Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 23 February 2016

Lemongirl942, you are invited to the Teahouse!

December 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Calvin Cheng. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Mdann52 (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Mdann52: Just to let you know that I reverted these 2 edits , since a lot of reliably cited content (which was added after a discussion on the talk page) was removed. And after each of these 2 edits I posted on the talk page and after the second revert I did not revert any further. If you look at the history of the article , there seems to have been a chain of such removal of content within the last few hours, in particular reliably cited content ,,, , . There has also been a violation of 3RR rule by one user who removed a large chunk of content (see the last 3 links) and has previously been warned about edit warring on the same article. I'm not sure how to deal with this. Should I seek dispute resolution?  --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be a good step. For reference, I am not assuming any bad faith here, I just delivered this notice to everyone involved in the dispute. Mdann52 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

February 2016

Hi 'Lemongirl942" Being a Singaporean you need to take care of yourself when editing because the ISD has been known to trace IPS to real life people. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.100.132.155 (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, what do you mean by IPS and ISD?  Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Internal security department. IP addresses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.100.132.155 (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Do you want me to add the statement/quotation to any article? Please mention any suggested edits on the talk page of the article and cite your sources. The statement you wrote does not have any citations.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I see you you are editing the pages of Singapore political people. Please google Internal Security Department and detentions. They can trace you. You seem very young. Do your parents know what you are doing? Please be careful 14.100.132.155 (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I still do not understand the purpose behind tracing me. Just to let you know, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project which can be edited by anyone. Even you! Even if you are not an adult.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Now I am sure you are very young. In Singapore it is dangerous to offend people aligned to the ruling party in Singapore especially political figures. Don't get yourself and your family into trouble . Please talk to your parents. It is not worth wikipedia. 14.100.132.155 (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but who have I supposedly offended and how? And why is it dangerous to edit Misplaced Pages? Misplaced Pages is a knowledge base which relies on volunteers.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't wanna name names because I don't wanna be traced either. Just be careful editing the pages of real life politicians in Singapore. People are watching. You can continue to edit Miss Universe etc but just ask your parents before you go playing with the pages of Singapore politicians pages 14.100.132.155 (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well if you cannot name even a single person I am supposedly offending, I have to conclude that I am offending none. In addition, Misplaced Pages is transparent and open to scrutiny.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

How many politicians pages are you editing???? This is not about Misplaced Pages. This is about your real life Anyway I am not your parent. If you don't take my concern it is ok. Good day 14.100.132.155 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, enough. Go away. You are also traceable by all means. These messages are beyond weird and bordering to WP:NPA and WP:COI. You are nobody's parent, so I suggest you stop this now and walk away. This is highly unnecessary. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(removed misuse of template)2406:3003:3049:2:60C:CEFF:FEDB:9328 (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please provide evidence of the vandalism I have done. The content I removed was not about Cheng. It was about Lumina-Looque. You can place that content in a new article about Lumina Looque if you wish, but it does not belong to an article about Cheng. In addition, the content violated a guideline which I mentioned in the edit. Thank You.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(removed misuse of template) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobotRat (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@RobotRat:Hi, before accusing me of disruptive editing, please give diffs and tell me how it is disruptive. I would take this opportunity to let you know about your latest edits. Your edit reinserts a statement which is an example of WP:SYNTH and possibly violates WP:NOR. In addition, you did another edit which you summarized as an "old better version" inserts a new section with the line "Please log on to http://www.nafa.edu.sg/admissions/admission-information". I fail to understand how is this an old better version since the content just pastes a link. I had removed it according to WP:LINKFARM. I would take this opportunity to request you to please undo your edits. If you feel you have a strong reason why your edits are correct, please post them here along with the evidence that it is not violating the policies/guidelines I mentioned. Thank You.  Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the link, you should be replacing it with the entry requirements from the link. The sentence you deleted from NMP follows from the previous sentence and it is sourced RobotRat (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@RobotRat:"you should be replacing it with the entry requirements from the link" Alright, so basically according to you, I should have deleted the link and then inserted the entry requirements from that link. OK, so what I did was that I deleted the link according to WP:LINKFARM. Now the next logical step would have been to insert the material from the link. You could have inserted the material too right? Instead of reverting and bringing back the link and violating WP:LINKFARM?  Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You deleted it so it is your responsibility to replace it with the material the link points towards. Not mine. RobotRat (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@RobotRat: When you restored the material, it was an instance of WP:LINKFARM. In addition, if you did not notice, I had cleaned an orphan reference. You brought it back for no reason and increased clutter in the article. Please review your own edits before accusing others of "vandalism" or "trolling".  Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Note

You may want to have a look at WP:SPI in case you have anything, like some evidence, to add where it matters. Feel free to delete my message once you've read it. LjL (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will keep monitoring the page for any suspected activity. Just in case I do find some evidence of any renewed sock activity, should I post it on the current ANI report or report it directly at WP:SPI? (Asking this, since I want to avoid making multiple reports).  Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

SPI will be better, because people with an actual ability to verify if sockpuppetry is taking place are more likely to monitor that place. LjL (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

What she needs now is protection in real life from the Singapore secret police, not from foreign anonymous Misplaced Pages editors. Let me know if I can help. She must be protected.