User talk:Aleain/Archives

WP:POINT

Rather than disrupt the project to make a point (yes I have read Talk:Singapore#Starting_from_1959 and the above discussions), I suggest you read WP:POINT. May I also suggest you refrain from edit warring (on multiple articles from what I can see). M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Singapore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Progressive. 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) 09:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Singapore. Your edit on the CMIO classification has been rejected by a number of editors on the page. Having failed to change WP:STATUSQUO, you should engage in a talk page discussion with other editors instead of continuing to push your edits onto the page. Your conduct constitutes WP:EDITWAR, which may result in a block. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, unless you also disagree with my edits, my edit was not "rejected by a number of editors" but rather simply one editor, that is Gandalfett. My edit stood for a few days before it was reverted by them, and hence there was ample time for it to be reverted by someone other than Gandalfett if it was indeed "rejected by number of editors". In addition, said user is not using the edit summary at all as to *why* they are reverting me per WP:FIES, which leads me to think as to why you are not slapping warning templates on their talkpage as well. Speaking of which, you threatening me potentially being blocked from editing and bad-faith assuming I'm trying to disrupt Wikipedia is excessively hostile considering I simply made one revert and I was actually using the edit summary. MordukhovichAleakin (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Draft:Alexis Dang, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further notes: there is a guideline on politicians, WP:NPOL, that election candidates who have not being elected does not qualify for an article yet. As the coverage of is as a result of her participation of the general election, I also do not think that the she would qualify for one per WP:BLP1E. This of course may change when the results of the polls are released and if her teams wins the GRC. You may move back the article in that case. – robertsky (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lim Yew Hock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Marshall.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Greetings from Sculture65, as I also had the interest on helping out onto political articles, adding more noteworthy points and so was you as well in the past early years of Singapore election articles. I hope that you can keep up the good work, and so am I also doing the same (in the case, adding graphs and contested vote share for proper clarity). Again, thanks for the collaboration. 05:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC) Sculture65 (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you as well. I deeply value the importance of preserving the early political history of Singapore for future generations. It’s reassuring to know that I’m not alone in this effort, and I appreciate your dedication to the same cause. MordukhovichAleakin (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore-based cybersecurity company

Hi Aleain, I am hoping that you have a minute for my edit request for Group-IB, a Singapore-based cybersecurity company. The request is here: Talk:Group-IB#Updating and expanding History section. Group-IB signed an MOU in 2024 to protect Malaysia's cyber resilience and based on your work on both Singapore and Malaysia-related pages, I thought you might consider reviewing this request. Thank you DL02042024 (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Why did you revert the edit? On indians in Singapore. It's a verifiable and trustable source. All Indians national in a territory should be listed, as it is on all pages here on wiki. What was the reason for revert? 203.253.93.249 (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the figure refers specifically to Indian Singaporeans, and we are using the official Singapore government data from the actual census, rather than an Indian source that provided an estimate based on Singapore's figures. Aleain (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Singapore are indians no matter of they have citizenship or not. They are considered of indian ethnicity by the Indian govenrment and Singapore government. My reference is correct 203.253.93.249 (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's about everything ethnicity and diaspora. Otherwise we would have to change all other numbers on wiki. On wiki it always refer to total number of a certain immigrant population, no matter if they have citizenship or not. 203.253.93.249 (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of an Indian Singaporean is not the same as that of an Indian living in Singapore. Singapore classifies someone as Indian based on their identity card or the ethnicity of their father. Foreign workers or immigrants of Indian descent residing in Singapore are not included in the official count of "Indian Singaporeans" and are recorded separately. Aleain (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Singapore government definition of citizens. This page is about people of indian origin living in Singapore. Therefore should include both. Indian government is reliable source and I think they know how many of indian origin and how many citizens love there otherwise you should make a new page that include all people of indian priding living in Singapore but it seems unnecessary. 203.253.93.249 (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates

take a look at this

Almost kone of the immigrants are residents but wiki still presens them by nationality. It's only the Singaporan pages that don't. 203.253.93.249 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

same if you look up indian american and south asian American pages on wiki. There is no distinction made on wiki regarding if they're citizens or not but presented together. It doesn't matter if the USA government separate them, wiki and demographers present the numbers together because it is correct 203.253.93.249 (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the Singapore definition, and since the article concerns Singapore, it should follow Singapore's definitions rather than India's. Your figure is more appropriate for Indian diaspora. It does not define "Indian Singaporean" which is a distinct term used in Singapore in the same way that Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) are not used by foreign governments. Aleain (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.lawglobalhub.com/article-38-45-singapore-constitution-1963/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

""any person of Indian origin who considers himself or herself to be a member of the Indian community and who is generally accepted as a member of the Indian community by that community",

This is what the Singapore constitution says. So it's not correct what you're saying you're referring to citizenship. Even Singapore doesn't claim that non resident indians are not indians, the opposite. 203.253.93.249 (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the constition of singapore wrong? 203.253.93.249 (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of this constitution contradicts my statement? Aleain (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dymon Asia

Hey, wanted to get in touch re: the recent changes on the Dymon Asia page. Left a message for Imcdc too. I'm currently at the firm and chanced on the article, and made the edits for clarity and to update a number of factual inaccuracies, for example the firm no longer has an office in London, the Macro Fund no longer exists (and so should not be called the flagship), and neither does the Jadea Segregated Portfolio. Let me know what's the best way to propose updates without it being flagged for COI? Thanks a lot. ChinWLee (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article's talk page to discuss the edits you wish to make, and preferably allow a third-party editor to review the proposed changes before implementing them. Aleain (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]