Talk:Singapore City Council by-election, 1958

Corrections[edit]

The following lists my rational for rejection of some edits by Instantnood:

The Singapore City Council This edit is related to disagreements over the Singapore City article. Resolve the disagreements over this issue in the City Council of Singapore talkpage before attempting to spread it all over wikipedia.

byelection The wikipedia article is spelt By-election, so quit edit-warring over a trivial edit like this. If there is an issue over its spelling, go discuss this in the By-election talkpage.

Member of the City Council Is the same as City Councillor

the Kallang Constituency It is perfectly grammatical to write with or without the particle "the".

July 26 1958 Singapore follows the British convention of writting the dates before the month. If anyone has an issue with this convertion, please bring it up for wider discussion, and do not localise it in this talkpage.--Huaiwei 13:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re #1 - Sadly, some certain users have blatantly refused to recognise actual facts. Re #2 - Byelection is not an incorrect spelling is it [1]? I did not even notice there were changes made regarding the hyphen. Re #3 - Yes a member of a council is a councillor (and an MP is a parliamentarian), but what was the official title? Re #4 - Sure. Re #5 - The article is located at July 26. Regardless of source code, how dates are displayed is determined by one's preferences settings. — Insta ntnood 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that our best friend above is more concerned about kicking up an argument with others and fussing over tiny details then contributing positively to wikipedia based on the comments above. I arent gonna waste my time responding to each. If you feel sore about it, either chill out, or its just too bad for you. ;)--Huaiwei 09:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who kicked up those tiny details [2]? — Insta ntnood 18:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who introduced them into this article [3]? This is getting more childish by the minute.--Huaiwei 03:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For most of the points you've listed above, I'm fine with either way. You've yet to demonstrate that the city covered the entirety of the then crown colony. — Insta ntnood 16:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]