User talk:Huaiwei/Archive I

Barnstars of Honour

For your most appreciated and extensive work in articles pertaining to Singapore, not only making numerous additions of great quality to such articles, but being ever vigil and excising POV at a moment's notice as well, I, Natalinasmpf, hereby award you *The Barnstar of National Merit*. Congratulations! Natalinasmpf 15:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In recognition of your tireless dedication to creating the SGpedians' noticeboard, Singapore portal, contributions to Singapore-related articles and service to the Singapore Wikipedians community, I hereby award you with the **The Barnstar of Diligence**. :) - Mailer Diablo

For your contributions to Singapore-related articles, SGpedians' notice board, the Singapore portal and current events in Singapore. I recognise your effort done and I hereby award you with the **Original Barnstar**. Good job! -Terence Ong ^|Talk 15:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiVigils

On the SGpedian community's behalf, I thank you for the wonderful contributions you have made on Wikipedia for the past year. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come back, Teo!--Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huaiwei, do come back. We really missed you and your significant contributions to Singapore-related articles. Without our notice board, I don't know what SGpedians' will be today. I value your contributions you've made during your stay here. It is your wish to come back or not. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do please come back to Wikipedia! --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 10:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions are truly valued. --Sengkang 16:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, the Gurkha Contingent article was primarily of your work. Thankyou for a fantastic read; I enjoy many of the Singaporean contributions to Wikipedia. It is a shame to see an editor of your standing leave. michael ^talk 08:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

A final decision has been made in the above Arbitration case and the case has been closed.

For the Arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore MRT academic text

If you ever come back to Wikipedia. you could help me find a text you have added to the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) article: Sock, Y.P. and Walder, Jay H. (1999) Singapore’s Public Transport. Thank you for your help! --Ghormax 13:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return

Is there nothing that can make you come back? You are an asset to us. Please return! We'd love to see you work on articles!--Tdxi an g 09:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that can make me come back is myself. Thanks for poking at me all these while...it wasent in vain now I suppose! :D--Huaiwei 15:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's so many new things you have missed. You will notice we have many articles on constituencies now, and I plan to do the 1955 election next. Hope all will be well soon. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do keep myself updated on affairs and development in this site however, and was kindof dissapointed by what happened to the Current Affairs in Malaysia and Singapore page, for example.--Huaiwei 15:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you return after all this while. Good luck editing! :) --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 16:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tot you left? ;)--Huaiwei 16:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see you on MSN now, are you online? I will chat with you over there. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 16:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont intend to switch on MSN now...otherwise I will never sleep. :D--Huaiwei 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I watching Superman Returns? :D --Vsion 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol...maybe that was another source of inspiration!--Huaiwei 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excellent. SchmuckyTheCat 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei, I need your help for the 1997 elections and I don't know much about elections before 2001. If you like to help, help me to expand the article. Thanks. --Ter e nce Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 07:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you are back. Let's rebuild the Singapore community again. - Mailer Diablo 14:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You make it sound as thou it was "destroyed" during my absence? ;) Hope it arent that bad, and in fact, it wont bode well for this site's future if its so dependent on a few wikipedians. Lets aspire to build up a team of sgpedians at the same time, shall we? :)--Huaiwei 15:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back/L/wangi 16:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ;) I am kinda wondering why the Changi Airport page has remained largely stagnant even in my absence thou...sigh. --Huaiwei 16:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back...having been aroudn for quite some time i have always been for changi's page been tend by singaporeans. that filipino thinks he knows best....what the.

Heh...but er...whos the filipino you are refering to?--Huaiwei 10:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's good to see you back! --Merovingian (T, C, @) 15:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the welcome. ;)--Huaiwei 15:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

huaiwei i was refering to eletrikblue that pinoy guy.....

Re: City of Singapore

Re [1] [2] [3] [4] - From materials I have cited and have on hand, it's pretty apparent that the Municipal Council, later the City Council, did not cover the entirety of the then crown colony. There was a Rural Board responsible for the rest of the crown colony. The Municipal Council was in fact established in the mid-19th century, long before Singapore became a crown colony of its own in 1946. The City Council definitely was not responsible for the Cocos or Keeling Islands and the Christmas Island, which were transferred to Australia in 1955 and 1957. In the 1948 Legislative Council election, there were four constituencies, two for Rural and two for Municipal. As it is a fact as shown by evidence, it's hardly my assertion. I've yet to see any evidence justifying your claim ([5]) that the pre-1963 City is the same as the modern state of Singapore.

Edits related to the pre-1963 City and City Council were not related to the page ban in the sense that the page ban was a result of disagreements over the city status of modern Singapore from the administration and legal point of view. There's nothing related to the fact that the pre-1963 City did not cover the entirety of the modern state of Singapore. — Insta ntnood 22:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this whole text appearing in my talk page? Do you have an issue with me, or do you have an issue with the topic at hand?--Huaiwei 12:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You directed the problem to my user talk page [6]. As a responsible contributor I have the obligation to explain to users who dispute with actual facts, and to request them to provide necessary evidence. — Insta ntnood 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My post was on the justifications behind the admin action against your behavior in wikipedia. Attempting to explain your factual inclinations in my talk page (or in anyone else's for that matter) does not vindicate your misbehavior even if it turns out that your POV is factually true. I find it of interest to note that even at this juncture, you still apparantly fail to distinguish between factual disputes and behaviorial problems. Is this also reflective of the fact that you have basically not changed nor learnt anything about your conduct after all these time? Very tragic indeed. (and you can dispense with that "As a responsible contributor I have the obligation to..." rheotic. That's pretty thickskin by Asian standards, and we arent fools when forming opinions about you.)--Huaiwei 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep refuting actual facts with no justification, and it's behavioural problems to revert such edits of yours.. interesting. Is there anything to do with Asian standards? " That's pretty thickskin " - Neologism, huh? — Insta ntnood 18:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Well firstly, define "actual facts", for what seems "factual" to you may not neccesary mean the same to others. I certainly do accept well-researched, well-documented factual information, thank you very much. Whether your "facts" meets these criteria is a concern you need to deal with, but not in my talkpage. Secondly, I am certainly shocked that you didnt know what my sentence in brackets mean based on your last two queries....seriously, you didnt know what thickskin means? It is an actual word in English, and there is an additional meaning in the Chinese context. Arent you Chinese enough to know it? "Anything to do with Asian standards"...well I am Asian, so it is relevant, even if it dosent apply to you. :D--Huaiwei 13:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One's ethnic, cultural and nationality background is of no relevance to editing on Wikipedia. — Insta ntnood 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overdone revert

Please kindly restore what you've overdone in your recent revert to culture of the People's Republic of China [7]. Thanks in advance. — Insta ntnood 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly restore those to culture of China as well [8]. — Insta ntnood 18:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.. you simply ignored the request for the communist/PRC article. Not sure if you'd bother to respond to talk:culture of China, to explain what you've said in an edit summary [9]. — Insta ntnood 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply didnt bother opening up this page when I note the last editor was by the name of instantnood. As stated in the summary, an "over-revert" dosent exist when ALL edits are rejected. End of discussion.--Huaiwei 15:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" I simply didnt bother opening up this page when I note the last editor was by the name of instantnood. " - Does that mean you will revert my edit regardless of what changes I actually made? Does that mean you don't bother to explain why you "rejected" those changes? — Insta ntnood 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does me opening up my talkpage has anything to do with reverting your edits, and on explaining those edits?--Huaiwei 13:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re [10] [11] - Please explain why you overdid, especially for the latter one, in which you undid your own edit [12]. — Insta ntnood 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to explain both edits in my talk page, when both edits were explained in the edit summaries, and both edits were not even reverts? And if you have an issue with those edits, why are you not bringing it to the two respective talkpages?--Huaiwei 13:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[13] [14]; [15] [16]. — Insta ntnood 18:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure you can use the English language to tell me just what you really want. Those diffs mean absolutely nothing to me.--Huaiwei 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary since the links already tell, obviously enough. But since you've requested explicitly, I won't mind elaborating even it's that obvious. You claimed " both edits ere not even reverts ". That actually are reverts. In the latter case you've even skipped an edit of your own. — Insta ntnood 18:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added content in one page and removed an entry in another. That is a revert, simply because there so happen to be one version which happens to tally with my latest edit? Well if you see that as a revert, in what way does my comment in the respective edit history not explain themselves to warrant another questioning here? Do you dispute both edits, or are you having nothing else to do this evening? And btw, what in the world does "skipped an edit of your own." mean??--Huaiwei 18:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diff links are already telling those are actual revert. In this edit [17] you reverted your own edit made less than an hour beforehand [18], and in this edit [19] you removed the line on OAG and an interwiki link to Hebrew. What's that if it's not overdone? — Insta ntnood 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[20] - Do you actually know what exactly you've reverted? — Insta ntnood 21:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word country in English

Re [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] - Please note that the word country in the English language, as used on Wikipedia, is not normally restricted to refer to sovereign states, c.f. list of countries (which is a featured list), entries under category:lists of countries, categories under category:categories by country, etc. — Insta ntnood 20:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating your POV all over again for months on end does not advance the discussion. Do not waste real estate in this talkpage for such purposes. And may I further issue a strict reminder, that if you have an issue with a topic, bring it up in the talkpage of that topic instead of posting them in the talkpage of individual wikipedians. The reasons for this reminder is obvious, while your reasoning for your current conduct is not.--Huaiwei 15:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not just my point of view. It is an established convention on Wikipedia - a reality you've failed to accept. It's hardly an issue with those individual entries. It's problems with your edits on Wikipedia. — Insta ntnood 18:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An established convention on Wikipedia? That is a fantasy you choose to believe in. If the problem is not with the topic, but with me, then how do you explain the fact that you had to repeatedly remind all kinds of people about your POV? Considering the fact that I noticed you had a tendency of bringing content issues to people's talkpages, is it fair for me to conclude, that you have a strong believe that anyone who disagrees with you are inherently problemetic individuals? Dosent seem to reflect a mature, reconciliary, and open-minded individual who strives to build concensus, does it?--Huaiwei 14:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a fantasy that you refuse to accept it. — Insta ntnood 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lame. Your failure to engage in my comments line by line above just shows how much of an empty vessel you actually are. You can continue claiming the existance of "established conventions" for all I care, but so long that you cant show any third-party evidence, you can expect to waste your time here.--Huaiwei 12:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIVIL and Wikiquette

Re [27] [28] - Please kindly stop confusing SARs with SARS. It's no joke. It cost several thousand lives. You've been reminded [29], yet you continue to do so. — Insta ntnood 18:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a joke when someone feels wikipedia can cost several thousand lives with a typo or two. Perhaps I misunderstood a sentence or two above, but seriously, I could not care less.--Huaiwei 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a mere typo, but a bad joke. You consistently reminds people of the event, and keeps equating SARs with SARS. If it were mere a typo, you have been making the same typo again and again, e.g. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. — Insta ntnood 18:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that hilarious. Are you recovering from an addiction to SARs? SchmuckyTheCat 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol! This isnt even a joke until he turned it into one. So "SARS" reminds one of "SARS"? Well so be it for those poor, insecure, and highly imaginative chaps. On hindsight, its about time some folks learn to accept negative aspects of life, and quit pretending it never existed.--Huaiwei 14:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try put on a swastika visiting Israel. — Insta ntnood 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So whats gonna happen if someone does that?--Huaiwei 11:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who can tell. — Insta ntnood 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Who can tell"??? LOL!!! So why ask me to do something when you cant tell the result? And why ask me to stop doing something when you cant tell the result of doing something else? ROFL!!!--Huaiwei 11:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try do so if you dare. — Insta ntnood 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a threat now? Anyhow, why make that statement when you cant tell what the outcome will be given the above comments you made yourself? ;)--Huaiwei 17:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re [35] - Please stop. SARs ≠ SARS. — Insta ntnood 21:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re [36] - Please stop now. — Insta ntnood 21:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop what? SARS?--Huaiwei 23:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you invent a vaccine for that? SchmuckyTheCat 00:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!!!! --Huaiwei 12:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? You'll need it if it's invented. — Insta ntnood 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a joke. That's hardly a typo. — Insta ntnood 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[37] - Please stop now. — Insta ntnood 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please grow up.--Huaiwei 11:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[38] Please stop, or else you are insulting yourself. — Insta ntnood 17:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[39] Please stop. — Insta ntnood 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[40] Please stop. — Insta ntnood 19:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award

Huaiwei, thanks for signing up for the Esperanza User Page Contest. The judges have received the fifteen entries, and are ready to start judging. The judges will take a week to complete the judging process, and they will contact all the participants when the judging is done.

Please drop by the contest page for contest updates and questions. Take care, and good luck! May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I cant believe how my humble little page can get nominated, but thanks anyhow and have fun! :D--Huaiwei 11:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese name of Singapore Japanese School

In your 8 March 2005 edit to List of schools in Singapore, Singapore Japanese School was called "シンガポール日本人学校へようこそ". Actually, "へようこそ" just means "Welcome to...", and I've since removed "へようこそ", albiet only sixteen months later. It would help if you check with a speaker of a foreign language before adding text in that foreign language into articles. Thank you! —Goh wz 14:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make you my default consultancy for my future usage of that language then? ;)--Huaiwei 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on Notability

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. --Ephilei 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray!

Yes, Huaiwei, welcome back. I hope to work with you soon...so good luck! See you on MSN, too.--Tdxi an g 10:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absence

Well, true enough, it was rather sian without you...:(--Tdxi an g 10:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...sian meh. My return isnt exactly "splashingly exciting" either, I hope not? :D --Huaiwei 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thanks for moving back Current events in Hong Kong. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no problem, although I regreted the move right after doing it coz I didnt notice that Talk:Current_events_in_Hong_Kong#Requested_move has commenced. Still, thanks for helping to salvage a domant project, and if possible, I may chip in a contribution or two as well over time! ;)--Huaiwei 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award

Greetings, Huaiwei. The judges would like to announce that the winner for the Esperanza User Page Contest has been chosen. Congratulations to Kylu for winning the contest. The winning entry can be found here.

If you'd like to participate in the contest again, check by the contest page in a few days and sign up. See you around. May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)

RFC on Talk:Current events in Hong Kong

Hi Huaiwei! There appears to be a fair but real dispute on this article. I have opened an article RFC on the above talkpage (There were two talkpages to choose from, I selected which one by tossing a coin). Please comment if there are things you wish to add. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian to SIN

Hi there Huaiwei, just noticed your edit to SIN. I agree that source says nothing at all about the service, however this service (and onto MEL) is due to terminate at the end of March 2007. Some news articles on it:

and I think there was an article in the New Straits Times today, but without a subscription... Thanks/wangi 12:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per my latest edit, a termination of flights into Australia need not mean a termination of the entire route from Vienna. Singapore and Kuala Lumpur could very well remain as destinations, and unless the official source indicates their removal, I would think this is jumping the gun a little. Oh btw, Austrian seems to be trying to throw in their last trump card or something...two days after announcing their withdrawal from Australia, they launch the new Business class on the Vienna-KL-Sydney and soon, the Vienna-Singapore-Melbourne flights [41].--Huaiwei 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally not bothered either way - if it's a development of real note (which it probably is) then it needs to be part of the Austrian Airlines article. However a number of reliable news sources do report the KL and SIN flights are being dropped too. For example this one, witha quote from the country manager for Malaysia and Singapore:

http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BT/Friday/Nation/BT581031.txt/Article/

I'm amazed with the speed people add, tag and delete route info on the airport articles... Thanks/wangi 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally wait to see it on Austrian Airline's official website before committing the change. Just as some folks has shown skepticism everytime possible new routes were added (even when sources were provided), I would expect the same when attempting to remove existing ones. Anyhow, I do note that the Kuala Lumpur International Airport article also specifies only the Australian leg as being the abandoned route.--Huaiwei 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going off on a tangent here... I know we've had our moments on the article table/list at SIN in the past and it's now the much reduced "standard" format... But I can't help thinking that even these lists are largely a non-encyclopedic collection of indescriminate information. In an encyclopedia article surely the list of current destinations isn't important - it's the reason behind and for important routes being dropped and started that's important. Consider it from the view of WP:0.5, WP:1.0 and print versions - the content will be stale...

Oh, I don't know... This is really just a brain-dump — don't worry, i'm not going to get the hatchet out :) I'd I wager not many people, if any, think the same anyway! Thanks/wangi 15:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skytrax

Thanks for adding the information. " You know the answer, but since you are too lazy... " [42] - No I don't. I am no expert in aviation stuffs. The original sentence was a general description, but the 2006 clause did not mention which award(s). It looked like all awards went to Changi in 2006. — Insta ntnood 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not anyone's fault that you are weak in basic English comprehension.--Huaiwei 19:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously.. do you really think it was clear enough before your edits? — Insta ntnood 19:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that I was not the one who wrote that line and I knew exactly what it was refering to, I leave it to you to go do your research if you are that confused (which you didnt, choosing to hide the text instead). I mean, its not like you are as amaturish in this regard as you claim, as evidenced by your lively involvement in this article, including edits like [43].--Huaiwei 19:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC) (20:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It was rewritten from some external sources that I got and verified by googling. — Insta ntnood 21:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of course. I have always known you as a google replicator, and not an encyclopedia writer. Just how many full articles have you ever writtern in your thousands of edits (which isnt another list or stub)?--Huaiwei 21:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is writing featured articles the only way to contribute to Wikipedia? What about those who get around and fix spelling errors but write no article, for instance? — Insta ntnood 19:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with spellbug busters. I do have a problem with spellbug busters who come to my talkpage and start kicking up a fuss and questioning why my username is spelt as such. Utter waste of my time, as above. ;)--Huaiwei 11:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Country article

Take your discussion of Country to the article's talk page. You are close to violating 3RR. Joelito (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page just began to see some action. Thanks for the warning thou. ;)--Huaiwei 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You were properly warned. You have been blocked for 48 hrs for edit warring on both Country and List of largest buildings in the world. Joelito (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that things are clearly going out of hand, and I applaud your action. I apologise for any inconveniences caused.--Huaiwei 21:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may respond to User_talk:Instantnood#Blocked in my talkpage:

The 3RR is there for a purpose, and that is to prevent revert warring. Having more than one revert in consecutively is disruptive, and it does not get any less so just because there are less than three rounds of reverts. I would think a lifting of the ban based on his reasoning would contribute nothing to the arbcom's efforts other than enforcing his believe that the 3RR ruling can be circumvented by sneaking other intermitent edits together with the disputed edits, and by timing his reverts to avoid breaching the 3RR. The 3RR specifically speaks against the gaming of the system for a reason, which is quite evident here in my books. Hope this view may be considered when evaluating his request. Thanks!--Huaiwei 21:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]