- Natalinasmpf 03:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gay rights in Singapore

I appreciate your comments about being NPOV in the short section about the situation of gay rights in Singapore. Can you be specific about what information I included that you believe to be untrue? Here is what I object to in the current edit:

1. "generally ostracized" is not the same as "illegal" which should be stated in the article, given the life imprisonment penalty in the penal code for gay sexual relations. The article currently makes Singapore sound somewhat tolerant. I suggest being more truthful about the actual situation.

2. The fact that the government is willing to tolerate some gays in positions in the government is unnecessary information, given that the same government strictly maintains illegality.

3. The paragraph is clearly about homosexuals, not anyone else with an alternative lifestyle. Let's just say "gay" since that's obviously the topic. I am not sure who else we would be referring to.

4. The prevention of gay rights groups from forming in Singapore by the Societies Act limits internal public debate. I object to the current sentence in the article that refers to "much debate" both inside and outside of Singapore. In Singapore, debate is not condoned on this issue, and ST articles always toe the government line.

If you think my edit was unnecessarily long, then cutting it shorter is ok, but I prefer to make sure the article conveys the fact that gays/lesbians do suffer legal discriminition and have been imprisoned/caned for what in many other countries is perfectly normal behavior. It is a vital piece of information about the ways these people (gays/lesbians) are viewed that should be helpful to foreigners learning about the country. Please let me know your thoughts

Xa Qua

Xaqua 01:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice the page had been censored a few edits before I came in. I should have noticed. I re-added the detail...I have added prosecution and conviction, I believe this is a sufficient phrase. Detail should go into Culture of Singapore, feel free to add as much detail as you like to the sub-pages, because the Singapore article is really about Singapore at a glance, and hence most of the detail should be located in another article. (That is the whole purpose of being a wiki).

2. Yes, I have deleted that irrelevant piece of information. Prosecuted a large portion could easily make that info redundant, so I removed it as you wished.

3. "Gay" is sort of a colloquial term, so I prefer to use the scientific term. Well lets make it standard as it will fit better, just like we use centimetres in science as opposed to inches.

4. Info was re-added back in.

Suppression of debate and groups is not only suffered by homosexuals / or only because Singapore is conservative. Being a political radical and a pro-democracy advocate myself, I am also worried about the extent of political suppression. I did not realise some of the detail had been removed earlier (I thought I was restoring the version of that section I saw yesterday, yikes). I shall concede most of your additions are justified, just that a lot of information is really irrelevant for the main page (as in, just as adding nasi lemak and every other dish in the world to make the food article 5 MB long isn't really needed, hence kept in separate articles)....and the gay rights group should be placed in a separate article about the situation of gay rights in Singapore, not in the main country articles, (Culture of Singapore doesn't suit this case because that is also still a broad article)....

I encourage this practice of division of such detail, case in point: PAP-UMNO relations which I made a separate article rather than putting all the detail in the History of Singapore and History of Malaysia pages as it would be took awkard for organisation, not needed, lack of flow. Also it ensured some sense of uniformity because it would be redundant to repeat the detail in two articles and would have better flow if it was a separate article other articles could link too. Hence this should be applied to your situation too (and maybe for situations with Singapore's neighbours), or even be a subdivision of articles concerning (or in the category) political suppression in Singapore. -- Natalinasmpf 02:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'm happy with the version after you changed it again.

-- Xaqua 16:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for me butting in, but with regards to the above issue, a page called Homosexuality in Singapore might be the best solution, instead of trying to lump too much detail into general pages. In addition, I have also nominated this page Singapore gay movement POV problems, as well as possibly being a case of copryright infringement.--Huaiwei 16:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, the page Singapore gay movement needs work. I didn't actually know such a page existed until now. I'd volunteer to help but unfortunately I don't know much about the history of gay rights in Singapore. I do not think the few lines pertaining to gay rights should be eliminated from the main Singapore page though, because they fit in well with other issues under culture which include how different groups are treated and looked at within Singapore - different religions, ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations. Moreover, Singapore's distinction of being the only developed country in the world to allow legal prosecution of gays and lesbians (and at the same time prevent rights movements) is quite unique and deserves mention.

-- Xaqua 22:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the Singapore gay movement article into Homosexuality in Singapore, with a redirect for the former title. I feel it is more appropriate, until the movement becomes quite major. I don't think it is a movement just yet, come on, Singapore doesn't even have a democracy movement either, despite the fact that around 5-15% of the population votes for the SDP. -- Natalinasmpf 23:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to my comment in that talk page. I do not feel the move is a good idea.--Huaiwei 23:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page cleanup

I would just like to inform you, that while no one can stop you from deleting your talk page, it can also be used to charge against you for deleting evidence when the need arises, which will be greatly against your favour should anyone decide to take action. I would strongly advise you to restore those comments for your own sake.--Huaiwei 23:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't do that. That just encourages him. Dysprosia

missing bracket

re the missing bracket. I didn't. There is a technical flaw on wikipedia in recent days that is removing brackets from many users. There is nothing that users are doing to cause it. It has been raised on the technical pages. They thought they had fixed it. Obviously not fully. Thanks for telling me. Unfortunately there is however nothing I can do about it. When I leave a msg it is OK; my name has the correct commands and brackets in place. Somehow later things change. Hopefully the technical guys can fix it soon. FearÉIREANN 22:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)