User talk:Huaiwei/Archive G

{{Cleanup|October 2005}} too long for my PC, try breaking into sectionss

It just means, time to archive your talkpage! =D =P - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manila MRT

Hey Huaiwei. Guess what... while several pages point at Manila Mass Rail Transit System, there's an article at Manila Metro Rail Transit System. What is it actually called? :-) — Insta ntnood 15:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised you are the one asking me this when you are seemingly trying to demonstrate your familiarity with the terms used around the world's rail systems? There is such a thing as official internet websites to check up on. As before, I suppose you didnt check before shooting off comments and being disruptive, have you?--Huaiwei 15:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You start the conversation here by challenging my familiarity and saying I'm disruptive. Do you actually want to discuss on anything? — Insta ntnood 15:26, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Anyways let me assume you still got the willingness to discuss. As a matter of fact a search of site:gov.ph on Google shows that both Mass Rail Transit and Metro Rail Transit are used. — Insta ntnood 15:35, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I am perfectly capable of holding a normal conversaion or a productive discussion. But I am not so sure when it is dealing with someone who just tried to verhemently put his view across, and now suddenly turns around and claim ignorance over an issue like this, which can easily be verified online. I simply cannot see why you are asking me this question, unless you are testing waters here again?--Huaiwei 15:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. You're accusing me, again, to have tried to "verhemently put his view across". Who's the one actually vehemently putting her/his view across? — Insta ntnood 15:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC) (modified at 15:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC))

Why do you think I am "accusing" you if you suddenly ask me who I am refering to?--Huaiwei 15:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW instantnood, would you mind not editing your replies and changing their meaning when other have already replied to you? I just caught you doing this TWICE here.--Huaiwei 15:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. I changed it right after it is saved, but you're responding so quickly that at the time I previewed my edit you've already responded. Anyways it's fine if you feel like satisfied by "catching people" doing this and that, when she/he doesn't mean to be. — Insta ntnood 15:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well I have to respond real fast least I get blocked at any time, you know? lol. Ok dumb jokes aside, I dont derive pleasure from doing this "catching" game, and certainly not to your level of proficiency or determination. I am seeing this because I get a big yellow banner on top everytime anyone edits my talk page, and since I see no new replies, I end up seeing edit history to see what the changes are. And no...I dont think it is possible to "preview" something and having it seen by me before you clicked "save page", so I obviously replied after you are done with your previewing.--Huaiwei 15:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. I clicked edit to change my own wordings before I saw your reply. After it's done and previewed, when I saved it there's an edit conflict warning. I.e. you responded when I wa making the minor edit. — Insta ntnood 16:04, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Then that is not called "previewing" your replies. That is called "editing your replies to change the meaning even when there is a warning that I have already replied based on your original comment".--Huaiwei 16:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment on anybody's English proficiency, but I guess it's pretty clear that I'm talking about the "show preview" function. I tried to modify my saved comment before you responded. It happened that you responded before my modification was saved. — Insta ntnood 16:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but as I just said, if you are editing your reply, and if you click show preview, and I replied to your original post....once you click save, the edit conflict warning is going to appear exactly as you describe above. My question then, is why did you not halt your edits at this juncture, and decided to go ahead with the edit despite knowing full well that I have already replied? English proficiency? I think that is not the main issue here. Logic seems to be pretty endangered on the other hand.--Huaiwei 16:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You responded to what I did not mean to say. Would you mind changing your response after recognising I've modified my comment? There are too many edit conflicts on your talk page and it's impossible to halt my edit whenever you've responded at something. Imagine the time lapse in between after seeing the edit conflict warning for two or three times. — Insta ntnood 16:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC) (modified 16:35, August 7, 2005, 16:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC))

What does the edit warring has got to do with my talk page?--Huaiwei 16:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait...so you are talking about edit conflicts eh? Misread that. Still, I dont see why this "conversation" should carry on? Its wasting too much of my time.--Huaiwei 16:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. So what's your opinion with the Manila mass transit system? Both "Mass Rail Transit" and "Metro Rail Transit" are found by searching on site:gov.ph with Google. — Insta ntnood 16:51, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Re : Image help....

Hi Huaiwei,

So sorry to be more irregular on Wikipedia for these two weeks...I was carried away with another project my friend and I have started with during this period of time. =D You can say I'm somewhat on semi-WikiVacation now, and will be for another 1-2 weeks due to upcoming big exams.

It is not unusual to have a longer-than-usual delay in IFD processing. It just means that there is a backlog that a sysop has yet to clear up. You can try tagging the images with {{nowcommons}} and see if it helps in speeding up the process. Don't worry though, it'll eventually be deleted for sure.

If you need anything or/and don't see me return by the 15th August, drop an email at my new temporary email -> studentssketchpad <at> hotmail .dot. com to remind me to come back. My old email is pretty much dead now, as my old website is largely shut down. (other than for the purpose of image hosting).

- Cheers & Best Regards, Mailer Diablo 17:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

Hoho....thanks for the reply there. ;) I suppose I will just have to be more patient then. Anyway, I tot you wanted to be on internet-vacation, and not just taking time off from wikipedia! lol! Whatever the case, good luck in your upcoming exams, a word I didnt have to use anymore since last month. Weehehe! :D--Huaiwei 17:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol, thanks for the encouragement though. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image move

Oh you've just come in on me at the perfect right time! :-D 'Cos I've found a perfect example (Image:Hk map 18.png), which is in fact a map drawn by me and later moved by another wikiuser. You may just upload your image to the Commons, and ignore the image uploaded here. Then add a template like this: {{NowCommons|Image:XXX.xxx}} into the image page in Wikipedia, creating an interwiki link. Of course you may also delete the image in Wikipedia; that's up to you. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 17:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I tot of doing that, but I wont be able to upload the file with the same filename in the commons if it is already in use here, right? This is rhe reason why I didnt just upload it there. Or was I wrong in this assumption? Thanks for your help again! :D--Huaiwei 05:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other tools for moving and deletion are {{move to Wikimedia Commons}} and {{dbc}}. :-D — Insta ntnood 18:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I've bitched about our friend Instantnood not using edit summaries before. If you'd use more of them, life would be helpful and I'd be gracious! :) SchmuckyTheCat 08:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haha....actually I did religiously used edit summaries during my earlier days in wikipedia, until I stopped doing it recently after realising someone is tailing each and every one of my edits!--Huaiwei 09:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

suspicious nomination on 3RR

I saw your name on WP:3RR. If this nomination was made in bad faith in order to harras you you may complain on WP:RfAr. Pavel Vozenilek 22:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temasek Holdings

Hi Huaiwei. I have started a discussion of Temasek Holdings' share in SPH at SPH's talk page. Please join. Thanx. 165.21.154.115 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hot pot

[1] Thanks. Actually I was a bit cautious in using "Greater China", for the term is, as far as I know, rarely heard outside of economics and trade. I'm fine with it, anyways. :-) — Insta ntnood 06:52, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well, unless you somehow consider that term inappriopriate, I would certain use it over a whole string of words when 2 is all that is neccesary.--Huaiwei 07:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of office holders

It's hard to believe that presenting of facts could be sinister, underhand and unethical, and I suppose you have been doing something similar (tho much of your accusations may not be the real side of the facts). I would like to demand an explanation for your remarks [2] at user:Calton's talk page. Please illustrate if my remarks were sinister, and if any part of my remarks were not based on facts. Thank you. — Insta ntnood 07:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I am clearly not talking about the presentation of facts. I am refering to your age-old habit of dropping messages to individuals who deviate from your agenda. Goodness knows how many more are being besieged by your emails and other means of communication outside the scrutinity of wikipedia. You want evidence? Its staring right back at you.--Huaiwei 07:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your remarks. I have some questions in mind and I do hope you can give me some answers..: Am I dropping messages only to people disagree with my edits? What agenda am I having (if I were really having one)? Mind speaking it out if you strongly believe such an agenda exist? Is it plain speculative to say I'm contacting other users by email and other means of communication? Thanks in advance. — Insta ntnood 07:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

And may I ask...do I need to answer your questions? It appears that many of the questions you ask are fielded with a motive in mind. Like I said before, I am more than open in speaking my mind, but I do so in proper avenues, and I dont lap up to your veiled and pretentious attempts to dig up more information on your opponents. And as I said before too....have you yourself been a role model in being forthcoming and honest in your conduct and philosophies? You consider my comments speculative because I dont substaintiate them. Well, that is really non of my business. I drop these lines not merely to tell you something, but also to suggest to you something else. If you fail to grasp them, then I really could not care less. Leave my talkpage if you cannot engage in proper conversations.--Huaiwei 08:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what you're trying to say is that you don't want to carry on this conversation. Thanks, anyways, for responding. Adieu. — Insta ntnood 08:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Good riddance. Come back to me when you mature.--Huaiwei 08:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any sysop watching, please kindly stop by and comment if this is a personal attack. Thank you. (This is not the first time if I recall correctly, say.. [3].) — Insta ntnood 08:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so I see you consider this a personal attack. Just curious, but do you consider excessively tracking someone else's edits as a personal attack as well? ;)--Huaiwei 08:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei only knows how to communicate with personal attacks. Civility is not his/her modus operandi. I suggest Huaiwei learn how to deal with others in a collegial manner. Zoe 22:47, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages

If you guys want to have a conversation, please do so on your own Talk pages. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 07:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen FAC

Just to remind you that you didn't state whether you support, object or stay neutral in the Sun Yat-sen FAC. In my opinion, according to the efforts you put into the article, your stand should be counted as a support vote... D e ryc k C. 10:44:12, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Do be patient with me...I will vote in due course. Anyway why worry...it is almost an obvious shoo-in for FAC status! :D--Huaiwei 15:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Ming Road Bus Terminal

Hello! This is about the recent interchange at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Ming Road Bus Terminal. Clearly public transport has a huge impact in the development of cities (see the impact of the trolley lines and their subsequent abandonment in favour of the car in development of the suburbs of Philedelphia). I guess my main complaint is that the article at Sin Ming Road Bus Terminal provides little context, and worse that that, the entry on Bishan New Town, the development/suburb that it serves, is shorter than the entry on the bus station itself. Pilatus 12:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then add to the content instead of asking for things to be deleted just because they are not yet developed. Every FA starts off as a stub, so dont you think you are being a little too overboard in your deletionist progaganda?--Huaiwei 14:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVILITY. You are in a better position to do the job properly than I am, that is you claim to have academic credentials in the subject matter. Here's the chance to prove yourself, pass it up at your discretion. Pilatus 14:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, short, uninformative sub-stubs tend not to grow. Case in point: Bishan New Town and Geylang, two suburbs associated with bus stations that have come up for deletion have not improved for over nine months. As I say, I cannot improve on them as I lack familiarity with the subject. Pilatus 15:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterdays remarks of mine were way out of line. I offer apologies. Got any pointers in the literature on the demographics of Singapore, it is an intriguing subject? Pilatus 11:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah it is ok, and you do not have to apologise. I decided to ignore them, and thankfully that does help to prevent the rather tense situation from worsening. With regards to the subject matter, I think I personally tend to hold back because they are rather complicated topics which will need lots of cross-referencing often from literature in libraries, and I personaly do not have the time yet to do just that for many of them. Perhaps I should breach this personal mental block of mine and try to build them up bit by bit. All I ask is for everyone to be patient with us while we try to develop the content, and no, I dont think this effort has to be confined to locals only. Anyone can contribute! ;)--Huaiwei 16:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It suddenly came to me that we shouldn't improve articles only when they are threatened to get swept off. I guess we all SGpedians need some sort of self-motivation to get going in SG-related article improvements. (Esp. the three potential FAs which are currently like sitting ducks). - Mailer Diablo 20:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah...but its hell alot of work, and seems like we dont have alot of contributors just yet unless the current ones do this full time. This is the reason why I held off plans to start creating too many articles whereby information is still not readily available just yet, and I have been visiting the library more often now. As for the three potential FAs...haha....looks like we somehow need a jolt of electricity some day. I am kinda tired of the way each individual tries to better the article till it now looks like a fractured piece of work!--Huaiwei 21:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps we should have some coordinated writing, like CoTW Singapore? Perhaps that'll do us some good? - Mailer Diablo 19:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps, but judging from the way Singaporeans are contributing to wikipedia, I admit I harbour doubts over its workability. We already have the current events page constantly maintained by just two Singaporeans (and no Malaysians), with no one else coming forward to contribute should both of us fail to do so. I am not too sure if we can handle any more collaborations concurrently in the current situation....(or am I being too persimistic?)--Huaiwei 19:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's give it a shot! I've set up the page already. :) It's a trial run after all. I'll work on the templates later. - Mailer Diablo 21:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL. WP:NPA. Your repeated personal attacks on me will not be tolerated. I suggest you desist immediately. Zoe 22:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

RE: Maps of Singapore

I am actually more of a neophyte in maps; User:Vsion have more to offer. Though I used Illustrator for maps in school projects. Slivester 13:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aiyah at this stage, any help is apprciated bah. :D I still use the wierdest programs to draw maps, including Powerpoint and even MS Paint! :D--Huaiwei 13:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well anything will do I supposed, as long its a map that eventually be posted on the site. :) Slivester 22:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muahaha....but that only happens when I know how to do it efficiently! :D Is illustrator the best option for this? Noticed you arent the first person to mention it for drawing maps. Maybe I should get my hands on a copy soon. ;)--Huaiwei 23:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the closest software I got my hands upon for map, and its widely available in schools. In fact, thats the one of the only 3 licensed softwares I have access to in school. :x Slivester 08:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown

Ought not Chinatown, Singapore be a lot more extensive? I'll try to help out when I can. I thought you might be interested. Or maybe I'm overestimating the importance of Chinatown in Singapore's history. --Dpr 05:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does require lots of work, as is also the case for tonnes of other Singapore-related articles. It is not that this article is not impt, but that most of us are concentrating our efforts elsewhere. Nonetheless, will look forward to your contributions and assistance as well!--Huaiwei 06:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JE Bus Interchange Google Earth Maps

Hi Huaiwei,

That's a novel way to put your point across an VFD debate! =P Anyway, the VFD debate has just been closed, let me know if you need to leave it for a 'lag' period of time or not before I delete them.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...feel free to delete them any time. I doubt anyone still wants to look at them now? :D Thanks for the hard work in helping to keep them viable, and yeah, lets try to work on them!--Huaiwei 06:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. All done btw! =) - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SIA

you are doing a good job Huaiwei:)

/Who

Hehe..thank you! :D--Huaiwei 06:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hong Kong as a country?

There's no dichotomy. But if you do really want a yes-no answer, then I'll have to say yes, as in the strict sense country and sovereign state are not synonym. (Please reply at my talk page. Thanks.) — Insta ntnood 10:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned at Vsion's user talk page, it depends. Besides here and Vsion's talk page, my viewpoint has been illustrated in many talk pages and voting pages. Don't think you can create any sort of illusion or distortion to any other readers about my position. :-P — Insta ntnood 10:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please conduct this conversation in your talk page. I dont like to shuttle between two or three pages the way you do.--Huaiwei 10:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: [4]) 國家 is not always a correct direct translation of the English word country, and sovereign state should better be translated as 主權國. Afterall please don't place an equivalence sign between 國家 and country, then argue Hong Kong is not a country by arguing Hong Kong is not a 國家. — Insta ntnood 11:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already said. Discuss this in your talk page. Can you understand simple instructions in English? And seriously, do you think I could take your comment above seriously and declare you are politically nuetral?--Huaiwei 11:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions? Who do you think you are? And in fact I didn't even notice that "instruction" as I've already requested you to respond at my talk page - including giving instructions. — Insta ntnood 12:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am huaiwei. Who else? lol! Oh, and notice I did "comply" to your "instruction", but you didnt to mine at all? Whatever the case, this reads like script in some HK soap opera? Quite enough, I must say.--Huaiwei 12:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Look at most categorisation. If something is in a subcat then it is not also listed in the higher cat. That's our normal policy. Why do you think everything to do with Singapore should be categorised multiple times? -- Necrothesp 11:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than aware of that policy. That said, it is not a hard and fast rule, especially in cases where it is not naturally apparant where a category should go under. Do we expect our readers to flip through multiple categories in the hope of finding it when the categorisation is not so clear cut? Is law enforcement always a subset of the judiciary system? Not everyone agrees with that, so it makes sense to have multiple appearances. Last but not least, do you need to mention Singapore in your little exercise here?--Huaiwei 11:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think cat or sub-cat or whatever category is just not necessary when you migrate to Sgwiki to contribute, Alien2 21:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome you to write, yes write first then shoot and I will add-to-yours if it has an audience at Sgwiki. Have fun here too! goto it now? < [[5]]> alien2 at Alien2 21:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the cat method rule out facts which should be considered, I mean not just facts alone, wholescale facts are ~~deleted automatically,~~ It call packaging out truths<facts> just like a bunch of peer group at wikipedia with arrogrant peer standing do!Alien2 21:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[[6]][reply]

Nobody said it was a subcat of the judicial system (it's not), but it is a subcat of the legal system (it's Category:Singaporean law not Category:Judicial system of Singapore). The judicial system refers to the courts, law enforcement to the police, both are subsets of the legal system. How is the categorisation not clear cut when they both have 'law' in their title and will come next to each other on the Singapore list anyway? However, I can't be bothered to get into a revert war over such a minor issue, so I'll let it go. I don't quite get what you're referring to in your last sentence ("do you need to mention Singapore in your little exercise here?") - what do you mean? -- Necrothesp 12:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got catch a rat under cat: Alien[[7]]

If you may look at Category:Singaporean law, it is equivalent to a category on the Judicial system in Singapore. The only reason why this is not apparant just yet is because we have yet to write articles on our Supreme Courts, Subordinate courts, etc. Classifying law enforcement as part of the judicial system, although intrinsically related (which is why are they subcats of each other anyway), relegates one aspect beneath the other, when they are seen as equals as far as the system is concerned. As for the reference to Singapore, I wonder if comments such as "Why do you think everything to do with Singapore should be categorised multiple times" or "no reason why Singapore should always be an exception to everything" are appriopriate. Singapore-related articles are subject to the same conventions and policies in wikipedia as per any other article. In what way is this comment fair?--Huaiwei 12:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm not suggesting that law enforcement should be subordinated to the judicial system. Actually take the trouble to read what I say. If Category:Singaporean law is actually about the judicial system, then it should be renamed, since the judicial system is only one aspect of the law. However, in actual fact it is not only about this, since it also includes laws, taxation, punishments etc. Therefore what I said is accurate and your statement that it "is equivalent to a category on the Judicial system in Singapore" is not. You seem to be confusing the judicial system with the law. They are not the same things at all, although naturally related. My comment stems from the fact that I have noticed with articles on law enforcement in Singapore (and Hong Kong, as well) in particular that there is a tendency to rush to add as many categories as possible instead of trying to refine. Just an observation. -- Necrothesp 12:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singaporean law does contain just about any article related tot he judicial system in Singapore, including that of individual laws. In fact, this is also noticeable in many other categories in Category:Law by country. I am not advocating an error to be enforced just because it is pre-existing, but I do hope you may realise we are making do with this more because there is simply not enough articles yet for two seperate categories to be created not only for Singapore, but also for many other country-related cats. Even Category:United Kingdom law is not immune from this problem, and actually lists judiciary-related articles as its sub-cats. Yes, the two are not the same thing, so shall we go about clearing this up across wikipedia? I dont mind assisting.

As for your personal obsevation over the creation of those categories, you are not entirely wrong. I personally do take pride in creating a comprehensive classification system for all Sg-related articles since coming to wikipedia (of coz if others emulate my efforts, I dont have any control over, nor take responsiblity for that). However, I do wonder why this should then result in the above disagreement taking place.--Huaiwei 13:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, you don't seem to have what I'm saying straight. Law is the main cat. The judicial system is a subcat of law. Law enforcement is also a subcat of law. So there's nothing wrong with the UK categorisation (or the other countries) whatsoever. They are not subcats of laws plural (which is itself a subcat of law), but they are subcats of law singular, which covers anything to do with legislation, law enforcement, the judicial system and the penal system. As to categorisation in general, I'm just not in favour of over-categorisation as I think it makes the larger categories (like Singapore) too large, but that's obviously just a difference of opinion. -- Necrothesp 14:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Perhaps the slight confusion came along because Category:Singaporean law was once known as Category:Laws of Singapore, which was meant for specific laws here rather then law-related topics in general. Whatever the case, I hope to work towards building up more articles about the Singapore judiciary, having that as a subcat of Category:Singaporean law, and perhaps at that juncture, it should not be an issue to have Law enforcement as a subcat.--Huaiwei 14:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my take on it is that every country should have a Category:Fooian law. Basic subcats under that should be: Category:Laws of Foo (actual legislation and case law), Category:Law enforcement of Foo (police etc), Category:Judicial system of Foo (courts) and Category:Penal system of Foo (prisons and punishments): the four basic stages of the legal system. With additional subcats depending on issues specific to the country. None of these should, however, be subcats of another. That's what I'm working towards. -- Necrothesp 15:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair and agreeable classification. My only slight disenchantment now is over the removal of Category:Law enforcement of Foo as a top-level category in country cats. The law enforcement agencies are in a way seen in the same light as the military when it comes to natural security, and the removal of one just seems to be in its disfavour. Already, we do have people not expecting to find an article on the police in the law enforcement category...because not everyone uses that phrase as much around the world. What do you think of this mindset? Too biased?--Huaiwei 15:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what you mean. We don't tend to use the term 'law enforcement' in the UK, in fact. But it is a good general category title, since it also covers agencies other than the police and the definition of 'police' can be different in different countries (in some countries it is used to refer to all law enforcement personnel; in others, like the USA, it emphatically does not include agencies like the FBI). The issue of whether or not to put law enforcement as a top level cat within country cats tends to be down to my dislike of overcategorisation, as I said before. But obviously others disagree on this. -- Necrothesp 15:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Caning in Singapore, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

ntu / nu renaming

Thanks for linking up those references, it really helped clear things up! =D -Hamstersanonymous 07:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...no problem at all. ;)--Huaiwei 09:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THanks

THanks for ur notification and warm welcome. BUt how do I show my own pic at my own user page? Thx. And what is the part abt Sg notice board???

gd4u 14:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Groyn88

Please take a look at Homosexuality in Singapore, Groyn88 has been inserting crystal ball predictions of the future of Homosexuality in Singapore despite my efforts on the talkpage a long time ago. He was using the talkpage as an alternate soapbox for his unsubstantiated claims, and when I noticed and deleted them, he immediately copied them over to the main article. --Mib orovsky 22:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Groyn88 is not the problem! He’s migrating to other sites so don’t worry too much. In fact, the problem is to face it squarely, and dead on his vulnerability with so many places. His narcissistic habits and prowling instinct is moderate as this movement die out fast by scaring people than bring them to the fold. Do you wonder so many commit suicides? From the high rise buildings not just in Hong Kong but a pathetic lot drink too much and party too and die earlier! Fact is he is there to stay? Aids that is only a part of its results of promiscuity Alien2 06:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reply in Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by airline

I'm not necessarily arguing that the information isn't useful, and I wasn't aware that it was difficult-to-acquire information.

If it's not burdened by copyright or any similar laws, though, why not post it on Wikisource? Wikipedia isn't the place to post raw source data, but Wikisource is. Just because something is useful information that you can't find elsewhere doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia specifically; Wikisource is there for raw source info and source texts, Wikitravel is there for travel info, and Yellowikis is for phone/contact directory info. Any of those would be more appropriate places for much of this information. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it is a copyright issue if I were to copy the data directly according to what is presented in the original publications. I had to "repackage" the data, and sieve out only the relevant information, and combine it from multiple sources to produce the data. It cant fit into wikisource because it is no carbon copy of any single source. It is not "raw information" either. I did my own sums to come up with many of those figures by using the primary figures. This information is not mean to be a travel guide. Why would a traveller need to know the number of passengers on a flight sector compared to other sectors, so why should this be a part of wikitravel? This is not a list of telephone numbers or contacts. Does it fit into Yellowikis?

Thanks to this rather strange litle exercise, we now have one article being deleted while the other stays. I cant help but smile at the rediculousness of it all.--Huaiwei 08:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your speedy help on Lingnan culture. I was about to come back and fix it. Man, you're fast. While we're on the subject, that page could use some expansion, namely more information about Singaporean culture & architecture. --Dpr 06:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Hi User:Dpr goto Sgwiki to read up on Singaporean culture & architecture - we have more to offer than just ~~POV orNPOV~~ unorthodox essays by my brother from the same Up_faith_there! 165.21.154.109 14:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[[8]thread_link][reply]

People's Republic in China, Republic in China

Thanks for putting them to speedy renaming. In fact I've already dropped a message to user:Who, whose bot was responsible for renaming those categories, and made that mistake. :-) (since I do not check others' replies on their talk pages regularly, please let me know at my talk page if you've replied here. Thanks.) — Insta ntnood 14:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macao/Macau

I flip-flop back and forth on how I spell it. I think I've even spelt it both ways in a single sentence before. Can you give me a reason to care about o vs u? SchmuckyTheCat 18:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haha...I just find it really unprofessional to have half the content in wikipedia using O, while the other half uses U, and yes, sometimes within the same article. It is not a major bug bear, but by insisting on using O, we buck the international trend in English publications around the world who are increasingly using U.--Huaiwei 18:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Singaporean/Lingnan Architecture

Thanks for your message. I do have a good book on Singapore's architecture, which I will attempt to filter into some articles (citing source of course), when I have time. An amazing city, and amazing architecture. I think it seems that Lingnan architecture is highly influential in creating the shophouse, but when I do in fact contribute on these topics, I'll do more research. Good luck and kudos. Best, --Dpr 01:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]