Talk:Singapore passport/Archive 1

message: Look at this, see!  you people are very sensitive and over-reacted to protect your respect.  What a pity!  Singaporean is simply an Orphan of Malaysia, Slave of Britain, and the Lackey of the United States.  That is why Singaporean passport can get into other western countries without visa.  You see, you have to pay the heavy price for this.  However, I don't think it is worthy. (sigh)  God Bless you! 70.52.74.204 20:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: stub doesn't mean that this poor article is "immune" to be deleted. 70.52.75.25 19:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to delete it, then AfD it. Don't prod it. If you want it done, get it done right. --Rifleman 82 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is NOT MY responsbility to get it done right, as you said.  Watch your potty mouth! 70.52.75.25 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I am not going to revert for a short while, but I will come back later and revert it. 70.52.75.25 20:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am having difficulty figuring out if you have an issue with the article, the use Rifleman 82, or both. If the current state of the article is indeed the "poorest topic you have never seen before", mind tell us why so, for we are here to improve on articles, not delete them at your whimp and fancy? Meanwhile, my heartfelt congratulations to all other articles who somehow arent as "poor" as this one.--Huaiwei 07:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't give it up!  but I will come back a bit later and do sth at my whimp and fancy that you may object.  well, do you think it is a good article?  even a 3-year old kid can figure out.  There is no owner here and every body can come here and edit it. 70.52.66.43 08:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your above comments makes little sense to me, and I do wonder if it answers any of my queries above. Sure, no one owns articles in wikipedia. No one owes anyone else a living by deleting articles at their whimps and fancy too thou.--Huaiwei 09:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you are better off promoting your passport acquisiton business outside wikipedia. Thanks! ;)--Huaiwei 09:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcrop passport

message: I am here due to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Here's how the process works:
# If the article qualifies for speedy deletion according to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, then the first step is to tag the article for speedy deletion. However, this article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, so that isn't an option.  And it shouldn't be tagged for speedy delete once it's been tagged by a prod (see next item).
# If a deletion prod is removed, the person removing it should explain why, and how the article is planned to be improved. Stub articles need improvement, not necessarily deletion.
# Once a deletion prod is removed, it must not be put back. The only avenue for deleting an article is to propose it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD). The consensus from the AfD discussion is binding.
# Do not replace the prod. It would be considered vandalism at this point. Instead, assume good faith that the editor who removed it intends to improve the article. -Amatulic 20:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: There seems to be a dispute about a deletion tag in this article.   is only supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions.  Anyone can remove it if they disagree that the article needs to be deleted.  If it's removed and you still think it should be deleted, then there is a different tag that you can use, .  That process is a bit complicated, so be sure to ask if you need help listing it.  I'd be willing to help you list it properly (whatever my thoughts as to whether the article should stay or go).  ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: I liked this article better when it consisted of prose. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Bulleted lists. Please don't use bullet lists if they aren't necessary.  And they aren't necessary here. -Amatulic 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring back the prose 

message: Copied verbatim from User_talk:Rifleman_82, except for demoting section headers to subsection headers
BEGIN QUOTE
===let's us co-operate===
I think that it is much better for us to co-operate rather than fight each other.  I wish you could delete this topic of Singapore passport soonest.  I just BEG FOR YOU!  It is no good to put every Singaporean stuff on Wiki and do hard sell. 70.52.75.25 20:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You see!  it is quite easy to put the topic here but it is extremely difficult to take it out.  People can simply come up here and check the information about Singaporean immigration policy rather than asking Singaporean consultants (i.e. immigration companies overseas).  Eventually these people lost a lot of business.  Right now, how can you solve this problem, huh?  I dunno, probably we couldn't do anything.  70.52.75.25 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Whether it's blockable behaviour or not is different really from whether we should. If the storm has blown over it's a bit pointless to continue to batten down the hatches, if you see what I mean. I think we should just adopt a wait and see approach for this one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: from the above statement, there is one more concrete evidence to show the world this person or admin. has clean words but very dirty mind, isn't it? 70.52.66.43 04:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: my dearest Rifleman, you do have vengeful mind and would like to block me.  I didn't do anything wrong.  Why do you hate me that much?  I personally think that it is no good to put everything about Singapore on wiki.  Actually I don't know why do you want to do that. 70.52.66.43 03:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Getting some collateral damage at Singapore for those who have an interest. --Rifleman 82 11:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wow!  what I did in the topic of Singapore is basically from my good heart to protect the layout.  Somebody put too many photos over there.  How dare you say this is my collateral damage.  God "bless" you! 70.52.74.204 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A galient attempt indeed to "protect" that page, but seeems like few would appreciate your effort. I dont either, for I love photos! :D--Huaiwei 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, why not create a topic and try to put all Singaporean photos together?  maybe there is already one somewhere I dunno.  Anyway!  I wish you could stop doing hard sell.  Singapore is even worse than Macao.  Nobody cares, have you no shame? 70.52.74.204 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is indeed such a page. Horrified? :D If photos are about hard sell, why arent you targetting all photos in wikipedia then?--Huaiwei 08:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For completeness

message: I think that it is much better for us to co-operate rather than fight each other.  I wish you could delete this topic of Singapore passport soonest.  I just BEG FOR YOU!  It is no good to put every Singaporean stuff on Wiki and do hard sell. 70.52.75.25 20:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You see!  it is quite easy to put the topic here but it is extremely difficult to take it out.  People can simply come up here and check the information about Singaporean immigration policy rather than asking Singaporean consultants (i.e. immigration companies overseas).  Eventually these people lost a lot of business.  Right now, how can you solve this problem, huh?  I dunno, probably we couldn't do anything.  70.52.75.25 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: let's us co-operate

message: It appears to have been resolved. I was asleep at the time you put this on my talk page, so didn't get there until it had blown over. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it's blockable behaviour or not is different really from whether we should. If the storm has blown over it's a bit pointless to continue to batten down the hatches, if you see what I mean. I think we should just adopt a wait and see approach for this one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: from the above statement, there is one more concrete evidence to show the world this person or admin. has clean words but very dirty mind, isn't it? 70.52.66.43 04:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: my dearest Rifleman, you do have vengeful mind and would like to block me.  I didn't do anything wrong.  Why do you hate me that much?  I personally think that it is no good to put everything about Singapore on wiki.  Actually I don't know why do you want to do that. 70.52.66.43 03:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Getting some collateral damage at Singapore for those who have an interest. --Rifleman 82 11:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wow!  what I did in the topic of Singapore is basically from my good heart to protect the layout.  Somebody put too many photos over there.  How dare you say this is my collateral damage.  God "bless" you! 70.52.74.204 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A galient attempt indeed to "protect" that page, but seeems like few would appreciate your effort. I dont either, for I love photos! :D--Huaiwei 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, why not create a topic and try to put all Singaporean photos together?  maybe there is already one somewhere I dunno.  Anyway!  I wish you could stop doing hard sell.  Singapore is even worse than Macao.  Nobody cares, have you no shame? 70.52.74.204 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is indeed such a page. Horrified? :D If photos are about hard sell, why arent you targetting all photos in wikipedia then?--Huaiwei 08:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Singapore passport

message: I have never heard about it!  I don't think Singaporean passport holders can get into PRC without visas.  Plus that statement didn't have any reference and citation.70.52.74.204 00:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Details of Visa-free Access for Singapore Citizens Holding Ordinary Passports Traveling to China for a Short Stay. Singapore Citizens holding Ordinary passport holders traveling to China for the purposes of business, tourism, visiting relatives and friends, and transit for less than 15 days starting from the date of entry are exempted from visa, and can enter and exit from China’s ports open to foreigners. GSCC 10:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Singaporean passport holder needs visa

message: Problems or unanswered questions regarding the sentence: However, Singaporeans living outside Singapore can choose not to join, and are therefore barred from being a Singapore citizen and thus holding a Singapore passport.
* How does a Singaporean citizen live outside Singapore without a passport in the first place?
* Can such a person really "choose" not to join the military, if he is living outside Singapore with parents and cannot return?
* Does the Singapore government have any mechanism for a person to communicate this choice?
* Can he postpone the military service until later?
Somehow this sentence (for which no source is cited) doesn't make sense. -Amatulic 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing I wanna say!  God bless you Singaporean!70.52.72.22 00:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So be careful, you might be hanged, who knows?!  Singaporean laws is perverted, don't you think so?!  I rececommend you that you should give up your passport, renounce your Singaporean nationality right away and move somewhere else.  Macau is the best.  It is an outcrop like Singapore!  God BLESS you! 70.52.75.32 19:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a real choice not to join the army. It's a choice to evade conscription. If you were subject to NS and you landed at Changi Airport, you'd be arrested on the spot. If you remain outside Singapore, you cannot be arrested. While you cannot be arrested, your existing passport will lapse, and the government (I believe) will refuse to issue a new one. Deferments can be applied for, and are discretionary. After many years of this system, the guidelines are quite strict. --Rifleman 82 05:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I myself am Singaporean, or was. I chose not to join the army, and so I was forced to apply for a British passport (where I was born). You can choose not to join if you are outside Singapore, but you will get arrested on landing at Changi. As for how people outside Singapore can get a Singapore passport, I think the rule is that if your father is Singaporean, then you automatically are allowed a S'pore passport, although it is not mandatory. And if you do not join NS, you cannot return to Singapore until 21, when you can denounce citizenship, whihc is what I have been told. And women are allowed to join NS, although unlike for men, it is not necessary. It's a stupid rule I think: you are forced to decide at twelve what you want to do at 18 - it's ridiculous.Gammondog 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military service prerequisite

message: there is no evidence to support female citizens is not included. 70.52.75.32 22:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In MINDEF's notice for registration, enlistment for NS is mandatory only for male citizens and PRs. For example, see . --Vsion 05:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: there is no evidence