User talk:Huaiwei/Archive H

This is an archive of Huaiwei's talkpage, kept as a historical record. Please do not edit this page. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RE:List of companies in the PRC

I'm responding to both you and Instandnood (with much copying and pasting, sorry about that).I believe you are acting in good faith, so I'd like to ask you to do something. Stop and talk. It's been more than a month since there was a post on Talk:List of companies in the People's Republic of China. I realize that as you say Instantnood has been edit warring. But the history of the companies list shows you've been returning in kind. If I can tell you something that I've learned, it's that there's no such thing as "starting an edit war." An edit war happens when two people (or more) mutually begin to revert without discussion. It takes two to edit war, and frankly I'm of the opinion that by now no revert or major change is justified without consensus on the talk page. And I'm not taking sides here. I mean it when I say it takes two, and this is much the same message I gave Instantnood as well. It looks like you two (and Schmucky?) may want some kind of a mediator, especially since it seems like this is a larger dispute (?). I'll do what I can if you'd like me to, but please let's stop the warring. :) The Wikilove has been really strained lately and I think we've got to spread some. Dmcdevit·t 21:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to provide that summary. It was actually very concise and cvil, for which I am glad. I was kind of surprised that this is about Hong Kong, and not Taiwan. My vague notion had always been that Hong Kong was something like Scotland, it could be considered a country or even a nation, just not a sovereign one. I am interested to read up on the controversy (so far the extent of my Chinese history is only Yuan through Mao, and mostly only Ming), but that's beside the point. If we're really serious here, I want to see if we can get all parties to voluntarily agree to stop reverting and just leave teh disputed articles in whatever their current state happens to be until we come up with a better solution than what's going on now. So, will you agree to that? I'm putting the same question to Instantnood in a second. Also, I wonder if you could tell me where Schmucky fits into this? Is he an equal party in the dispute or less involved or what? Thanks again, and I'm optimistic for some progress as well. Dmcdevit·t 03:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I am glad you were the first to agree, and perhaps the others will follow now. Sorry if it's kind of a drag to go through all this stuff over again. About your enforcement suggestion, I don't really know what I think about that yet. I guess we should just ask everyone else what they think and you all want that, then I guess I can do it. But I wouldn't impose that without agreement. Okay, I don't have much time right now, but if we can agree on this truce than we've at least made some progress, so I thank you. Dmcdevit·t 19:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello. (You may want to archive.) Instantnood has agreed. I just now asked him about your disciplinary action suggestion. I've also made the temporary injunstion request to Schmucky now too, though I'm still less sure where he fits in (opposed to Instantnood, I know that). I haven't heard back from him though, so if you have any influence with him... please persuade. Instantnood has talked about him some, but I'm interested in your opinion of his role. That sounds kind of secretive and gossipy, but it's not meant to :) in fact Schmucky probably has this page on his watchlist (so "hi Schmucky!"). I just want to know what all parties thnk of each other, since it probably works better if we address each individual rather than looking at you as simply two opposing sides. Anyway, I'm also wondering what you think about my thought on the category problem here (linking to it so I don't have to write it all over again). Incidentally, I encourage you to watch Instant's and Schmucky's talk pages and respond to anything I say there, since I am only replying there (and here) out of convenience, not because I thinnk anything said there should be private. I also think a similar tactic could be used for most of the lists, since these "national" lists often have non-cpuntries in them (like Faroe Islands listed as a subset of Denmark, or Quebec of Canada, etc.) though I'd like to hear your opinion on that since there may be more issues at play there. Anyway, other than that I want to know if there's some specifc issue we should tackle. Thanks again. Dmcdevit·t 00:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think your response was pretty much spot on. Mainly the perception (true or otherwise) of a current imbalance is inactionable in my eyes, since any attempt to revert one side back to equilibrium will inevitably lead to conflicts on what "equilibrium" is. I've gone and bugged Instantnood and STC some more, and hope to get some affirmatives soon. I didn't really have anything new to ask when I came here, but I guess I'm still curious about what you have to say about STC when you get the chance. I'll go make a subpage in my userspace now, we can move it if anyone wants. Dmcdevit·t 02:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood is now on board and even commented out that contentious category edit you cited, showing good will. I've started a new section, User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation#Disputes, where there is now a structure in place to begin discussion on the lists. Please fill in the requested info so we can get started. (Feel free to copy and paste parts from previous statements if this is getting redundant.) Thanks again! Dmcdevit·t 08:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dates for current events

Huaiwei, I wondering what is the guideline to determine which date to post the current events. For example, the Registration of Criminals Bill will take effect on the 17 Oct., so I thought it should be listed under 17 Oct, instead of the date the news is released. Of course, it is weird because I used present tense instead of future tense; so that no need to update one week later mah. :-). What is your method of deciding the date? thanks. --Vsion 09:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh I date them according to the date the news is released...not the date of the event which is reported to be taking place later! :D You mean you have been doing the later all these while? No wonder I noticed some dates seemed wrong occasionally!--Huaiwei 13:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've been doing it like that and I assumed everyone has the same idea :P ! So, about half the time, the date is one day before the CNA report, although sometime I wasn't sure. For future events, it depends; if it is just a few days later, then I will use the actual event date. This is not important for the current event page itself, but it was useful when I compiled the timelines such as the one in Counter-terrorism in Singapore#Timeline where the actual data of the event is more relevant. In this way, the two pages are consistent when it comes to dates. If the event is say a month later or more, then of course, I would list it as an announcement on the date of the announcement. --Vsion 19:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Wah is it? I honestly thought it has always been about the time of the news report. Cant seem to find anything on this in Template talk:In the news too. Perhaps it is the way we word the entry for upcoming events, so it is still ok to date them according to annoucements dates, instead of sounding like it has actually happened that day?--Huaiwei 12:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Your question

Hi, thanks for writing. There were five votes to delete (Coffee, Gamaliel, Calton, Schmucky, GhePeU), three votes to redirect (Jeff Gustafson, you, 23skidoo), and two to keep (Instantnood, C. Parham). 5 delete votes out of 10 total votes does not meet the threshold of consensus (66%). Even if I counted the redirects as strict keep votes, that would still only be 5, and, as above, that does not equal 66%. The net effect is that the article has been kept, because no consensus = defacto keep. That doesn't mean, though, that someone can't be bold and perform a merge if the editors on the page agree it should happen. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I know, it is a bit confusing. I thought the same thing when I first started using Wikipedia. Essentially, to me, merge means "The content is fine, but this shouldn't have its own article." But when something gets deleted, the content gets deleted too. The simple fact is that if somebody wants to merge the content they can, but that would require someone actually doing it -- and once it's deleted, it's deleted. Generally, merge votes therefore are counted as keeps -- although, sometimes I do make exceptions depending on the person's comments that accompany it. Anyway, but the same effect can still be achieved -- you can merge the content in somewhere and then make the old article a redirect. There'll be a redirect with the old name, but in effect it's the same result as if I had closed it as delete and deleted the article after someone else merged the content. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The Pain!!!

Hehe... The backlog of the Malaysian part of the current news article has been bugging me for quite some time already. I wish I was being paid for doing this, but what's lacking in cash sure makes it up in sheer guilt. :P --Andylkl ^(talk) 16:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Merger

Normally when a merge results from AfD (or is carried out some other way), we just redirect the source article to the target and indicate as much in the edit summary. You already indicated that you were merging from Rail gauges and power supply of Hong Kong rails in this diff, so applying a simple redirect is enough.

Singapore Changi Airport

Can we discuss standardisation of this article here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Standardisation - Singapore Changi Airport?

Thanks/Wangi 15:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: PRC locator maps

Re: [1] [2]: I would be interested to know who is/are " pushing for the use of "Mainland China".. because they [this person/these people] don't like to be called Chinese "? Who is/are " treating "Mainland China" as a country " and are " "political agents" "? In what way is there any " detriment of the PRC's political integrity "? Could you please kindly elaborate a little bit, with source and evidence? Thanks. — Instantnood 17:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont think I need to at this juncture. The gulty will react most strongly to such statements I suppose.--Huaiwei 17:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. To my interpretation this would be an act to refuse to back your claims by evidence. — Instantnood 17:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You have the liberty to form your own interpretations, as I do have mine.--Huaiwei 19:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Gurkha Contingent, 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.

This is one of the most comprehensive DYK articles I've seen in months (and a great picture too). Kudos! --Dvyost 00:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC) ^

interesting date

[3] SchmuckyTheCat 23:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew

Ah yes, I see your reason for reverting my edit. Yes, a person's ancestry always predates his early life. But what I'm interested is the content. A person's ancestry has nothing to do with his early life because a person's ancestor is not the person himself, but related to him in someway or another, just like his siblings and his cousins to him. It has something to do with his family. Thus mentioning Lee's ancestor in his early life looks like telling another person that Lee's great-grandfather is part of "Lee Kuan Yew" himself because Lee wasn't even born when his great-grandfather died! Please feel free to raise your objections. Mr Tan 09:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Changi Airport

sorry to disturb you huaiwei but can you do something to restore the table that you made for changi airport.some people just have nothing better to do.thank youSghan 11:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If you may refer to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Standardisation_-_Singapore_Changi_Airport and Talk:Singapore_Changi_Airport, two individuals unilaterally decided that the table if of no use to wikipedia. I decided to register my objection by refusing to contribute further to the project, directly or indirectly. Feel free to make your objection known in whatever way you deem fit, as I am finished with them.--Huaiwei 19:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

your table was clear up to date and provides adequate informations to readers. those two obviously have nothing better to do. hauiwei, are there any "heads" or person-in-charge that i can turn to?Sghan 11:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)thanks

I suppose they took the role of "heads" or "ICs" themselves. :D I was particularly displeased when they somehow believes the wikiproject takes precedence over content in individual pages, when the vast majority of wikiprojects I know are based on standardising formats and to build on content in pages. I wonder which project deletes content. And all the more disturbing it is when these individuals somehow claim there is "concensus" when unilaterally undoing work contributed by others on the self-declared decision that work outside the wikiproject is useless.--Huaiwei 13:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

huaiwei, i am impressed by your efforts to improve on wikipedia. by any chances, can you ignore those idiots and revert the hard work that you had put in for wikipedia and readers?Sghan 09:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)thanks

huaiwei thanks for reverting that table! Sghan 09:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong on lists by country

Please kindly note I have started a new section for Hong Kong on the list of road-rail bridges [4]. — Instantnood 20:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Please do file this as part of the resolution process in User talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation, as it is far better for this list to be centralised.--Huaiwei 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Another section has been started for Macau. [5] — Instantnood 20:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• I added more Chinese bridges [6] SchmuckyTheCat 23:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

wink wink, nudge nudge

figuring you were watching the page, [7] and then I also wrote "HI" below dmcdevits request right here. [8]. Maybe that was too obscure a nudge. SchmuckyTheCat 22:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Svg flags

Do you think is there a need to get a bot to do it throughout Wikipedia? Your last edit seemed to be a bit troublesome for you. [9] :) --Andylkl ^(talk) 14:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Haha that wasent too difficult. I just copied the text to notepad and use the find and replace function! :D--Huaiwei 14:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

D'oh, I never knew I could do that. o_O --Andylkl ^(talk) 15:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Btw have you seen my Malayan flag? :D--Huaiwei 15:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Not yet. Wikilink please? :) --Andylkl ^(talk) 15:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There...the second picture in Flag of Malaysia! :D--Huaiwei 16:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Greenland and the Faroe Islands

Hi Huaiwei. Thanks for your reply on my talk page (and please forgive the late reply). I agree completely. If we differ from the legal definition such a list of dependencies merely becomes a political tool (for whatever cause). It will not be an accurate description of facts. I've posted a detailed reply to Instantnood [10]. Any comments from you are also welcome. I've updated the entries on Greenland and the Faroe Islands and I plan to update the Template:Europe (only problem with that one is that it's being edited so often, that people might mistake an edit for vandalism.) In any way, thanks for your input. My regards. --Valentinian 15:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I've posted a reply to both you and Instantnood on my talk page. I'm sorry that I don't have sufficient expert knowledge regarding the British system, so the reply mostly deals with the Dutch and Danish legal constructions. I have listed a few similarities in the British case, but if you have a more detailled area which I could look into (or better yet :-) if you knew the British position to an issue, I'll be glad to you help with the Danish counterpart. I might also be able to find the Norwegian since our languages are so similar. But I'm finding Instantnood's position rather odd. I can't see why its so terrible to use a word which does not offend my countrymen or any other nationalities for that matter (especially since it - in fact - is a poor description of the situation.) In my book, a list not based on the legal definitions will be a propaganda tool, nothing more. My regards. --Valentinian 10:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines

Hi Huaiwei, I happened to see visit your user page by following a link from another user's talk page. I read about your passion for Singapore Airlines, and itchified, I visited your article. Extremely well-written! I removed some blanks spaces for you, sincerely believing that it improves the layout, but in case you do not like it, please feel free to revert. — PM Poon 01:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

plz to not be responding

[11] The editing was fast and furious and you may have missed this request to not respond until that question was answered. Please let's be civil and not respond there until it has been answered. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh I think he edited my comment out, which I am not too disturbed as it does help to cool me down a little. Thanks for the advise thou...need a chill pill and get to work! :D--Huaiwei 20:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he did edit it out. Go to work slacker. SchmuckyTheCat 20:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Haha! I was quite obedient arent I? ;)--Huaiwei 14:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen

Since you actively participated in the original FA nomination, your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Sun Yat-sen (Ive nominated the article for FA removal). --Jiang 03:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright...done...--Huaiwei 08:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Arrgghh

Really sorry about that... Didn't knew it would affect the move once the month ends... >_< Btw, I think it'd be better if one of us became admins... :) Say, has anyone nominated you yet? --Andylkl ^(talk) 08:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Haha no worries lah. Just that this is the second time I had to ask admins, and admins seem notoriously slow in doing moves. I even had to PM an admin to get it done after 5 days of no movement. As for us as admins...please get vision. I am definitely not qualified to be one! :D--Huaiwei 08:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

202.156.6.54

When a username is blocked, the Mediawiki software also blocks the underlying IP automatically for 24 hours (apparently this is what must have happened, since I have never blocked 202.156.6.54 directly [12]). However, there is no way for an admin to know what that underlying IP is: if I block "user x", I have no way to know what his ISP is or what part of the world he's in. The software is designed this way for privacy reasons.

So the way things stand, there's simply no way to avoid this situation and it might recur at any time. I'll leave a message for a developer to see if there's some way to handle this better in the future, but at the moment there isn't. -- Curps 15:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Republik vs Repablik

Hi Huaiwei, I am the person responsible for making the edit to the Malay name of Singapore which you changed back.

With reference to the official Malay long form of Singapore, I made the change to 'Repablik' because that is how it is spelt in Bahasa Melayu. 'Republik' is the Bahasa Indoensian spelling and I believe that Bahasa Melayu is our national language. In addition, the official Malay long form of the Singapore Police Force is 'Polis Repablik Singapura'.

However, I cannot find anything online so far that is authoritative enough to prove that it is 'Repablik' instead of 'Republik'. I have decided to leave your reverted edit as it is, since you appear to have sources more credible than mine. In the meantime, I have sent an email to the SG Feedback Unit about this issue and I hope the powers that be won't find my query too frivolous. If you wish, I will update you if/when I hear anything. --Neofaun 19:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the work done to ascertain this.

I changed it back, because the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura website [www.muis.gov.sg] seems to spell it as Republik regularly. Same to the Ministry of home affairs [13]. The Berita Harian spells it as "republik" [14], and so on.

As for the SPF, I notice "Polis Republik Singapura" appears to be a more contemporary spelling, for it appears in some spellings? Anyhow, it is not of much issue now, since the SPF is actually known as Pasukan Polis Singapura now. :D--Huaiwei 14:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a reply from the relevant agency on this; 3 working days seem to be the minimum. I have also noticed the same spellings you mentioned on the MUIS website during my research... perhaps it is lax editing that resulted in all these inconsitencies (e.g. colour vs color)?

As for the naming of the SPF, I refer you to Section 3(3) of the Police Force Act 2004 where it is stated in no uncertain terms that the SPF is called 'Polis Repablik Singapura'. I will be making the necessary changes accordingly.

BTW, nice work on the SIA entry :) -Neofaun 21:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Polis Repablik Singapura is the SPF's historically important name, hence it is retained in the logo, and is mentioned as such in the act. However, it means "Republic of Singapore Police" in English. If you pick up any contemporary publication by the SPF in multiple languages, you will notice SPF is stated as Pasukan Polis Singapura, which translates into "Singapore Police Force" as per the current English name. While our SPF page can mention Polis Repablik Singapura as its historical name, the malay name of the force should reflect current usage.--Huaiwei 14:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about the contemporary name of the SPF. 'Polis Repablik Singapura' is the official and historical name though and should be given the position of importance at the top of the page since Wikipedia is after all an encyclopedia. The Singapore Police Force used to be known as the Republic of Singapore Police. This was intentionally changed by the government and all references to the old name were removed. Although Pasukan Polis Singapura is used in the media, this is not an officially sanctioned name and should not be treated as such. The contemporary version could follow later in the text, current usage being changeable with the times.

'Polis Repablik Singapura' may be an official name, but so is 'Pasukan Polis Singapura'. It is an officially sanctioned name, because it does appear in all contemporary publicatons by the Singapore Police Force. The statues states that the SPF can be known as the 'Polis Repablik Singapura' as well. This needs to be mentioned, because SPF, in contemporary Malay, is 'Pasukan Polis Singapura'. Its old Malay name is not considered outdated and therefore erroneous (for the sake of heritage, or else they have to review the police crest), hence the need to mention it in the relevant act. This does not accord it any higher "official status".--Huaiwei 16:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the use of 'Pasukan Polis Singapura' in publications by the SPF official sanction. After all, Singapore is supposed to use Bahasa Melayu but the MUIS website spells 'Republic' as 'Republik' instead of 'Repablik'. We cannot rule out that when it comes to Malay, there is some laxity on the part of the editors.

As yourself have pointed out, 'Pasukan Polis Singapura' is a direct translation from the English name. This was probably done to keep with the times and to provide a less formal name for everyday use. I am not saying that 'Pasukan Polis Singapura' is not a recognised name by the SPF management and the public; use it long enough and it will become recognised. But we must keep in mind the bottomline, which is that 'Polis Repablik Singapura' is given mention in an Act of Parliarment while 'Pasukan Polis Singapura' is not. If the government is really serious about making the change for good, review of the crest and other related issues will be dealt with, as they were when the shift was made from 'Republic of Singapore Police' to 'Singapore Police Force. -Neofaun 16:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You appear to miss the point. I have already emphasized, that the act needs to mention that 'Polis Repablik Singapura' is also an official name of the police force as the Malay name of the SPF would have been 'Pasukan Polis Singapura'. In contrast, "Republic of Singapore Police" is no longer an official name of the current organisation. Only the Malay version of that old name is retained for its heritage, and hence needs special mention in the Act. Wont it not be strange when you have a crest with a name of an organisation which is deemed outdated and unofficial?

The Singapore statutes is in English. This does not mean its Malay, Chinese and Tamil names are any less official. Since you argue 'Polis Repablik Singapura' is official while 'Pasukan Polis Singapura' is not just because the formrr was mentioned in the English version of the Singapore statutes, are you then trying to suggest 新加坡警察部队 is not an official name?--Huaiwei 15:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Now I am confused. Quote "the act needs to mention that 'Polis Repablik Singapura' is also an official name of the police force as the Malay name of the SPF would have been 'Pasukan Polis Singapura'" unquote. Are you saying that there are 2 official names? The Act states "The Police Force shall also be known as the Polis Repablik Singapura". It does not mention 'Pasukan Polis Singapura' anywhere. Therefore, a reasonable interpretation would be that 'Polis Repablik Singapura' is the current official Malay name. 'Pasukan Polis Singapura' as I have previously mentioned is merely a direct translation of the current English name for day to day use.

As I have previously mentioned, if SPF is moving from 'Polis Repablik...' to 'Pasukan Polis...', then they would make all the necessary changes, including the crest. After all, when they dropped 'Republic of Singapore Police' for 'Singapore Police Force', there were a multitude of forms and publications that needed to be changed and this was done.

Yes, our statutes are in English. So consider that a section has been set aside to give mention to a Malay name, wouldn't that mean that it is as official as it gets? If one really is to split hairs, then yes, I would say that 新加坡警察部队 is not an official name because it is not given due mention in the statutes. However, the name is a direct translation from the English name (e.g. Suntec City = 新达城) and so it has been tolerated by the government and allowed to enter common usage. This is different from what we are discussing because in our case, there is special mention given to 'Polis Repablik...'.

Lastly, I have communicated with a currently serving officer in the SPF who have been in the Force for over 2 decades. He has confirmed that 'Pasukan Polis...' has never been officially recognised, thereby dovetailing with my theory that it was coined for day to day use. If you find that my source is not enough of an authority, perhaps you should consult the Public Affairs Department of the SPF. They would be THE authority on this matter. -Neofaun 07:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I like the idea of asking from the horse's mouth. Any evidence from the other side? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Miborovsky's RfA

Hello there Huaiwei/Archive H,

Thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It's Thanksgiving Day, too... so once again a big thank you! Have an awesome weekend! (If you celebrate Thanksgiving, that is.) I will do all I can for Wikipedia, to protect it from the alien scum of the universe... I mean, uh, from Willy on Wheels and Wikipedia is Communism!

-- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Macau/o, China

The official translation [15] of the Basic Law of Macau actually stipulates that "Macao, China" should be used. On the websites of both OCA and FIFA, like many other countries, their common names are used instead, i.e. "Hong Kong" and "Macau", without the ", China" suffix. — Instantnood 15:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Define "common name".--Huaiwei 15:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pages

Please be reminded to change the links to disambiguation pages to the respective entries, after turning redirects into disambiguation pages. Thanks. — Instantnood 17:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, but I purposefully failed to do it so that you might spend some time cleaning up the mess you helped create.--Huaiwei 18:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for my ignorance, bud how did I helped create the mess? What was the mess? — Instantnood 18:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be delighted if you may stay in the realms of ignorance if that helps to keep my talkpage free from useless clutter.--Huaiwei 18:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Please be reminded to fix the links when you feel like to do so. Your cooperation will definitely be appreciated by the community. — Instantnood 18:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

And the "community" will definitely appreciate it just as much if some of you can avoid this tendency of monopolising article names when their singular notability on the global arena is not demonstrated. "when you feel like to do so", btw, is incomprehensible English to me, if that was in English that is.--Huaiwei 18:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese characters

Regarding your recent edits, neither traditional nor simplified characters is specifically stated to be official in laws, and only traditional characters are de facto official. — Instantnood 16:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So either add one or remove both. "De facto" official? I think people do get tired when there is too much "de decto" involved all the time.--Huaiwei 16:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I find the actions you're now doing pretty annoying. Simplified Chinese characters are not commonly used in Hong Kong even after the handover, and we seldom find this grotesque writing prevails among road signs, publications, and many others. I hope you can stop adding the simplified Chinese characters unto the Hong Kong-related pages. Thanks a lot. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Annoyance begots annoyance. I think this isnt the first time I have to teach some people basic manners by giving them a taste of theirr own medicine. I would certainly love to see some explaination on the insistance in adding Trad script to sg-related articles based on their "pre-existance before the invention of Pinyin"? Well Singapore exists before pinyin, so is someone going to add trad characters to it too?

Whatever the case, I see more compelling reasons to add simplified script to all things HK. So instantnood says Trad chinese is de facto official. So why not for simp script then, since you guys think Mandarin is de facto official too by the same logic?--Huaiwei 16:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wonder whether I have an insistance in " in adding Trad script to sg-related articles based on their "pre-existance before the invention of Pinyin""? By the way, should all sg-related articles include Malaysian, English, Mandarin Chinese and Tamil?

So I've told you, there's no a flood of simplified Chinese here. You may try to come here and have a look. We never receive any education about simplified Chinese, and we won't use simplified Chinese as the characters utilised in formal documents. Not in road signs, in publications, and many other as well. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually my previous post shndt be directed towards you, and I amended it accordingly. And since you are curious to know, yes, we do have the agenda of adding Malay (not Malaysia...halow), English, Chinese and Tamil scripts to ALL sg-related articles. Beautiful, isnt it? :)--Huaiwei 16:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well what is stated to be the official language of Singapore is not Chinese, but Mandarin, which is part of the former. — Instantnood 17:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh that was such a ground shaking revelation I never knew of. Pardon my ignorance, but should I thereby write in "Mandarin" and not "Chinese" in sg-related articles?--Huaiwei 17:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, you still have to admit that's what the constitution of Singapore prescribes [16]. — Instantnood 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood. I hope you understand basic English. I wonder if you didnt notice I bolded the word write? I write Chinese when introducing Chinese script to the sg pages. Do I write MANDARIN?!?! Excuse me, but would you mind waking up and pumping same brain juice back into that void of yours up there before commenting?--Huaiwei 06:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's what the constitution prescribes. If you think you cannot write Mandarin, but Chinese, then is the constitution stating something cannot be written as an official language? — Instantnood 16:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid this is simply because you still have a strange view over what an "official language" refers to. I think I have said countless times that countries tend to designate them based on the spoken component. It was you who insisted the writtern component is missing. The above simply highlights and confirms my viewpoint. The Singapore constitution states that Mandarin is the official language. Yet we all obviously know that Mandarin refers to a spoken variation of Chinese, and does not have a writing system all of its own independent from that of Chinese. By the above, you apparantly think it is possible to "write Mandarin". Show me how that is possible. So yes, indeed, the Singapore constitution is stating something which cannot be writtern, because since when do countries use writting systems as official languages? Your own flawed theory disproves your own flawed viewpoint, so do I need to waste more time on this with you?--Huaiwei 17:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If only spoken languages could be designated official, I would wonder how government could establishment language policy for its printed matters, signs, etc. Is there any requirements or guidelines in Singapore that government documents have to be published in all four official languages? — Instantnood 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is indeed for you to go find out since you are the one who is curious about this. As far as everyone else is concerned, governments do not dictate writtern script as official languages. The vast majority of languages on earth have one script for one language, with the writtern and spoken aspects considered a singular and intrigral part of one entity..the language itself. The situation with the Chinese is one of the few exceptions, but even then, every single country which uses it does not include writtern script in their official language list. We do not see putonghua along with simplified Chinese in the list of official languages for the PRC, for example. Neither do Singapore. Neither do Taiwan. So go right ahead and to your own original research and publish it in the linguist academic journals, for wikipedia isnt the place for your unusual and highly original take on this. Meanwhile, what does that question on Singapore's government documents have any relevance to this?--Huaiwei 12:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not talking about script, but language. There are laws in the ROC that prescribe that under the specified situation 中文 should be used for text, and 國語 for verbal communication. — Instantnood 16:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

So what is "Writtern Mandarin", since you insisted a Singaporean printed publication in the four official languages in Singapore is in English, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil? If this is not script, what is it? Please show me how you write Mandarin without script? :D--Huaiwei 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You said you add Malay, Chinese and Tamil to Singapore-related entries, while as far as I know it's "Mandarin" instead of "Chinese" is an official language in Singapore. In what way is Chinese official? — Instantnood 17:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That is because we write in Chinese, not Mandarin. Have you showed us how you would write Mandarin? And if you are so caughtup over this, even considered writing to the Ministry of Education in Singapore to correct its usage of the word "Chinese" instead of "Mandarin" in all instances? When I was in school, I clearly remember taking Chinese classes. Not Mandarin. You got evidence to show otherwise?[17]?--Huaiwei 17:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

So in what way is Chinese official? Or is it de facto official? — Instantnood 18:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Chinese language?--Huaiwei 18:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is the subject taught at school under the name "Chinese Language", while according to the constitution Mandarin is an official language? In what way is Chinese official? — Instantnood 18:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why dont you ask the Ministry of Education instead of asking me about it? And explain your strange insistance that only the Singapore statutes constitutes "official policy" of any sort. Or specifically...only the Singapore constitution. You might be delighted to know only the constitution mentions the word Mandarin. Other acts in the Singapore statues refer to the word "Chinese", especially when refering to the writtern word. As I have always wanted to know, how do you write Mandarin? You are still trying to avoid my questions--Huaiwei 18:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind giving me the links to those acts or statutes? Why is there a discrepancy? Is Chinese official like Mandarin does? And yes I write in English and Chinese. Nevertheless vernacular Mandarin can also be written. — Instantnood 19:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Go to the sg statues, and do a search yourself. I do mind giving you the links, for I am not going to waste time with you over something as dumb as this. If you would like to know why there is a discrepancy, please write to the Singapore government. I dont think I wrote the statues. Anyhow, are you trying to suggest that vernacular Mandarin is the official language of Singapore? Please show me a list of countries on the planet which lists vernacular Mandarin as their official language.--Huaiwei 19:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Where should I write to? I know you don't write the statutes, but then as a citizen is it your responsibility to keep an eye on what the government officials and MPs are doing? No I am not trying to suggest "vernacular Mandarin" the official language of Singapore or any other country. Nevertheless "Mandarin" is one of the official languages of Singapore. — Instantnood 19:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How about the President of Singapore? lol! Seriously, if you are truly genuine about wanting to find out more about this episode, it would have been clearly evident judging by how pro-active you are. That you expect me to give you a list of references from the statutes, and even asking me who to write to gives me reason to suspect that you are just bitching and debating for the sake of it. A complete waste of my time indeed, for I am left wondering what is the desired outcome from all these. Meanwhile, since when are you in the position to tell me how I should deal with my own government? Just who do you think you are? If you have an issue with their inconsistency, go and tackle the issue yourself. Do you expect someone else to do it for you? You paying me to do this? I didnt know I am talking to the Tsar of HK? And mind deciding just want you want from this conversation? So "vernacular Mandarin" is not the official language of Singapore according to you. Now tell me what is "writtern Mandarin" then? Is "writtern Mandarin" an official language of Singapore? So, you say Mandarin is the official language of Singapore. Sure. Again I ask...do you write Mandarin, or do you write Chinese, when writing in Singapore?--Huaiwei 20:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If they're really responding do respond to general enquiries, what's the point of not writing to them? Of course I will look for where I should write to, but your help definitely help speed up. Anyways it's pretty obvious you're making up excuse not to help. I did not try to suggest whether "vernacular Mandarin" is the official language of Singapore or any country, nor did I try to suggest it is not. The fact is that Mandarin is stated in the constitution as one of the official languages, and Chinese is not stated in the constitution to be an official languages. — Instantnood 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (modified 20:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC))

How do you know if they would respond or not if you arnet writing yet? Anyhow, obvious I am not helping? lol! Yes of coz I am refusing to help a self-proclaimed tsar who deems it fit to question yet dosent wish to take the responsibility to find answers for himself. You have apparantly slipped back to where you have started with no progress in sight. Again, you rely purely on the exact words used in the Singapore statutes, and again, you cant seem to tell me if it is possible to "write Mandarin". What a yawn.--Huaiwei 20:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Putonghua, together with Cantonese, is de facto official here (e.g. [18], but then the regulations for verbal annuciation to the disabled in lift cars require only Cantonese and English [19]). There's no legal requirement for simplified characters, and the requirement for Chinese language text can be fulfilled with traditional characters.

As for Ghee Hin, I'm interested to know was its name written solely in simplified script, and never in traditional script, throughout its existence from 1840 to 1892. When did Singapore adopt the simplified script by the way? — Instantnood 16:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So if HK dosent have a single official language, and all of them are de facto in nature, why do you include one and exclude the other? There is no legal requirement for simplified characters, so its claimed. Is there a legal requirement for traditional characters? Or better yet, is there a legal requirement that simplified characters should not be used?

So you still want to play that "it existed before pinyin" game. So mind telling me if the People's Republic of China should be in traditional characters since it predates pinyin? When a country adopts a script, all entities, irregardless of when they exists, are re-writtern as such for obvious reasons. When Malaysia adopted the roman script for Bahasa Malayu, are you expecting them to keep all pre-existing entities in arabic script? So what if the Ghee Hin exists in the 1800s, or in BC2000? The Chinese think they trace a continous civilisation since 5000 years ago, so do literature in the PRC switch to trad Chinese when writting about anything pre-1950s?--Huaiwei 16:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

English and Chinese are official languages of Hong Kong, while for Chinese it's not specified which of its language(s) of the group is official. There's no requirement for which script(s) to be used, but as a matter of fact any requirement for Chinese texts can be fulfilled by traditional script alone, with or without simplified script.

You've missed the point. I'm not playing the game, and I am not deleting simplified characters from Singapore-related articles. I just added traditional characters which are obviously relevant and useful to readers, and necessary for encyclopædic articles, since that's how the names of Ghee Hin and other organisations were written throughout their existance in history. — Instantnood 17:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So if its not specified, who are you to insist which version to use, and which to discard? Are you an authoritative figure to make such decisions? And you appear to miss the point too, for since when am I saying you are deleting simplified script from sg articles? For the record you actually replaced Simplified script with Traditional ones [20]. And how come you could say you are "playing no games" when you dont even know what I mean anyway? Chuckle. Seriously from where did you get your English language education from? And meanwhile, from what position do you dare claim that adding those traditional characters are "obviously relevant and useful to readers, and necessary for encyclopædic articles"? Who are the said readers? Why would that be useful, when the said entities are Singaporean, and are today writtern in Simplified characters here? We choose to write 孙子 even if he didnt exist today. You have an issue with that? Are you suggesting that if I walk into a library in Singapore now, I will find every Chinese literature in simplified script suddenly switching to traditional script when refering to anything pre-1950s, even in mid-sentence? Ditto for any English text? And considering the article in question is about Singapore, and the Singaporean audience reads in simplified script, mind telling us why you would expect Singaporeans to suddenly start learning traditional script when reading about anything which predates pinyin?

Seriously where did you place your brains in this case? Not that I want to be unkind, but this is becoming one heck of a dumb conversation. Again, I wonder why you arent saying the PRC and Singapore should be in trad script too since both predates pinyin?--Huaiwei 17:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

How did I replace simplified characters with traditional characters, when they didn't even exist on that article? — Instantnood 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is such a thing as a history page, you know?--Huaiwei 06:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. When I edit the entries there was no simplified character. I replaced the meaningless broken symbols with characters. — Instantnood 16:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so you must be thinking the broken symbols existed from day one, and that the logical move would be to replace them with a script which the relevant country does not use extensively? Seriously, are you taking others as complete fools?--Huaiwei 17:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a project which I am solely reasonsible for. Other wikipedians can help add simplified Chinese characters if there's such a need. Is it logical to include only simplified characters that none of the organisations actually used, and to exclude traditional ones that they used? — Instantnood 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you need to state that you arent the sole responsiblity for wikipedia? You mean you all along felt it was, before finally realising it isnt so? :D So based on your argument above, everyone else is fully entitled to add American spellings to commonwealth countries, and to add simplified script to Taiwanese pages, because "someone else will add the other script anyway? And since you deem it "illogical" that an entity should use a script which itself has never used, mind telling us why is it logical for simplified script texts to write about anything pre-1950s? Why is it logical of Malay documents to write about anything before the Roman script was introduced to replace Jawi? Why should wikipedia reflect your "logic", when it appears that political motives are again at play here?

Your sense of logic is truly astounding. Have you ever writtern to book publishers who publish the Daodejing in simplified script demanding that they write in traditional? Please do so if you have not, otherwise I dont see why anyone should take your rant seriously.--Huaiwei 12:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not say it's illogical to use simplified characters on that article. What I said was that it's illogical not to include traditional characters. Should publishing of T'ao Te Ch'ing in traditional characters be banned? Should traditional characters on heritage architecture be removed? — Instantnood 16:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You said its illogical to use Simplified charactes to refer to something which uses trad characters to refer to itself. Dont try running away from what you said. You did not say its illogical not to include trad characters per say. What does the banning of the Daodejing in Trad characters and the removal of traditional characters on heritage architecuture has anything to do with me, when it is you who should be answering these question for all your absurd demands? --Huaiwei 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Show it if you're sure I've said those things, or else, please kindly stop putting words in my mouth. — Instantnood 17:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Then would you mind telling is what "Is it logical to include only simplified characters that none of the organisations actually used, and to exclude traditional ones that they used" is supposed to mean? Organisations, here, I would think you are refering also to the secret society in question, so in what way it this not a demand to "use Simplified charactes to refer to something which uses trad characters to refer to itself"?

Please kindly wake up to your own mistakes before commenting? I cant put words in your mouth, considering how much garbage is already stuffed into it anyway.--Huaiwei 17:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What I asked was " [i]s it logical to include only simplified characters...and to exclude traditional ones... ". — Instantnood 18:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I directly quoted what you said, so dont try to change your own words. If I may repear from your own lines, "Is it logical to include only simplified characters that none of the organisations actually used, and to exclude traditional ones that they used". It is apparant your main argument is over their usage, so quit trying to pretend you said no such thing.--Huaiwei 18:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean I have said simplified characters should be deleted, that only traditional characters should be included? What I actually meant was it's illogical to include only simplified characters. Both should be included. — Instantnood 18:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would I care if that was wat it means, when I dont care what you are saying anyway? Your commment over logic was over usage. Do I need to quote you again? You are obviously trying to backtrack from what you said, so bullshit about anyone stuffing anything into your mouth. Your irresponsiblity shows up beautifully once again, and you arent going to like the fact that this evidence is appearing right on my talk page.--Huaiwei 18:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's so amazing that you can misinterpret my words even if you quoted directly, and based on the misinterpretation you accuse me as irresponsible. Marvellous indeed. — Instantnood 19:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Its all the more amazing that you can backtrack on your own words, insisted on reinterpreting them in a completely different way (and which is obviously at odds with what you wrote yourself), and then claim that others who understood your original toughts were "misinterpreting" your words. You have broken yet another barrier on the possiblities of irresponsibilities. Marvellous indeed.--Huaiwei 19:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't even have a record of deleting simplified characters from the two articles (I just add traditional characters), while you did delete traditional characters from them [21] [22]. Shall we request for third-party common for what they would think " Is it logical to include only simplified characters that none of the organisations actually used, and to exclude traditional ones that they used? " actually means? — Instantnood 19:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

And who cares over the deletion record, when it has no relevance to this act of irresponsibility of yours? I deleted the traditional script, explained it, and I stuck to my explaination. You added the script, explained it, and refused to stick to your explaination when questioned. Simple as that. What more could you proof otherwise, my dear instantnood? Ask for third party comments? Please go ahead if you think it is worth your while. I personally couldnt give two hoots about it.--Huaiwei 20:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I stick to my explanation, but you misinterpret it. Based on the misinterpretation you're saying I'm irresponsible. Cool. — Instantnood 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You changed your viewpoint, and accused others of misinterpretation. Based on your refusal to take responsiblity for what you said you're saying I put words in your mouth. Its so cold, it causes shivers. Brrrr!--Huaiwei 20:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The edit history tells my position has been consistent. — Instantnood 20:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The discussion is getting a bit heated here. I just want to remind everyone when discussing stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. We are all trying to build a quality encylopedia that is accessible for an international audience. Lets try to come up with some agreement on what would a reasonable position for putting in simplified and trad. characters and use that going forward rather than getting sidetracked into what happened in the past. novacatz 03:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much Novacatz. What you said is very right, but I guess no one can really refrain from clarifying when being accused for having said something that contradicts with her/his position. — Instantnood 12:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, instantnood, you cant exactly have your cake and eat it too. Trying to curry-flavour someone and then justifying your own misbehavior and the same time is about as distasteful as the stuff failing into my toilet bowl upstairs. And meanwhile, hats off to you for continuing to play your little circus in my talkpage. A simple silence from you would have halted this "heated discussion" Novacatz described, but no, you must have your last say. Seriously, no one will think you are dumb if you dont speak up, you know?--Huaiwei 12:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Nguyen Tuong Van

Hello,Mr. Teo.Shouldn't it be his name?--Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 09:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh?--Huaiwei 09:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you got it all mixed up. According to official sources it is Van Tuong Nguyen. --Terenceong1992 10:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

His first name is Van Tuong, and second name is Nguyen. So Western style naming puts Van Tuong first. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 12:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore officials consistently use "Nguyen Tuong Van". For Australian officials and media, they use both "Nguyen Tuong Van" and "Van Tuong Nguyen", with usage almost split right in the middle (hmm ... sounds familiar?) --Vsion 12:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

So should we rename the article accordingly?--Huaiwei 12:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No we shouldn't. I'm confused now. So which is which. We should use the name that is used commonly. --Terenceong1992 15:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

On google, Van Tuong Nguyen = 96,500 hits [23] while Nguyen Tuong Van = 592,000 [24]. The difference seems significant enough to be renamed?--Huaiwei 13:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case closed

The Arbitration case involving you, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2, has closed. The Committee's decision is as follows:

You, Instantnood, and SchmuckyTheCat are all placed on Probation for topics relating to China for a year. This means that any sysop, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban you or them from any article which relates to China which you or they disrupt by inappropriate editing. In doing so, the sysop must notify the banned user on their talk page, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. You and they may post suggestions on the talk page of any article from which you or they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit you and them to continue to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy. In addition to this, Instantnood is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week, and reminded to make useful edit summaries.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore FAC Drive

Hi Huaiwei,

I've sent both History of Singapore and Capital punishment in Singapore for peer review as well, with the goal of Feature Articles. The former should be easy with a bit polishing (I'll add the Notes section later), but I think you'll be more interested in expansion and improvement of the latter (and imagine how is it to actually appear on the mainpage one day. >:D).

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha how come you so sure I will be more interested in the later?? :D--Huaiwei 15:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• For affordability of fares, use the taxi comparison as it was done in the MTR. We need some figures to back us up, because the FAC process is known to be harsh. I appreciate additions, but just make sure other editors can't find a reason to shoot down the article at FAC. - Mailer Diablo 15:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. Maybe a comparison of the fare structure between buses and mrt will help? I didnt want to add too much for fear of over-balloning the article at first...And anyhow, how do we proof that the MRT here is much cheaper compared to cost of living relative to other developed cities? This is a known fact, yet apparantly not so easy to proof.--Huaiwei 15:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly, that's what I mean. The proof (which is gonna be long) and statement should be moved to the ticketing article and expanded from there, methinks. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm....ok that will probably do later then. Meanwhile I think I shall make a small "wish list" in the article's talk page for other gaps in the information flow so that the whole thing dosent seem so "chunky" after so much editing work. Thanks for all the help thus far. Btw, to be honest, I dont really like the look of the "The Mass Rapid Transit network" section. I see that it was based on the MTR article, but I dont think it looks as nice with only three lines and a large, yellowish map. Do you think we can revert to the previous presentation in which we had a table instead, and which provided all the figures at a glance? Right now, notice the entire article makes no mention on the total length of the system, for instance? :D--Huaiwei 15:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I must admit, tables are ugly. (Which is why I discarded the table format :P) For total distance - That should be in the lead-in section. Also see Hugo Chávez on how to make a same reference twice or more. I've moved the 'relative' line to the sub-article...Anyway I going to sleep now! :) - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • I am a table fan thou. :D What do you think of this version?

Line	Alignment	Operational	Completed	Stations	Length	Travel time	Operator
North South (NS)	Marina Bay - Jurong East	7 November 1987	4 November 1989	25	44 km	62 min	SMRT
East West (EW)	Pasir Ris - Boon Lay	12 December 1987	6 July 1990	27	39 km	59 min	SMRT
	Tanah Merah - Changi Airport	10 January 2001	27 February 2002	3	6.4 km	7 min
	Boon Lay - Unnamed station	~2009	~2009	3	3.8 km	~5 min
North East (NE)	HarbourFront - Punggol	20 June 2003		14	20 km	33 min	SBS Transit
Circle (CC)	Dhoby Ghaut - HarbourFront	~2008	~2010	26	33.3 km	~60 min	SMRT
Eastern Region	In planning phase
Bukit Timah	In planning phase

--Huaiwei 16:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Um, I afraid not. Firstly, the future lines will make it confusing for the readers as it is not on the map. Secondly, travelling times are only estimates (the demand of sources/ref is sure to come). Thirdly, dates of completion and operation has a better place in the history sub-page. We should provide general information such that anybody should be able to easily figure things out. Oh BTW, I presume you've gotten used to the new Ref/Notes format? (Well, I had to as well! :P) - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We can get rid of the bottom two lines I suppose. As for travelling times, they were actually sourced from [25], which has nice graphics I wished we could incorporate into this page. I would think a table of dates would provide the most important historical data at a glance for quick comparisons and to gauge the speed of expansion, which a long history page can never beat. As for the ref system, I did figure and use it before, but I didnt quite like the format used when there are more than one in-text references to one source...--Huaiwei 12:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Kung hei fat choi

(from the discussion page for the above))

The page move is one issue, this article's dispute on its factual content is another. Have you bothered to at least acknowledge the existance of disagreements over what has been written here before trying to pretend no disputes exists and singularly removing the dispute tag? The callous attitude being displayed and the general disregard for others' viewpoints is beginning to be a cause for concern.--Huaiwei 03:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei, I am taking this discussion off page because it is not so relevant and I don't want to clutter up the discussion page for KHFC -- but I am bit concerned about your mention of any perceived callous attitudes or disregard for others viewpoints. I cannot speak for others, but I feel I have acted with the utmost courtesy. I feel that the discussion page has given everyone a fair chance to air any grievance they have. Is there any specific instance of callousness or disregard you have in mind? novacatz 04:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Do check my latest reply. While courtesy is much appreciated, I am much more concerned over the way views are being dismissed. Disagreements are there, obviously. The insistance on pretending they dont exist is highly unacceptable in my books thou.--Huaiwei 04:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas

Suddenly popped into my mind: how's a hot Christmas in Singapore? My friend has been to Australia and going to have his first buring Yuletide. :-D

Btw, I saw you're not in the mode of rapid editing. Why are you free to do so? (You seem to be working in the office at the mo) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas has always been a pretty commercialised thing here...at least as far as non-Christians are concerned. The same old decorations...some countdown party...some late night partying and crazed shopping. Yawn. Being snowless dosent seem to have an impact I suppose...

Anyway, dont quite understand your questions. You mean I am editing too often or not enough?--Huaiwei 04:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Typing mistake. :-P Nah, I'm a university stud and just finished my exam, thus very luckily having the chance to make few works in Wikipedia. But you are a graduate (and supposedly have a job). Just wonder why you have time to edit. Or do you work as a free-lancer?

Yes I am a graduate, and I am currently putting my job-seeking efforts on hold while I get myself swallowed up by volunteer "work".--Huaiwei 04:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. What field of career are you interested in? (You studied geography as you've mentioned in your user page.) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Could be anything ranging from urban planning, transportation to even policing and teaching.--Huaiwei 04:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Huaiwei, before I forget. I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. haha. --Terence Ong ^Talk 16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

3RR Violation Report, brought to you by User:Monicasdude :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=32115173

- Mailer Diablo 16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the tip-off!--Huaiwei 16:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation reported

I have reported your violation of the three-revert rule on the Mass Rapid Transit article at the appropriate [Administrator's notice board]. It is thoroughly inappropriate of you to insist that other editors refrain from making edits with which you are inclined to disagree, and it is a violation of the Wikipedia civility and, arguably, the no personal attacks policies to make the sort of personally directed comments that you have made in your edit summaries and releated postings. Monicasdude 16:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Monicasdude.--Huaiwei 16:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You can report it here in the same area that your violation was reported, or, since I'm keeping an eye out for now, you can just drop me a note on my talk page. Happy editing! .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Re : Mass Rapid Transit

Hi Huaiwei,

I certainly hope so. I hate to do this, but in the event he does manage to bring down the FAC, I will consider dispute resolution. - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

After all the efforts made to arrive at where the article is now, I can understand your frustrations over the behavior of a few. Still, I find Kirill Lokshin's comments very timely and apt, as we reflect on our conduct here. Your latest input in Monicasdude's talkpage is certainly excellent considering the conditions here! Great job! ;)--Huaiwei 17:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I asked Kirill for a neutral third opinon. Cos' after looking through the talkpage history briefly, Monicasdude has previously been involved in a similiar incident. It's hard to get the latter's attention to my reply. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I did the same thing of reviewing his edits, and by golly. Its amazing the amount of disputes he gets into for someone who hasent even considered it his priority to write something in his userpage.--Huaiwei 17:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL, look at this! - Mailer Diablo 17:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Walao that was freaking long loh! :D Anyway he is apprantly still pursuing the matter over the 3RR [26] while ignoring your overture. The RFC seems quite accurate about this behavior, eh? :D--Huaiwei 18:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Let him be for now - I have trust in my fellow Sysops in giving out neutral judgements. Let's wait and see how the FAC eventually goes. - Mailer Diablo 18:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Monicasdude a guy or a gal? Whatever it is. You may like to see the users talk page or User talk:Jareth's page. I feel that this user is being very selfish. Pleasure (for the barnstar) :D --Terence Ong ^|Talk 05:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh oh...thanks for the believe in me, but that is a little like adding oil to fire leh! :D--Huaiwei 06:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I've got a message from him. Look at my talk page. He said what my behaviour and stuff. No personal attacks that's right, civility, right also. The best is to leave him alone for the time being. :P --Terence Ong ^|Talk 14:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Filing

(from Enoch's talk page -- replying on yours as a courtesy)

You may be interested to know that I have filed a complain againt what I feel is inappriopriate behavior on your part as an administrator in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Enochlau.--Huaiwei 06:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei, if you really believe you have a case, I think that the RfC process is the correct channel to address these concerns. novacatz 06:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Follwing the concerns of Ryan of cluttering up the Admin board, I have move the debate about your behaviour to the RfC channel. The page is here [27]. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Novacatz (talk • contribs)

• It's gonna spillover...edit with caution. I forsee difficult times ahead. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I posted an outside view. -- Natalinasmpf 11:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore Police Force

Hi can you check out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Singapore Police Force. There's a request that User:Danny be informed about this. I've just left him a note. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification.--Huaiwei 13:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

You broke it? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Where?--Huaiwei 13:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• A second 3RR has been filed aganist you. [28] - Mailer Diablo 21:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Omellette

Some problems in the oyster omelette. I'd like to ask for your opinion. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Done.--Huaiwei 14:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Spectacular! :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey!

Really like to chat with you! I like your logical sense, Edmund, and have debates with you. A Chinese proverb springs to my mind: "The ones who know the heros, the ones respect them as well". You're pretty eloquent, and hope we would have another nice chat or discussion next time. Gotta sleep now. Nighty night. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply

In that context, it seems that he is directing that expression at me only. But anyway, I see nothing wrong for patriotism. It is too much for him to smear by saying that it is a kind of "sheer patriotism." I don't think that I am over-patriotic. Maybe he dislikes China, and so he finds it offensive for someone to not dislike China. If one hates China, he/she may consider leaving China and don't enter any Chinese territory - including Hong Kong - again.

By the way, I would like to keep contact with Wikipedians in an instant messenger. I already added Jerry in MSN Messenger. Do you have ICQ, MSN, AIM or Yahoo Messenger? May I add you to by contact list also? If yes, please tell me your screenname / number. Thanks.

-Alanmak 16:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Original message: Sorry for me butting into your talkpage, Alan, but I am rather intriged by the "I realise he is determined to show his sheer patriotism" statement. Was he directing that at you...or?--Huaiwei 15:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Next on the FAC...

Hi Huaiwei,

If you have some time to spare, help me out at getting the next article to go for FAC. BTW don't copy directly from the current NKF article at the articlespace, it's a copyvio from multiple newsources.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Although I would usually reply on your talk page, I've replied on my talk page due to the number of participants. enochlau (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the three revert rule on National dish and Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Izehar 22:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Question: Suggestions of new articles

Hi, thanks for your invitation. I like to know how I can suggest for some new articles to be added so that others can add to it. I believe some places worth mentioning should be included but I don't have enough material to include. --fauzi 10:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Special Administrative Region

Yes I'm sorry about that. It started off with me asking Instantnood to talk to me before continuing in the edit war, and our discussion, including various pieces of evidence, continued on our user pages. If you agree with our conclusion (that it should have S, A and R capitalised, judging by the use on HK govt websites), then we can present a summary of our conclusions on the article talk page. enochlau (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You might wish to consider moving all the related discussion to SAR's talk page then. I was previously engaged in the edit warring only because I believed your interpretation was correct without doing any research on my part. I am therefore open to either interpretation for now.--Huaiwei 01:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

A RFC has been filed for User:Monicasdude's questionable user conduct. Please join in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2.

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Help me do a favour by correcting that. And don't forget to sign. Cheers! :D - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks man! Hopefully all goes well. You know, I'd enough of all these. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well he has not one (MRT), not two (Dinosaur), but three (Bob) cases against him to deal with now! - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

70k Nepali speakers in HK

Hi Huaiwei,

I reverted your edit to the language list not because of the disclaimer, which I don't mind either way, but because you added that there are more than 70 000 native Nepali speakers in HK without providing evidence, and similarly with Indonesian. (There may be that many Indonesians, but it doesn't follow that they're native Malay speakers.)

Thanks, kwami 20:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I wasent the one adding the Hk entries. I didnt realise he removed them while adding that disclaimer, thus they reappeared in the revert.--Huaiwei 20:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd better check where they came from. I just removed a whole bunch of additions to Singapore too. (According to the Singapore demographics article, it seems unlikely that there are any minority languages spoken by more than 1%.) kwami 21:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm...think we are editing at the same time, so some of your removals got restored. I am actually reviewing what I just added, and Tagalog seems to be the only one I can find enough numbers for at present. [29] shows 50,000 Filipinos in Singapore. The Singapore demographics article is close to useless for this, esp when it is based on the Sing. statistics depts' preference for having data only for resident citizens, and not for the over 1 million non Singaporeans, yet count them in the total population figure of 4 million.--Huaiwei 21:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that all Filipinos together are barely 1% of the population, I doubt Tagalog makes it either. In any case it's unsupported so far, so I'm leaving just the four official languages. (Yes, it would be nice to know who's actually there!) kwami 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely 50,000 out of 4 million is over 1%? Anyhow I doubt the figures provided by ethnologue are accurate. Singapore has 25% of its total population who arent Singaporeans or PRs, so the figures provided are obviously outdated or inaccurate.--Huaiwei 05:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, 50k out of 4.5M is just over 1%. But how many of them are native Tagalog speakers? We don't know. I doubt the 90% needed to get 45k. And yes, uncounted immigrant populations are a problem in many countries, but we can't just guess. Much of the immigrant population is Malaysian, which only adds to the big 4 languages. Who knows who else is there. kwami 08:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

50K itself is not a verified figure, and I would expect a higher number now. Singapore;s current total population is 4.3, not 4.5 million. As for "Much of the immigrant population is Malaysian", are you suggesting most of the 797,900 non-Singaporeans and non-PRs are Malaysians?--Huaiwei 08:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What's an RP?

If you have data, please share. Otherwise the point is moot. kwami 08:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

PR = Permanant residents. Number of non-citizens and non-PRs can be derived by simple subtraction in [30]. It is not unreasonable to say most of these 797,900 dont exactly speak the national languages of Singapore besides a smattering of English and the significant population of PRC folks who are able to speak Mandarin.--Huaiwei 08:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Your RfC

Hi. I have answered your request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei. I don't think you were changing your position, I just thought it was worth making clear that what you were being accused of wasn't the compromising that other users were talking about. It seems to me the main problem is a few misunderstandings, which then led to heated discussions. JPD (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm...I am still unsure just where I am said to be changing my position, be it in terms of this misunderstanding or otherwise. Please do show some diffs so that I can look into it?--Huaiwei 12:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Answered at the RfC. JPD (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. THanks for dropping that note at my talk page, and my apologies if I have given the impression that I'm expecting a prompt answer. I'm definitely not in a hurry, and I'll be happy simply if the misunderstandings are cleared up. JPD (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Greetings Huaiwei, I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

re:archiving

After checking in with policy, it seems that page histories don't have to be moved in archiving pages, only when moving pages entirely. I think the current events pages can be manually archived. Cheers! -- Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! Sorry for taking so long. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Singapore Technologies Engineering

Your guidence and help over HERE will be deeply appreciated. I had gathered sources and informations for about 90% of their available products. Just that i'm extremly busy for the next few weeks and the article won't be completed anytime soon. Feel free to leave any comments... Thanks. PROJECT-ION PHOENIX PROJECT-ION PHOENIX 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please refrain from personal attacks like this [31] on the talk page. They don't add to a constructive discussion. For reference, I judge each case on their merits and not what instantnood thinks. novacatz 06:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if the that accounts as a "personal attack" when it reflects my observation of your involvement in various articles in wikipedia, but no matter. Since it disturbs you, I shall refrain from making such comments, although of coz I am still on the look out for herding behavior.--Huaiwei 09:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

i would like to notify you that this person (165.21.154.115) named lankoh has been vandalising Changi airport's website do take a look at all the rubbish he had posted.

Edit summaries

Hi Huaiwei, could you please stop adding commentary to your edit summaries? They are tending to inflame situations which are already volatile. I noticed that you had a point against Instantnood in your edit summary of Queensway -- he has taken a bit of umbarge to that and reverted your change. Queensway was previously a peaceful article but now it looks like you and Instantnood could fight over this one. Please discuss formatting with Instantnood on his talk page - don't start editing other articles with commentary edit summaries to make a point. novacatz 16:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but why do I find that you are being exceptionally biased in your statement above, so much so that I find it worthy to totally ignore it?--Huaiwei 16:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear war

Hi, please stop your nuclear war with User:Instantnood. Only you can prevent ForestFires. Reverting will just hurt the project. Please don't do it. I've blocked both of you for 24 hours, to give you some time to cool down. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ngiam Tong Dow and Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

Hi Huaiwei, were the references I offered in the talk page of MRT(SG) sufficient to change the history portion of the article? I noticed that there wasn't any reply to my 30 Dec comments on that page, just wondering what's the status. Akikonomu 03:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Ban: Category:Chinese newspapers

Huaiwei, per your probation and constant warring with Instantnood on this category I have elected to ban both of you from editing it further. The notice is posted on AN/I. Please take a moment and consider your actions on these articles and interaction with Instantnood, it does not reflect well on either of you. --Wgfinley 09:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice of new bans

For continuing sterile edit wars, despite all of the warnings and previous bans, I am banning both you and Instantnood from Char siu, List of railways in China, and Guangshen Railway for the duration of your probation. This is going to be logged and discussed at WP:AN/I. Dmcdevit·t 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Queensway

Could you please comment on Talk:Queensway about the reasons for and against each wording? I want to resolve the edit war. If the edit war continues, I will consider blocking you and Instantnood from this page. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional Bans

I have now also added Queensway to the list. Huaiwei, I know that you can be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, replying in kind and continuing this edit warring is not helping anything. I'm begging you, please stop, you and Instant need to step back for a bit and then try to work out an understanding, I will be happy to help with that any way I can. --Wgfinley 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

48 Hour Block

You have been blocked from editing for 48 hours due to your violation of your editing ban on Category:Chinese newspapers. I'm really disappointed you don't seem to understand the warring needs to end immediately. --Wgfinley 03:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Convention

Who set the convention of adding the box? Are you referring to Instantnood? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 08:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Was there a claim of the existance of any "convention", btw?--Huaiwei 09:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

And, moreover, I wonder Alanmak's creating a pseudo consensus in order to conduct his "correction" against our edits...What say you, Edmund? --Jerry Crimson Mann 09:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh?--Huaiwei 09:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Singapore Userbox

Hi Huaiwei, you may like adding this userbox below to your user page.
{{User Singapore}} --Terence Ong 09:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

List of cities in China

Unfortunately the edit warring has now continued on this article as well so I have instituted another article ban for you on this page. I was hoping that after the first few the point would be made but it appears that is not the case. I'm growing tired of them and you must be growing tired of the growing list of articles you can't edit. Please, cease the warring with Instantood before this results in another Arbitration case seeking more serious sanctions. --Wgfinley 10:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you personally prefer me to give you a full list of every single page in which there was violation of the arbcom ruling, or would you prefer to react only when one of us ignites long-standing disputes one article after another?--Huaiwei 10:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I would personally prefer that you both just knock it off. It is not your holy mission to go around reverting Instantnood. If he makes an edit that is not with consensus then others let revert him or make suggestions to change it. Again, it's not your responsibility, let the community govern the articles instead of following his every move, others can monitor him, not you. I don't need help tracking the warring, you're not the only one that knows what a contrib page is. --Wgfinley 10:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If your goal is for both of us to knock it off, how do you think your page ban is going to contribute to this effort? For example, your action above appears to be interpreted by User:Mcy jerry as a great excuse to revert my edit with nally a word of explaination, when you yourself stressed that it is not just the onus of the two of us in bringing about some kind of resolution in these affected pages. And you think its an issue involving just two wikipedians?

Yes, it is not my responsibility to go around reverting Instantnood. Would your statement apply conversely as well? Also, please do elaborate on the phrase "instead of following his every move".

Finally, from your response above which comes full of fiery flavour I would not have expected to be coming from a mediator, I would think this situation is being handled by an administrator who is not exactly adopting a more nuetral and less-confrontational approach in revolving this issue. Do you think your handling style will bring about reconciliation or confrontation?--Huaiwei 10:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Mcy jerry is not on probation, you are. You also have another motion about ready to be passed carrying that probation to the entire project and not just China articles, you've been banned from 6 articles (3 by me, 3 by another admin), you've been blocked twice in the past few weeks (once by me, once by another admin), your last edit summary made it clear you knew you were violating your ban and didn't care [32]. So, yes, if it sounds as though my rhetoric is a bit "fiery" (which made me chuckle for a moment given your penchant for vitriol as evidenced one of your recent edits [33]) it is because I'm trying to get a point across to you, this is past mediation, this is into keeping the peace now. You can either let the community police Instantnood or you can continue down this road that leads you to a year ban. The choice is yours. --Wgfinley 10:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you are unable to prevent others from taking advantage of the situation and joining in the revert warring simply because they are not on probation? Which also then goes to say that you do not think it an issue of yours should people on probation enlist other wikipedians to help them extend the edit warring even when they themselves are banned? Is this inflexibility helping the situation, or does it reflect your prejudice against my character and intentions in wikipedia purely based on the fact that I was on probation, and that I was supposedly the "opponent" of your arbcom advocacy?

That there is an impending motion to extend the probation to the entirety of wikipedia is long overdue, and is an obvious flaw in the arbcom proceedings which has been pointed out before but simply ignored. In the same fashion in which you ignore my "warning" above, that your inaction in preventing others from joining in revert warring is going to be exploited in some way or other and possibly by any party. I suppose history repeats itself.

Meanwhile, even while the motion was still pending, you found yourself in the position to impose a blanket ban on both me and instantnood for violation of article bans, an action not mandated by the specific arbcom ruling. Unless, of coz, you can show me which policy acords you the right to impose such an action.

I have been blocked from 6 articles. I was asking for the same in over 100 articles but no one paid any attention until now. What do you have to say about the inaction on the part of admins for the past months?

You claim my last edit summary made it clear I knew I was violating my ban and didn't care, when I bothered to take the time to apologise for it [34]. So how do you come to the conclusion that I was fully aware of my ban violation, and that I didnt care? What happened to your call to assume good faith [35]? (Yes, I do understand ASG is a virtue which can be abused. Are you suggesting I am abusing it now?)

And so you deem the above worthy of your "fiery" language, when you reminded Instantnood not to respond in kind [36]? I am not too sure if this is becoming of an admin who is trying to mediate (when he knows he is probably biased), but while we are at it, how should [37] be considered "fiery", when all I needed to do was show plain evidence from the editing history to once again unravel a blatant lie sprouted by your advocacy?

If there is a point you wish to put across to me, it is that you are demonstrating your unsuitability in handling this situation in a fair, NPOV manner which does not aggravate the situation.

Finally, is "policing instantnood" the final solution anyone here, including myself, is working towards? Your statement that this is beyond dispute resolution suggests to me that you are simply not looking for a long-term solution, but a stop gap measure in preventing a madness that has been on-going for over 1.5 years. How is this appriopriate, and do you think it is a realistic measure to resolve issues here? And do you think a one year ban is going to prevent further disputes from simmering during and after the ban? Instead of using resources to actually hammer out content disputes and looking into the root of the problem and getting (or compelling) all parties to sit down and hammer out a compromise, individuals like yourself choose to come in at your fancy and start slapping bans all over, choosing a simple and ineffective solution over a long, tedious, but possibly long-lasting resolution for all.

You are presented with a choice as well, apparantly.--Huaiwei 11:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I dare not go a war with you, since it will be certainly a vicious circle if it unfortunately happens. I'll be careful with my edits, e.g. providing proven facts, before adding words in the articles. Good evening, Edmund. =) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont think I am as much a "threat" as you make me out to be in your first sentence, but amyhow, I appreciate your desires to exercise some care in your edits. Still, I wish people would put their words into practise more often (such as my dissapointment with this recent edit of yours). I want to believe there is no collaborative action going on. I hope I am still right.--Huaiwei 12:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

While I'll practise what I preach, I do sincerely hope you that you can learn to turn the other cheek - to assime good faith when others are editing. =) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what "turn the other cheek" mean, but yes, goodwill begots goodwill. Trust needs to be earned, and is not a given. Once bitten, twice shy. This is not my first time dealing with you, and I am sure we know the worse the other can do by now. So it takes two to reconcile, and it takes two to activly show in action their true intentions to avoid controversy and to come to the negotiation table as and when disagreements arise. Your reversion was devoid of any explaination, and that was my top peeve, irregardless of what I think your intentions are.--Huaiwei 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you make it sound as though you have no choice but to follow him around? You can can control your own edits and decide not to edit war with him, instead you just throw it out the window time after time and just hop right in. In fact, you make it clear you're there to edit war with him. [38]. Why do you need someone to tell you not to edit war on those articles? Why is it necessary for people in the community to go through the articles you edit to ban you from each of them? Why don't you just comport yourself to acceptable behavior and not edit war? I said it before and I'll say it again, your long diatribe is going on and on about everyone but you, you are the one that is deciding to fight with someone for 1.5 years and it is you who should decide to put the sword away and start acting reasonably if any solution is to be obtained but the minute you come back from a block you jump right back in. --Wgfinley 20:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Before I give you a more comprehensive reply, may I just ask you on your opinion on the main concerns, and the main driving forces behind what has happened in the past 1.5 years. I would wish you may offer your take on why things are turning out this way, and your views on the conduct of the various individuals involved. Perhaps this would be much fairer to you then, else if I were to base my response on the comment above, I would be writting you off in a clear-cut case of "extreme bias".--Huaiwei 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A 1.5 year rehash is not necessary. Just stop edit warring, it's that simple. --Wgfinley 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to stick their fingers in, I am sure we would expect them to do some homework too. Do you think I would comply with your demand based on the kind of comment you made [39]? All you want me to do is to say no. Whats your hurry? Whats your motive? What solution can you bring to the table? I remain to be enlightened and convinced that I should accede to your demands.--Huaiwei 01:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

p.s I am giving you about 12 hours or more to formulate your reply. Hope to see something constructive when I return.--Huaiwei 01:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not my demand, it's the demand of the community and the demand of Arbcom for you to stop the edit warring. This page is filled with pleas of people for you to stop but you continue to refuse. I'm assuming the above is a continued refusal since my demand was simple "stop edit warring" you said you need to be "enlightened" first. I would certainly agree you need enlightening, I just don't understand why you expect to come from anyone since you refuse to listen to anyone. --Wgfinley 01:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Who constitutes this "community" which you claim exists? Please list me the users involved. The Arbcom ruling applies to all involved parties. You appear to think it applies to me alone (and I am surprised you still dont get what I am hinting or even blatantly telling you outright of why I am refusing to "listen"). I have two requests above, which you assumed was one. Firstly, I asked for your honest take on the issue at hand, how it came about, how it reached its current state, and your opinions on the individuals involved. I then asked for your philosophies behind your latest admin instruction for "ceasation...or else". Two different sets of questions, and not neccesarily related. Perhaps you would better comprehend my requests if you may quit adopting a "I am superior then thou coz I am an admin and you are on probation" attitude, get off your high horse, overcome your prejudice against others (and assume good faith, the very thing you attempt to preach to others) and learn to realise the stick does not always work better, neiter is it the best ultimate solution in disputes like this? I find it incredulous that I end up having to actually share my opinions on the conduct of an admin at this stage.--Huaiwei 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Barbecued pork with rice

This edit indicates you have no intention to stop edit warring and it makes reference to other articles that have nothing to do with this one. This is de facto edit warring. Since you indicate you don't intend to cease edit warring then I have no choice to ban you from the page which I have done, notice will be posted promptly. --Wgfinley 01:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I consider this a blatant abuse of your administrative rights. I will make notice of this action, and I suppose it is time I enlist the help of less-POVed admins. The worse thing wikipedia needs is POVed admins who cannot conduct themselves in a fair, unbiased manner.--Huaiwei 02:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This entire thing is being a tempest in a teapot for no good reason. Please, for our sake (and other SGpedians') don't go into things about admin abuse; I've been rather stunned by the whole affair. In the future, please contact others (ie. especially us)...that's what I've got to say about the matter. Both you and Instantnood are good editors, so please don't let this be blown out of prorpotion. Wgfinley is acting impartially out of good faith: I entreat you to let things go a bit and things will resolve the manner by itself. After all, it's not as if major damage takes place against Singapore by representing a prominent Asian dish as Hong-Kong centric, or vice versa. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, tell me who I should be contacting, for when help was needed, and when I was repeatedly cying out for help even in the admin noticeboards, no one has taken heed. This latest spate of edit warring is a direct implication of that. I would like to think Wgfinley is acting in good faith, but the above action crosses the line of tolerance. To actually base a discussion in the talk page and equating it as edit warring when none existed is to me a blatant demonstration of his inability in good faith administrating, all the more shocking when he deems it appriopriate to remind others to assume good faith as well. If things will resolve the manner by itself, it would have done so long ago. There was a period of time when I actively refrained from touching any topic I would deem sensitive to this issue at hand, but it simply got worse. I pleaded for admins to look into it, but since no one bothers, I decided I have to come in and revert war just to make admins sit up, take notice, and finally realise the arbcom ruling exists and to act on it. I am not too concerned about "major damage takes place against Singapore". Singapore's interests is not my sole concern, and is not the only nor the primary driving force behind these disputes.--Huaiwei 03:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Posted more at the SGpedians' notice board, I mean, and requested advice for every action. I would like to discourage "revert warring to make the admins sit up" because it goes against WP:POINT. Aiyah, don't worry about the articles, NSLE, me and the others will try to reconcile this. The admins' notice board is clogged up and less sensitive; the SGpedians' board would have been a better one. Besides, take it in stride, and eventually the virtuous editor shines through. I mean, there were arbitration cases over this; as one friend to another this is just advice I think that will fare better for everyone in the long run. If things calm down, then I am confident, the article ban will be easy to repeal and virtue will shine through (as in the case of User:William M. Connolley). I would be happy to advocate lifting the ban except I have little to cite at the moment, because time is needed to heal wounds. But do persevere! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

All I have asked for is the edit warring to stop, Huaiwei seems hell bent to go to war. If he changes his editing and instead stays away from the warring and makes attempts to assume good faith and work to build a consensus without the need for reverts, and reverts with inflammatory comments I will lift each and every one of these bans that I instituted myself. Simple - stop the warring and move on. --Wgfinley 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And your advocacy is not bent on war? And you find it unneccesary to ask your advocacy to change his editing, stay away from the warring and make attempts to assume good faith and work to build a consensus without the need for reverts, and reverts with inflammatory comments? I have hinted it, stated it, and now asking you point blank in the face. Your open display of bias is getting to a head, and I am asking you if this is constructive to dispute resolution. What you are doing is causing more anger on my part, not cooling it off. I have been advocating for fair, measured admin actions on all parties concerned. You are telling me it is perfectly all right to chid your advocacy's opponant, to assume bad faith in his edits, to assume he was the sole agreesor and instigator in this dispute, and to turn a blind eye towards the actions of your advocacy. The only times I felt some fairness was displayed was when you blocked him for 24 hours (although I was blocked 48 hours for the exact same offense, and despite the fact that I similarly apologised. Still, I am not too sure if he was actually blocked at all since it was missing in the block list) and when you banned both editors in most pages. I could take the offensive comments you made in my talk page, and the continued portrayal of me as the agreesor in my stride, since there was some level of fairness still displayed. This particular article blatantly crosses the line, however, as I have repeatedly pointed out.--Huaiwei 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, although I would just like to point out, that the simple reason why I did not post anything in the sg noticeboard, nor attempt to get views from fellow Singaporeans, is that I do not want this to turn into some kind of a HK vs Sg edit war. Instantnood has been known to portray me as an anti-HK individual to enlist the help of fellow HKers in ganging up against my edits, often times going against the adoption of good faith (when people I have never communicated with suddenly starts editing agreesively and using less than kind words against me out of the blue, surely something isnt right there). By working up local sentiments and to rally them against a "preceived common enemy", I find myself debating with a bunch of folks who dont seem to contribute factually to articles, but instead simply joins in the revert warring (and I suppose Wgfinley refers to this as "community action" against my revert wars?). There is already one example above for all to see. If I were to do the same amongst the sg community, will this be a healthy thing for wikipedia? And as I said before, this is not some kind of a HK vs sg dispute in essence, so why turn it into one?

Still, thanks for your willingness to consider involvement in this dispute. I have had enough of admins who choose to pretend nothing has happened, wait for things to escalate, then use that as an excuse to impose severe bans on those wikipedians involved. I do know I am WP:POINT, but this is precisely why. It is a guideline, not a policy, because sometimes it does work. Look at how beautifully it works now? ;) Would any admin interfere if I choose to cool down, sit back and allow instantnood to continue adding contentious entries or edits across wikipedia?--Huaiwei 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You keep missing the point that you did edit war on the article, Jan 8, 10 and 11 you did, not to mention other dates before that. I protected the article for general edit warring. You are on probation for edit warring, you stated you had n intention of stopping on the talk page, therefore I banned you for edit warring on Jan 8, 10, and 11 in violation of your probation. I was trying to give you a break but you didn't take it. I'm seriously considering whether I ever give you a break again when i see you edit warring on an article, I've counted at least 10 edits in the past 24 hours on different articles that are all reverting or changing articles where Instntnood has the last edit. --Wgfinley 03:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You keep missing the point thay I did not claim I did not edit war. What I am demanding to know, is your basis in assuming bad faith, and to list that as a basis for your admin action. Quote me where I stated my intention to continue to revert war. And I continue to demand to know why you continue to take action against me, when your advocacy has similarly revert warred in the same article in question. You "counted at least 10 edits in the past 24 hours on different articles that are all reverting or changing articles where Instntnood has the last edit." Have you ever tried doing the opposite?--Huaiwei 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Supreme court

I have now banned you from this article as well. I find your edit summaries here, here, here, here, and finally here to be disturbing. --Wgfinley 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the admin action. Again I ask if you would like me to offer you a list of edit war battlefields, or do you still want me to continue revert warring before you would act in other articles? You appear to misread my intentions when I asked this above. I was trying not to revert war so as to WP:POINT, but your post-activity action is leaving me with no choice, particularly when you blatantly allow your advocacy to continue edit warring while only coming in to act when I do the same thing.--Huaiwei 04:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Huaiwei -- how about not edit warring??????????. --Wgfinley 04:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I will stop if your advocacy stops it too. Plain and simple.--Huaiwei 04:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make this about me, I represented Insantnood on his first case, I had nothing to do with the second where you were put on probation. I have likewise banned Instantnood as well as blocked him the other day. I was on wiki-vacation for several months and during that time you continued to war with him so your warring has absolutely nothing to do with me, it is your choice despite any pleas or advice from anyone apparently. --Wgfinley 04:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That you are supposedly not involved in the second case does not render you unbiased, considering you still think the edit warring was the fault of mine alone, and that your advocacy was innocent. Your advocacy does have a choice too as well, and he does receive "pleas and advice" from others too. Why do you not chid him for his failture to accept those advice, while chosing only to lambast me for it? As I mentioned above, I do note that both were banned from articles (which is a move in the right direction), and both were blocked before (although I questioned the rational of the ban, and that both received different sentencing despite committing the same act), and yes, I do feel there is some level of fairness here. Your continued war of words with me using less than kind words (compare to the drastic differences in the way you talk to instantnood, for reference) demonstrates your prejudice, however, considering that fact that I have not communicated directly with you often before, and your singular demands made in my talkpage leaves me wondering if justice is indeed present here. And yes, your admin action in Barbecued pork with rice is the ultimate display of your bias, which you have at least valiently tried to surpress earlier. Pity your effort was shortlived, and your "true colours" emerged? Tell me its just a figment of my imagination...--Huaiwei 04:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said the edit warring was the fault of you alone. How about you deciding not to edit war? --Wgfinley 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont see you making a single mention on the role of instantnood, even after I asked you for your take on it. I gave you room to share your views on this issue, but you chose not to. So are you going to give that point now, or are you going to continue demanding that I stop edit warring, while allowing instantnood to carry on with his edit wars?--Huaiwei 04:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You are now banned from List of museums --TimPope 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

your advocacy

Huaiwei, I'm assuming your use of "your advocacy" is referring to Wgfinley's client (Instantnood), not the job he does as advocate. In which case you've both escalated a little bit of the above discussion towards personal feelings. I think he took the term personally when you weren't trying to accuse him, but his client. Knowing you both misunderstood each other and that's where the above fell apart, I hope you both can take a step back and re-evaluate the negative positions you've taken.

wg does have a few legitimate things to respond to (the unilateral banning on one article, and a real solution to countering nood's first strike strategy and overwhelming number of edits) so I hope maybe he can come back and do so with both yous'all understanding the other and willing to discuss.

signed, yer e-pal, SchmuckyTheCat 10:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

Your talk page is getting too long. I suggest that you should archive it. --Terence Ong 11:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

List of airlines

I've banned you both from this article, it is quite obvious it is in order, you both continue to revert each other with comments being made in edit summaries instead of where they belong -- on the talk page. You haven't posted anything here in over two weeks yet continue to revert each other, hence, I'm banning you both from editing this one. --Wgfinley 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"You haven't posted anything here in over two weeks" you refering to my posts in my talk page?--Huaiwei 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Talking about Talk:List of airlines, I assume. Carrying on an edit war with no discussion whatsoever makes it blatantly obvious that you have no intention to try to resolve the dispute, or regard for consensus. It needs to stop. Dmcdevit·t 08:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If one may refer to Talk:List of airlines, I am sure I did made recent entries there (as opposed to some who do not at all). I do not think I am compelled to respond to every new entry and to start talking to myself just to show a desire to resolve the dispute, when few have bothered to make their comments known as well. Is this a fair means of judging my intentions?--Huaiwei 08:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your last edit there was 18 days ago. Your last edit war there was yesterday. You are compelled to find a productive means rather than a disruptice one of ending this dispute. Don't pretend like you've been doing anything near discussing these edit wars. Dmcdevit·t 08:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think I am claiming to be discussing directly about this recent spate of edit warring. I was asking if there is validity in the claim that I did not participate in the dicussion there at all to assume I am not interested in dispute resolution.--Huaiwei 08:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what edit warring is. If someone, particularly one you have a long history with and are under arbcom santions for warring with, starts up a dispute at an article, the proper way to deal with it is to seek outside assistance. File an RFC, or use any of a number of other means to gain a consensus. Simply edit warring shows a disregard for dispute resolution, and reprehensible and simply never acceptable. Dmcdevit·t 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Does the filing of an RFC or any other mediation action accord any one member the liberty to continue edit warring in the said pages? Also, should a request for assistance gets ignored over long periods of time, do you have a better solution to offer? I am further dissapointed by some of the comments you made above particularly when you were directly involved in attempting to reconcile the conflicting parties before. I doubt you are unaware of the underlying reasons for the latest rounds of intense edit warring.--Huaiwei 09:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. My point has been though, and the fact remains that, edit warring is never acceptable behavior. Ever. And don't defend it by saying you had no other options. Because it is indefensible. Now. Let me first point out that edit warring can't continue unless both of you are edit warring. Why don't you, starting today, make a request for assistance, via article RFCs or whatever, and come to me if there is no response. Because even then my answer will be that yes there is something that can be done. I want you to realize that making these edits in the first place that you know others disagree with or will case edit wars, is disruptive in itself. Dmcdevit·t 09:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright now lets see how it goes. This of coz isnt the first time I am "experimenting" with using more constructive means, and so far, there hasent been any real breakthroughs. Are there any means in which there is a mechanism to halt revert warring, even if the content itself remains unresolved? It appears that from the above, Admins are attempting to force a halt to the edit warring by any means, and that includes doing it selectively. For instance, I have been wondering where the admins are in Lists of country-related topics, Category:Universities in Macau, Category:Universities in Hong Kong, Category:Chinese universities, Category:Cinema of Taiwan, Category:Cinema of China, and Category:Cinema of Hong Kong? Do I have to keep reverting before admins notice, while my "opponent" can keep doing it without anyone noticing?

And what do the admins have to say about edits like the one in List of largest airlines, which appear to be an attempt to reignite an old discussion seemingly in the hope that I may revert it, cause both of us to be banned, and then hope admins will revert it to his preferred version, a scenario also predicted by STC above? Look also in Lists of country-related topics, for example, in which Instantnood suddenly comes in and makes a revert on 16 January 2006 [40] after a lull of nearly four months for an illustration of this behavior. Thus, do any member need to revert war in order to get a ban, while it allows any one member to make contentious edits or reignite old disputes, and forcing the other party not to revert via the possibility of admin action? If this is allowed, is it then ethnical for me to start going back 1.5 years of edit warring and start reigniting all those edit wars I lost, then exact thing my "opponent" is progressively doing?--Huaiwei 09:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Huaiwei, you have to realize that admins are just other editors like you, with extra buttons. There is no "the admins" and they don't have to say anything, especially if they have no idea what's going on. So where the admins are in those pages is nowhere. It's the first I've heard of them, and I don't enjoy combing your contributions to find the newest edit war. Which was the point of my suggestion. None of us (as far as I can tell) know about this. Please take the advice of Natalinasmpf below. Annd no, it is not acceptable for you to reignite any old edit wars, or to edit war at all, even to get admins' attentions. We all have talk pages and a noticeboard, you know. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I'd like to request you to justify your claim in the edit summary [41]: " It was until it was reverted ". Or else, please apologise publicly for the false statement. As a matter of fact, I was actually the person to list all those that are not sovereign states under their corresponding sovereign states, as per your preference [42]. C.f. talk:list of airlines#Sorted by sovereign States and #Response to RfC. — Instantnood 17:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate to me why there is a "false statement", and why a public apology is neccesary. This is the second time in recent memory in which an unjustified demand for an apology was made [43]. The first one backfired. I dont suppose this will be any different.--Huaiwei 18:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've indicated. I said you did not extend your policy beyond Hong Kong and Macau. In the edit summary you claimed you did until it was reverted. — Instantnood 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"In the edit summary you claimed you did until it was reverted" Oh is that what I was actually refering to? If you cannot comprehend what others are saying, it is basic courtesy to clarify. If you fail to do so, is it the responsiblity of others to ask you to?--Huaiwei 11:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to contact others in the community

You don't have to take all of this on by yourself. AN/I is usually not concerned with content disputes unless the behaviour is really bad; why don't you bring an content-based RFC up instead? Don't be afraid to contact the SGpedians' board, it's not making it an SG vs Hong Kong war, just bringing in to the attention of more people, who have expertise on the issue. (Oh, regarding whether Chinese New Year greetings should be in Mandarin or Cantonese for the title, I took a straw poll of my relatives, friends and neighbours. They are split on the issue. Go figure.) Cheers. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

MRT Chinese translation talk

Hi Huaiwei, just wanted to inform you that I've added a rather long comment at Talk page for MRT (Singapore). It contains some information about my mini-research findings as to the obscurity of the term "大众快速交通".—Goh wz 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Clock tower

I have now banned you from this article as well. --Wgfinley 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but which are the offending revert-warring edits to justify this ban for both parties?--Huaiwei 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just about all the ones on 21 Jan. --Wgfinley 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And they are all reverts? Show me just one edit which is a revert.--Huaiwei 03:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your probation doesn't specify it has to be related to reverts, it specified being disruptive, there is little doubt you were being disruptive with the 21 Jan edit war. --Wgfinley 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Then state in clear terms what your block was for, when you stated "continued reverts of each other" as your justification for this block. If we (and not just "you". You continue to believe only I am gulty) are making disruptive edits, please state it as such instead of attempting to interpret everything as a "revert" when they are not. The shoddy way of writting your banning justification text does not reflect well on the way you handle your administrative duties. 21 Jan edit war? Please tell me what you are refering to, for what relation does it have on this ban?--Huaiwei 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm done, I'm not explaining it any more, if I ban you I will give the reason and that is all. If someone has an issue with it they can bring it up on AN/I. --Wgfinley 04:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

An administrator is not above the law. There is nothing to justify an admin ruling not properly backed up for what it claims to have happened. Unless the relevant ban explanation is revised, I see this as yet another case of abuse of administrative duties on the part of Wgfinley.--Huaiwei 04:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Notice

I have requested that the ArbCom case filed against Instantnood include you as well, if there isn't a vote to include it I will file it separately. I regret it has come to this but you appear unwilling to change your behavior. --Wgfinley 19:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am contemplating joining you to the arbcom case as well, considering your open display of vested interests in the disputes at hand, and your unwillingness in accepting your biasness in handling this dispute.--Huaiwei 02:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  Far be it for me to stop you from appearing ridiculous. --Wgfinley 03:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  Not exactly. Unfair practices by administrators in a particular dispute demonstrates their direct involvement in the said dispute. I have repeatedly brought this matter up with you, and I repeatedly tried to reason with you. But you chose to ignore all of these comments (including those from others), and persisted in these unfair practices. If this continues to persist, then yes, involving you in the relevant Arbcom is certainly neccesary to contain the dispute which you have succeeded in worsening.--Huaiwei 03:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  As I said, far be it for me to stop you. I have not had a single admin (or user for that matter) contact me and state that I unfairly banned you from an article, not a single one. You have one article where I banned you and not Instant but that doesn't mean yours wasn't merited. Finally, if you even bothered to check, I banned Instant from three articles today that had nothing to do with you and I also blocked him previously for 24 hrs for violating a ban even after he apologized and some others said I was being too harsh. So, if you want to take this bogus argument that I'm singling you out and being too hard on you, feel free, you will look ridiculous especially when one only need look at the other admins who have also banned you for similar behavior. Are we ALL against you? --Wgfinley 04:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  Comments about your administrative action is not only related to the way you handle my case. That others highlighted the way you handled Instantnood's block is precisely one example of your unwillingness in accepting the views of others. STC has specifically questioned the ban you imposed on me in that article, while failing to ban Instantnood as well. Have you considered his comments? Since you claim "I have not had a single admin (or user for that matter) contact me and state that I unfairly banned you from an article, not a single one", are you therefore ignoring his comments?

• You continue to think I consider you biased solely because of how you banned me in one article, while you failed to do so for instantnood. Far from it. That you banned him in three articles does not make you any less biased, for you only did so after STC pointed it out. Have you acted on two other examples both I and STC have highlighted in [44] and [45]? Have you acted on the whole list of articles I highlighted above in which revert warring took place, and I volunteerily decided to stop reverting with the advice of Dmcdevit? Yes you are not oliged to sieve through every possible contentious edit, and yes, I may give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed seeing them. But why does this happen habitually?

• Your continued open declaration that instantnood was "usually" innocent, and that I am the sole instigater, irregardless of who you eventually bans from page editing, demonstrates your obvious bias, a fact you attempt to deny. You may think this is irrelevant since you have been banning both parties in most articles. But what you refuse to acknowledge, is that this behavior emboldens instantnood in thinking he has an admin backing up his actions, and he has seen it as justification to continue edit warring or to reignite old disputes. Even when I repeatedly warn you against displaying open bias, you ignore it, and as we all expect, your advocacy (or whatever you choose to call him) simply plays along with it. If you are serious about stopping edit warring, then may I question why are you also fueling it a the same time?

• I dont have an issue with other admins handling this case. In fact, it may sadden you knowing I refrained from edit warring only via the assurance by Dmcdevit and Natalinasmpf. Your actions did little to that effect. Clearly, your believe that I am not interested in stopping my edit warring is unfounded. What I am demonstrating, instead, is that I am not interested in entertaining biased admins. And since this has resulted in more disputes than none, I suppose it is unavoidable that you be part of the arbcom case as well.--Huaiwei 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Lists of country-related topics

Is now also on your ban list, not that you didn't see that one coming from your last edit summary remark. --Wgfinley 20:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Senior Station Inspector - Redundancy

Then perhaps you can educate me. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, is it not? If that is so, then the ranks of the police force should be in the Singaporian Police entry, which it is. Is Senior Station Inspector a rank used in more than one country, similar to "General?" If so, that I would agree with you it needs its own entry. However, as the article stands now, it is an office exclusive to one body, which itself has an entry. It is a definition and it is already in Singapore Police Force here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Police_Force#Ranks. The entry gives no further information than is in the list. Further, even if it were to, I believe a very strong case could be made that the duties of a SSI or any other Singaporian police officer belongs in the SPF entry, not their own.

Newbie or not, this is not an example of misplaced enthusiasm but an example of trying to prevent wikipedia from being cluttered. I am not for deleting for the sake of deleting, but I would like to hear a justification for making this its own entry when it alread exists. Thank you. Avi 15:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If the fact that supposedly only one (we have yet to prove this) country uses the rank in question is the main reason for you calling for its deletion, then mind commenting on Assistant Chief Constable, Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Chief Constable, Commissioner of Police (Hong Kong), Commissioner of Police (Singapore), Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Deputy Chief Constable, Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, New York City Police Commissioner, Police Commissioner of Mumbai, etc, all of which would also have qualified for deletion based on your self-imposed criterion?--Huaiwei 16:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that there is a lot of redundancy and extraneous information here. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a vast repository for trivia. If there is something special or unique about the positions that lends itself to an article separating it from others of the same name, I can understand that. Many of those articles also link to holders of the office; something I may not add to wikipedia, but notable in their own right. However, and article like this: Police Commissioner of Mumbai is also a definition, and depending on the outcome of our discussion, I think that should be tagged as well. I am not fond of articles like this either: Assistant Chief Constable. I think it should be a section under Policing in the United Kingdom.

Do you plan on expanding the SSI article, or leaving it as a one-sentence entry? If the latter, what is your justification for leaving it on its merits, not a comparitive argument from other articles that may share the same issue? Thank you for responding. -- Avi 16:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, you tagged an article which was 6 minutes old. Wikipedia grows best with community contributions, and this does not always happen in 6 minutes. Of coz when I created the article, I have no intention to keep it as a one-liner entry (else I wont have bothered added a stub notice). That said, you appear to have this impression that even if the article becomes 3000 words long, you are still going to flag it for deletion by calling it a "definition". Where do you draw the line between a "definition" and an encyclopedia article? Also, can wikipedia article not start off as one-liner stubs before they see glorier days? I seek your comments on these.--Huaiwei 16:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I gree that here is where my respective new-ness came into play; six minutes is a bit too new. However, I guess I fit most closely in the Deletionist group, in that I would rather throw out some wheat with the chaff; especially as I am sure that any such wheat will be posted again very shortly.

Regarding the difference between a dicdef and an article, yes, size does have what to do with the matter. If germane content of significant size, more than a few sentences, can be added, it does lean towards it having article potential, and it should be treated more as a stub than a def. There is no single line; personally, I make that decision individually on each article. For example, an article about a specific person, once (potential) notability is established, is more likely an article than an entry about the particular meaning of a Sudanese noble title, which should be under Sudanese Noble Titles, IMO. Of course, I am just one voice among hundreds of thousands, as every one else is. The idea is that the collective decisions of a group of intelligent individuals will rise above the indivudual decisions of each member. Of course, this could just be the argument of Eventualism vs. Deletionism, but that would be oversimplification :-).

In a nutshell, where I draw the line is different than where you do, is different that where everyone else does, which is why we have these conversations and we both come out the better for it. I think that it may be beneficial if we continue this discussion on Senior Station Inspector's talk page. I am going to take the liberty of transferring this discussion there[46]. Once again, thank you for the frank and cordial discussion, it is appreciated :) Avi 21:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Singapore Science Centre

You have been banned from this page, the revert warring is blatant and obvious. --Wgfinley 20:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

7 Day Block

Effective immediately I have blocked you for 7 days for continued defiance of the ArbCom ruling and continuing to edit war on various articles. Your actions to intentionally and clearly edit war after numerous warnings, pleas, and blocks of 12 articles in the past 12 days are a continued disruption to Wikipedia. I suggest you take the 7 days to reflect on your actions and consider more appropriate forms of editing that are not prone to the incessant edit warring. --Wgfinley 20:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is too harsh. Shouldn't this be referred to other admins to seek further opinions first? For the Singapore Science Centre, the ban was issued after the discussion has taken place in the talk page, the ban was not necessary. --Vsion 21:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Instantnood

I've blocked him for two weeks, clear violations of his probation. This is the correct way to handle violations as opposed to responding in kind. Demonstrate that you are able to change your own behavior and use this as an opportunity to edit in peace. --Wgfinley 22:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines destinations

I once again removed the "via" information for the destinations on the list. The article is titled "Singapore Airlines destinations", not "Singapore Airlines destinations from Singapore Changi airport". The information on the actual routes should be included on SQ's entry on the airport page, or if necessary, on a subpage of the airport. Dbinder 01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a rather myopic means of restricting the scope of the said topic. A list of destinations is of an airline is about as useful as that. That is can include routing information at the same time makes more sense then your suggestion to have it in the SQ main article. So are you suggesting we dublicate the exact same destination list...plus the information in brackets? Are you suggesting someone interested in SIA's routes will have to navigate to an article on the airport first, when all of these information could have been easily accesible in one article? What exactly is your reasoning for this, other than trying to force all articles to conform to a certain "standard"?--Huaiwei 11:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the desire for some semblance of consistency, which really isn't that strange a concept, the article is titled "Singapore Airlines destinations", not "Singapore Airlines routes" or "Singapore Airlines destinations from Singapore Changi airport", which to me implies that it is a list of Singapore Airlines destinations. Also, I do believe the airport article should list the places that SQ flies from there. It is the only airline for which such information is not listed in the article. And yes I see nothing wrong with duplicating the condensed list (not including country and continent names). All other airports and airlines follow this format. Also, note that I'm copying this discussion to the article's talk page, so any replies should go there. Dbinder 16:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

List of countries by area

Hi, I think that this article should be renamed to List of territories by area, as the article List of countries by population was. Then we should add back some of the excluded territories or countries, like Antartica, the EU, etc... what do you think? --giandrea 19:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Continental Airlines destinations

I find it interesting that you accuse me of being personal when your first edit summary involved accusing me of making "another unilateral decision", despite the fact that I have yet to make any. Many destination lists were previously in geographical order, and apparently they were changed without any announcement as such. You should try reading WP:FAITH. If you had made a reasonable edit summary mentioning that this was the format that was decided on, then I would not have felt the need to revert your edit. Dbinder 23:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black indeed. You attempted to reorder continents, claiming it was a case of "standardizing". I rearranged them back by alphabetical order, and asked if any unilateral decision has been made, for I dont see any related discussion made on this anywhere, and I simply have yet to see any of our main airline articles being representatives of this so-called "standardisation". As I said before, British Airways destinations and United Airlines destinations (and also Singapore Airlines destinations, which was third) all started with continents in alphabetical order, and the last I checkd, have not moved away from this format. Kindly list me all articles which conform to your so-called standard, and list me the so-called "many lists" which were changed "without any announcement as such". Hence my obvious query as to why you claim there was standardisation of any sort. WP:FAITH? No I am sorry but that does not apply here, unless you can show me I assumed otherwise? Conversely, the seemingly ridiculous reversion speaks of bad faith editing on your part, for it suggests to me that you are inherently suspicious of edits I make. Again, I await demonstration to show that I was quite mistaken.

Good luck.--Huaiwei 23:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On closer inspection...just about the only articles which apparantly "conform to your standard" are those you started, including Oneworld destinations, Skyteam destinations, and Star Alliance destinations. Its no wonder now. I suppose "standardisation" in your books means "standardisation" by the way you (and only you) want them, without even bothering to check the existing formats in other related articles?

And what's with this preference for listing North America first? It wasent too long ago when some folks here seem to be lambastic others for "introducing POV" by improving on content related to their home city? So home city isnt acceptable, but home continent is? I am sorry, but I would greatly appreciate to be enlightened on this policy I would have thought belonged to the stone age?--Huaiwei 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are so unbelievably inflammatory that I was thinking about not answering. You seem to assume bad faith on a regular basis. As I said, I reverted your edit mainly because of your unnecessarily terse edit summary. I have reason to be suspicious when you undo several changes I make to an article, considering what has been happening with the Singapore-related pages. On other airlines whose destination lists I created, I listed continents in geographical order starting with the airline's home continent (since CO is a US carrier, that would put North America first), and no one said anything about it. I have since tried to find those and others that I changed more recently and alphabetized them. Others have already been changed, probably some time ago. You don't seem to understand the concept of a mistake - people do make them. Not everyone is out to get you. Dbinder 00:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I just looked back at old versions of destination lists. I'm not really sure where I first found the geographical order, but I'm sure I saw it somewhere. Sorry I jumped the gun on that revert; I didn't realize the alphabetical order was the standard. Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that you need to assume good faith. Dbinder 01:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you. I am glad that at least you can really look at existing articles, and realise a mistake has been made somewhere and apologise for it, and for that, I shall rest my case. As for the part over the assumption of good faith, perhaps I may just remind, that your introductory comment in my talk page, as well as the revert edit summary you provided are just as inflammatory and a reflection of bad faith to me in my books, and you may similarly wish to reflect a little on how you conduct your edits. To revert another purely due to the "unnecessarily terse edit summary" is simply unacceptable in wikipedia. If you have an issue with my comment, talk it out in the relevant talk page (and I would prefer it to be either in the article's talk page itself or in a more centralised location. This is not some kind of a you vs I issue alone. Others should know what happens in the background too. This is a community, remember?), not revert out of emotional displeasure or just to make a point. That you are "suspicious" of my edits based on past experience in other articles does not vindicate your current action. It speaks of nothing but very bad faith, so you may perhaps do good cleaning up your backyard first before telling others what to do (reminds me very much of global politics for some reason. :D).

My comments are unbelievably inflammatory? Well I am sorry, but I do happen to be someone who usually speaks my mind, and I dont mince my words. You will have to get used to my bluntness, I suppose, as much as I have to get used to your behavior as well.

The last I checked, you created the three articles for alliances, with NA at the top for each of them. Now please explain to me in what way is NA the home continent for each airline alliance? CO, for your information, was created by me way back on 10 December 2004, and it started off with an alphabetical listing, and it has remained that way until 8 February 2006 when you unilaterally came along and changed the other, callig it "standardization". No one said anything about it after this change? Well I did, and almost immediately. I dont see any evidence of the continent order being switched back and forth at any time of its edit history, and I certainly do not see anyone commenting on the pre-existing alphabetical listing for a good 14 months straight even when NA is CO's home continent.

So now that we know just what exactly is being "standardised" here, are you going to apply them to the three articles you created?--Huaiwei 07:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about the order of continents on the WikiProject page. As for my comment on the talk page, when someone accuses me of bad faith as you did with your accusation of "another unilateral decision", I will respond. As for the alliances, they could essentially be listed in either Europe or North America (oneworld could also be in Asia). Star Alliance was originally thought up by United and Lufthansa, and three other carriers joined in as founders. SkyTeam was devised by Delta and Air France, and oneworld by American, BA, and Cathay Pacific. Dbinder 09:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No one stops you from responding to a bad faith commentary. But to respond via an unwarranted edit revert means you are equally guilty of misconduct, if not more. I specically advised you to express your displeasure via more acceptable means. You do not seem to get the picture. Anyhow, I dont need you little literature on who the founding airlines of each alliance are. By this commentary, are you saying you stand by your decision to allow those three articles to contravene existing standards?--Huaiwei 10:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You did specifically advise me to express displeasure by more "acceptable" means after I made the revert. If you look at the article, you'll see that I didn't change it again, so I do "get the picture". My summary of the founding members of the alliances was in response to your question as to why North America was listed first on those when I put the continents in geographical order. Dbinder 11:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on the earlier commentary above, it appears you are attempting to validify your behavior by suggesting you have the right to respond to anyone who accuses you of bad faith, irrespective of how it was done. Thanks for the summary, but they arent exactly needed, when you have not exactly explained why founding members take precedence over standardisation, have you? And have your explained the preference for NA, when Europe obviously had a major role in these alliances as well?--Huaiwei 11:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

New Block, Two Weeks

You are blocked for two weeks for violation of your parole effective immediately. Specifically, causing disruptions in articles, reverting without discussion on talk pages and continued edit warring. The following edits in question are the cause for this block, will be posted on AN/I, your block log and in your current arbitration case. You can still contribute to your arbitration case by using your talk page.

Disruption of Wikiproject Airports

[47] [48] [49]

Continued barbs in edit summary in lieu of discussion on talk page

[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]

I'm certain there is more for me to post here but this will do. Your continued edit warring, causing disturbances and methods of editing continue to violate your probation.

--Wgfinley 13:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In regards to 47, 48, 49, 51, and 52, I don't think these should be used as justification for the block. While I certainly agree that the wording in the edit summaries and on the talk page was poorly chosen (see the section on Continental Airlines destinations above this), the destinations argument stemmed from an overzealous reaction to a mistake on my part which I exacerbated by failing to look at the guidelines before reverting an edit, not an attempt to disrupt anything (51 & 52). The WikiProject talk page items (47-49) are part of an ongoing and contentious discussion as to how the Singapore Airport article should be presented. While I don't agree with Huaiwei on this issue, the idea was that hopefully some kind of compromise can be reached. Dbinder 14:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes and I think it's very big of you to come forward and point that you started it with a mistake. What's missed here is a concept that Huaiwei continues to demonstrate he can't grasp -- people make mistakes, they edit in good faith and that doesn't deserve to be berated, chastised and demeaned in the process. Just looking at that discussion page, this talk page and the articles themselves it's clear that Huaiwei aggressively made a major issue about this, had large responses full of vitriol and unfounded accusations of bias, a large argument amongst folks ensued and it took a couple of days for things to calm down to talk about consensus. This type of disruption is exactly why Huaiwei is on probation and exactly why he's now being blocked for violating it. An editor not on probation does that they get a gentle nudge to try to keep things civil and nothing more. Huaiwei is on probation. --Wgfinley 15:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with all the edits pointed out. 47, 48 and 49 are part of the discussion how Singapore Changi Airport should look like. I don't see why such issues contribute to the block. 50 was when Huaiwei just removed duplicate information (the Chinese words) from the text as the Chinese name can be found in the infobox. 51 and 52, like Dbinder said, is not to disrupt anything. Though I disagree with Dbinder over the Singapore Airlines and Changi Airport issue too, he does make a point. A number of this edits are legitimate edits and not edit warring. 53 was a revert, due to I moving the names to the notice board, as they are trying to remove that list. The reversion to me is fine, and as Huaiwei said, it is for them to leave or remove their names, not other Wikipedians. 54 is a vice versa of 53, as the names have been reverted at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Singapore. I do have to say that Huaiwei's words are too blunt. I have to remind him on the words he use, and not to be over agressive. We do need to compromise on this. We all know that Huaiwei is on probation. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The point of this is not to ay what Huaiwei did as being right or wrong -- it is the question on is he violating his probation by causing a disturbance with his editing? I think anyone can look at this talk page and the talk pages of those other articles and clearly see it. I'm giving edits showing a pattern of behavior that is abusive and insulting to people who don't agree with him. He makes reverts and changes without discussion except for his edit summaries. Finally, I loved your last sentence the most Terence "We all know that Huaiwei is on probation" -- I would agree with that to a limit, everyone knows except for Huaiwei as he continues to refuse to change and get along. --Wgfinley 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: New block, two weeks

Re: [59]: I'm not too sure if you could still recall we did agree earlier, that, while modifications to existing ones should not be made, new additions would have to be logged. Yet some people, including one who very often pretends to be staying outside, went straight on to modify such new additions. Who's impatient? You and your fellows do have a tendency to insist in your own way, and insist to keep them when negotiations begin.. Who's unfairly advantaged?

Contrary to your bold claim (" whoever manages to add HK-related content first, which most of time, of coz, is instantnood "), many Hong Kong-related materials were already on Wikipedia before I joined. I won't be surprised, partly because of your background, with your calling anybody else " to grow up ". But I'd consider that an insult to say something like that on an international website to an audience which includes non-Singaporeans and non-Asians. — Instantnood 06:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I do recall the suggestion to cease futher modifications, and to log any futher contentious edits was made by me, and you failed to express vocal support for it, only doing so tacitly by abusing its original intent by continuing to make contentious editing, and listing these edits selectively in a veiled show of "support" for it. Meanwhile, I am certainly curious to know who those "some people" people are, and in particular, who this someone "who very often pretends to be staying outside" is. Where are the evidences of going "straight on to modify such new additions"? Your enforced wikivacation dosent seem to wake you up in that aspect.

So "I and my fellows" have a tendenty to insist in my way, whatever that means. So you arent insisting your way too? So you say we "want to keep things our way before negotiation begins". So you arent doing the exact same thing? Quite contrary to your claims, I specifically stopped myself from making any edit to allow for negotiation to begin. Do you find me clamouring for all edits to fit my criterion before my self-imposed ban? Did you reciprocate in kind? No. You continue to show reluctance to cease edit warring, to stop all kinds of nonsense once and for all, and to sit down and negotiate. That reluctance continues to be demonstrated here.

At any point in time, there has always been a balance of articles in which both sides are unhappy with. You persist in thinking that your "opponents" are somehow "successful" at the status quo in tiping the balance against your favour, despite the fact that I, and many others, have to constantly remind you that for any one article you consider to be in your disfavour, there is another which is. Your continued pretence that you are the victimised minority is getting tiring.

"Many Hong Kong-related materials were already on Wikipedia before I joined". Sure. And many of these are what I would consider offensive, and which you would approve. Which again endorses what I have been saying: no prizes for guessing why instantnood constantly demands that all articles be reverted to the condition before edit-warring begins?

Last but not least, what do you know of my background? Please share with us, for I dont see how that is related to my call for you to grow up, which you certainly should when particularly based on the siege mentality you openly display above. You can also dispense with the practise of using words like "someone" or "some people" when criticising others, in an obvious effort to avoid being accused of making personal attacks. Why whould I know this? Because that was a habit I used early on which you copied quite unabashedly and persisted to use ever since, long after I dropped it in favour of direct pinpointing of problems, and to face up to the music. Why do you not have the guts to follow suit, when mimicry seems to be the one thing you do best?

"But I'd consider that an insult to say something like that on an international website to an audience which includes non-Singaporeans and non-Asians." Oh so the call to grow up is not an insult when spoken in a website which is not international in nature? Now that's new! But its nothing new to hear such bewildering, nonsensical comments coming from you, which often seem to reflect the knee-jerk reactions by folks who cant contain their emotions in an outburst of retaliatory rage. And speaking of "knee-jerk reactions", you can do yourself a favour by avoiding constantly using a term which I first introduced to describe your behavior. How about some originality on your part? Like the violent reactions in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy vindicating the cartoons themselves, your behavior here seems to vindicate my comments about you.--Huaiwei 08:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I did insist, but I no longer do so for a long time. I've already agreed long ago to restore the things according to what they were before all our edits that look contentious to the other side (and log new additions), you and user:SchmuckyTheCat don't. You and he have kept insisting to put forward your point of view to the articles. The preexisting materials may look " offensive " to you, but there must be (a) good reason(s) why they existed in the first place, and apparently nobody came to challenge them before you did so. The way you responded in the last two paragraphs already exhibits your tendency to attacking other users on Wikipedia that you've trouble with. — Instantnood 21:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Philip Jackson

I have created a stub for Philip Jackson (surveyor) and fixed a large number of Singapore-related articles to point there, not to the sculptor or the disambiguation page. If you have more information about Phil, please feel free to expand or correct the stub. I don't plan to watch your talk page, so if you need my attention, wake me up at my talk page. Chris the speller 00:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Information Request

Huaiwei, my name is Casey Harrigan. I am a collegiate debater for Michigan State University. Could you contact me about proper citation of some of your work? Please email me at: harriga8@msu.edu. Thanks. 11:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)