User talk:Huaiwei

Welcome

Hello Huaiwei, welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for the good work you've been doing with Singapore Airlines.

You might find these links helpful in editing pages or creating new ones: How to edit a page, Tutorial, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should probably read our policies at some point too.

But don't feel you have to read every policy document before you do anything. Dive in, be bold in editing, and if you do anything wrong, someone will be quick to correct it and let you know (hopefully, politely!) You'll have noticed everything's running a bit slowly at the moment - don't let that put you off. There should be new servers in very soon and that should sort the problem out.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Again, welcome! --ALargeElk 16:07, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Pages

Hello Huaiwei, please check for 'double-links' and 'misjoint links' to the pages you have moved afterwards. A lot of pages had to have their links manually corrected due to your recent page movements. Use the 'What links here' on the left-hand side to help you. Thank You! - Mailer diablo 05:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your userpage's vandalism

You may, if you like, request that your userpage be protected if it's continually attacked by vandals, and if you want to change something you can ask any administrator to change it for you. See WP:RFP. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 20:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew

Hello Huaiwei, about Lee kuan Yew's collaboration with the Japanese, if you bother to read through the external link on the same page (The one to Time), there it mention he once collaborated with the Japanese.

"During the Japanese occupation of Singapore he worked for a Japanese government propaganda department--although it has long been rumored that he was secretly passing intelligence to the British."

Also, in his memoir, there within, he mentioned he worked as a transcriber of Allied radio reports for the Japanese. Now get your facts right before you do the vandalism!

Was anyone trying vandalise your page?

Hello Huaiwei, it's me again, I left this message as a note to the fact that you did not bother to acertain the evidence of truth to the edits and perphaps, without any responsible thought, simply place it upon the wilful insistence that it is vandalism, when you could have tried to confirm or determine whether this had any basis, perhaps without much difficulty. I think this is rather lacking of a [Wikipedian]!--81.178.214.217 06:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dont even know how I can respond to an anonymous contributor, so let me just say this, that when I said someone (was it you?) was vandalising my page, I am of coz refering to my personal user page (ie...the main page this discussion is attached to!). I suppose you consider adding insulting remarks agaisnt my educational and intellectual background is appriopriate to wiki-work, but I dont quite agree to that. As for whether I have been unethical in my conduct with regards to "the truth" you clamour for, let the history section and the talk page of Lee Kuan Yew speak for itself.--Huaiwei 22:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello Huaiwei, one of the key policies of Wikipedia is to respect the contribution of others, the other, to observe an unbiased or neutral point of view in content, do refer to policies to clarify. With that in mind, subjects or statements that are in factual agreement should not be so hastily removed, when in doubt, do question or query, Googling is a good start. Your entries as well as deletion may be considered as mis-information, which for the purpose of imparting and sharing of knowledge, is unwarranted.--81.178.250.157 09:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not entertain threats, and I know what I am doing, so if you have an issue with it, go right ahead and approach the administrators of this site. No point talking to me about "deletion" being mis-information when the entire page's contents just dissapeared. (and I still have to add signatures of you)--Huaiwei 09:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello Huaiwei, was anyone threatening you or is it just you who felt threaten? What I had pointed are justified, I do have an issue, with the vigilante attitude taken in "correcting" the edits. Do know the difference between vandalism and a deliberate omission of fact, in essence, spreading gospels of half-truth.--81.178.232.178 09:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not wish to discuss this further. Take your gospels elsewhere. Thank you, and good day.--Huaiwei 10:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A comment to this discussion: a) Huaiwei was having his user page vandalised and b) there was regular changing of Lee Kuan Yew to Lee Con-You. a) is vandalism and personal attack and b) is simple vandalism which Huaiwei is correctly reverting. The "admins" have spoken in the sense that they have joined with the rest of us in reverting these edits and supporting Huaiwei in his edits. This is becuase both vandalism and personal attachs are against the policy of the site. Huaiwei is doing the right thing which I support. If some legitimate additions are caught in this then this is bad, but the way to deal with that is through the article's talk page and evidence (which now seems to have happened). Mozzerati

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Martin Oei

Huaiwei, how's your Chinese? I wonder if you could do some quick analysis. The question is does Martin Oei need to be covered in a page on Wikipedia? His chinese page is supposed to be this in Chinese. Which I can't read. The claim is that he was important in Albert Cheng's dismissal from a radio contract.

Could you please comment:

is this guy really listed as involved?
is this backed up with evidence (links to newspapers) or could it have been faked?
even if he was involved, does he really need a separate page, or could it just be part of Albert Cheng's page?

Thanks for your help; if you can Mozzerati 07:46, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Renaming categories

I think that if you want to rename a category, you have to edit every page in that category and change the name. Everything else happen automatically. Ideally, if it's a small category you open them all, make the edit, then save them all at once. If it's a huge category you want someone who has a [[WP:B|bot]. Mozzerati 15:17, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming and listing conventions (Hong Kong))

Hello Huaiwei don't you think renaming it into (Hong Kong and Macao) or (Macao and Hong Kong) would be more convenience to users? -- anon 10:39, December 7 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

KCR / Countries and territories

Seems that you have stopped giving any remarks at Talk:List of metro systems, Talk:Air Canada destinations, Template_talk:East Asia and Talk:List of city listings by country. Could I add KCR back to the list? And do you find anything new by comparing Hong Kong, Macao with other non-sovereign entities? Thank you. -- 19:24, December 14, 2004, UTC

Strange. People stop arguing with you, and you think you therefore have the right to return your edits?--Huaiwei 21:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So let us revert the article into its original state before the discussion, i.e. with KCR on the list without the note. -- 08:21, December 15, 2004, UTC

I am fine with that....for KCR that is.--Huaiwei 09:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been trying to contact you via other means. Would you mind to discuss all these matters outside Wikipedia? -- 20:47, December 15, 2004, UTC

I am getting so pissed off with the silly revert wars that I stopped coming here for a couple of days, and I appreciate this willingness to bring the argument out of wikipedia. If you use IMs like MSN or icq, feel free to send me the details via email. Dont disclose your email here, least spammers get hold of it.--Huaiwei 11:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Airlines destinations

Hong Kong and Macao have the same status as Bermuda or Greenland as dependencies. They should not be listed under People's Republic of China, like airports in Bermuda, Aruba or Faroe Islands. - Privacy 16:38, Jan 25 2005 (UTC)

Is this Anon speaking?--Huaiwei 18:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please kindly revert all the airlines destinations articles, or please propose to kick them out on the list of dependent territories. - Privacy 18:17, Jan 28 2005 (UTC)

Actually I am reverting YOUR edits. Meanwhile who are you?--Huaiwei 17:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What have you done to my edits? I don't think you have reverted any of my previous edits. - Privacy 18:16, Feb 4 2005 (UTC)

The statuses of Hong Kong and Macao

Hello I noticed you've plenty of reversions to the articles such as List of metro systems, List of official languages by country, and articles under Category:Airline destinations. I understand it's not easy for people, and perhaps including Singaporeans (aren't you?), who are not very familiar with Hong Kong and Macao, to agree on they are in reality dependencies, instead of ordinary subnational entities. I myself spent most of my time in Hong Kong and I think most people of Hong Kong would not list Hong Kong right beneath PRC. At the time being please don't change all those articles until the trouble been solved. — Instantno od 19:33, Jan 28 2005 (UTC)

In actual fact, your arrival in this site sparked off trouble. You unilaterally initiated all those changes without consultation with others, and your issue is hardly one for me to address alone either. What I am simply doing, is to either revert those changes back to what they once were, or I am simply applying convertions as has been set out already.--Huaiwei 17:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are not keeping all the articles involving this controversy at their original state. At 08:35 Feb 1 you modified the article List of airlines. — Insta ntnood 09:56, Feb 2 2005 (UTC)

As I said, my main aim is to ensure that established conventions should be followed. Whether it involves reverting or editing, it makes no difference. Meanwhile, why do I suspect I am talking to the same person with a myriad of usernames?--Huaiwei 04:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind telling which "established conventions" you are following? There are quite a lot of articles listing Hong Kong and Macao together with other sovereign states and dependent territories, like many others listed on the list of dependent territories. The Hong Kong and Macao articles are part of the countries WikiProject, which covers both sovereign states and dependent territories, instead of the Chinese provinces or the Chinese cities WikiProjects. — Insta ntnood 07:51, Feb 4 2005 (UTC)

I do not know if you are the same person as the one who got into quite abit of "trouble" lately, but this is precisely what happened. He started removing Hong Kong and listing it independently from China in just about any list he could find, and that raised the ire of many existing members. He singularily attempted to write a so-called "conventions" for HK and Macau stating, amongst other points, that HK and Macau should be listing seperately and treated almost as an independent entity in all matters other then defence and international diplomacy. Not surprisingly, his set of "conventions" was overwelmingly voted for removal soon after.

That Hong Kong is still part of China removes any contentions that listing it as part of China is erroneous. You do not need a local HKer to understand politics over there. Incidentally, it seems like it is the overseas Chinese who seems to hold a clearer view, whether it was over the two SARs, or the Taiwan question. As they say...旁观者清.

Meanwhile, the only set of conventions still in operation and pertaining to this issue is the extremely careful threatment of words and presentation of facts which does not demonstrate outright independence, and not subjudication either. A balance has to be struck somewhere. Also, the point in particular which I find motivated to edit out, is when the PRC is listed as "Mainland China" followed by the two SARS. We would have thought in "conventional wisdom" that it is correct, until we realise the term "Mainland China" is NOT consistently refering only to the PRC minus the SARs. In fact, this has also been pointed out in the Mainland China page. Hence, I would rather remove the subclassifications and either list the cities as one listing, or as in the cities by country listing, a subclassification of the rest of China.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong is no longer a conglomerate of independent cities for quite many decades already. I am still wondering why that list exists. It should have been presented as a historical fact rather then one which is still pervasive.--Huaiwei 17:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about what has been going on. What I know is that Hong Kong and Macao are covered by the countries WikiProject, and they are listed on the list of dependent territories. That's the convention that I agree with. Hong Kong and Macao have their own delegations at many international organisations, as full members or associate members. They have their own sport team.

I have debated over this before. In this first place, I do not see why dependent territories should be listed with fully independent countries, because if so, perhaps we should start listing all territories with any form of autonomy from their parent countries? How about adding Inner Mongolia and Scotland to the list of countries next? Of coz, this point is an ambiguity worthy for much wider debate.

The WikiProjects you refered to hardly substaintiate your point, in actual fact. WikiProject Countries itself was merely a template for standardise country pages...it does not tell you if a territorial entity should be included or not. Instead, the following page is more relevant: List_of_sovereign_states and of coz List_of_dependent_territories, which you have already mentioned above. If they are indeed one and the same, why bother having two lists? In addition, WikiProject_Chinese_provinces and WikiProject_Chinese_cities did not completely rule out the coverage of Hong Kong now or into the distant future. The phrase "is likely not going to" suggests it is open for contestation at any time. Again, they are not exactly conventions to demarcate what is considered "Chinese" and what is not. They are merely meant to standardise page formats.

And as I have mentioned multiple times over the issue of the SARs having their own representations in international organisations and sporting events: it is a situation made possible because the PRC gives concessions for such a situation to take place. I understand the said offending person above has tried to insist that all lists not pertaining to national defence and relations should have HK listed seperated, but that is simply not do-able, because that will simply imply that all listings can have such divisions, since HK does not have a local army to speak of!--Huaiwei 08:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all I don't know exactly what has been discussed. The form of autonomy of special administrative regions are not the same as autonomous regions of the PRC. — Instan tnood 10:01, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

Of coz the various forms of autonomy are not the same, but it is still a level of autonomy nontheless. You are either an absolute dependency with no say in your own personal affairs, an autonomy with various degrees of self determination, or you are an independent state with full control over one's own decisions (well...most of the time). There is simply no other option left. The SARs may be "special", but it is still not "special" enough to form its own category transcending all the above such that it gets ranked at the same level as the central government. For that to happen, the HK government has to be seen at the same level as the central government. As far as I remember, the HK leader was selected by Beijing, and not the other way round.--Huaiwei 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you tell why some autonomous territories are listed on the list of dependent territories, while some others are not? And why notes are necessary for French départements d'outre mers (or collectivités d'outre-mer, collectivité sui generis, territoire d'outre-mer, etc.), but not the others? — Instan tnood 18:32, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

In many other articles dependent territories listed on the list are listed in the same manner as sovereign states. If you personally don't agree with it you should first proceed to discuss about it at the relevant discussion pages, instead of modifying all the articles according to your own preference. After all you haven't tell which set of conventions you have been following. — Instan tnood 10:11, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

I dont agree with it, but if you realise, I have not enforced my opinions across the entire wikipedia for every single dependency/autonomous region either except when either chasing after the edits of someone as mentioned before, or when I happen to chance upon any interpretation of the two SARs suggesting their independence. More on this later.--Huaiwei 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did look up the history records of some of your edits/reverts, and I found that for some articles the original state was Hong Kong and Macao were separated listed, and you moved them under China (or PRC). Please don't justify your act by shifting the responsibility to the said person. And please.. keep all these articles as they are, and don't enforce your personal view of how they should be treated. — Instan tnood 18:45, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

The current way of treatment on WikiProject Countries, WikiProject Chinese cities and WikiProject Chinese provinces do reveal (or imply) what the current set of conventions is like, which the participants agree with. The wording "is likely not going to" merely means that the conventions might perhaps be changed some time in the future. But we have to stick to the set of conventions currently in use at the time being. — Instan tnood 10:14, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

No. Please diffrentiate between the WikiProjects and the Convention pages created here. WikiProjects set out to standardise formats. Convention pages standardise content. The wiliproject pages for both Chinese cities and provinces suggest, that the SARs' pages may be presented to look like those for countries, but this does NOT dictate that they be treated as countries across wikipedia.--Huaiwei 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind telling the reasons why the articles on Hong Kong and Macao are not covered and treated like cities or provinces of the PRC? — Instan tnood 18:48, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

And interestingly you still haven't tell me which is the set of conventions you're following that "Hong Kong and Macao should be listed under the PRC" is stated. I am curious enough to take a look. — Instan tnood 18:49, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

I guess Hong Kong and Macao should be listed under the PRC, like an article on the military of Liechtenstein would perhaps have only one statement stating defence is the responsbility of Switzerland. Hong Kong does have an article on foreign relations. — Instan tnood 10:17, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

Things are not as simple as this. Listings are not interpreted merely by its topic, but its presentation as well. Say, for example, a listing of airports by country. Airports by themselves are more of a geographic/economical/engineering concern, but the word country is obviously political. Non-political concerns are being presented around a political framework, and that is when you cant really say there is no politics involved.--Huaiwei 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right. The politics is that under the provision of the special administrative region, only diplomatic relations and national defence are the business of the central government. If all airports should be listed by sovereign state, then please proceed and list the airports on Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles Bermuda and Cayman Islands under the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. — Instan tnood 18:52, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

Yes Hong Kong and Macao are part of the PRC, just like Faroe Islands and Greenland to Denmark, or Aruba to the Netherlands. You don't need a people from a certain place to tell the situations of that place, but she/he probably knows much more than you do.

Yeah, and if both entities are part of the PRC, what is the factual error of listing them as such?--Huaiwei 08:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then I would have to ask should Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles be listed under the Kingdom of the Netherlands, whereas Faroe Islands and Greenland be listed under Denmark? (and the same to Cayman Islands, Bermuda and many others) — Instan tnood 10:18, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

This argument sounds familiar. As a continuation of what I have said earlier, not all forms of autonomy or dependent territories are the same, and hence, is there a need for "conventions" in this regard? Do we treat Taiwan and the West Bank the same way? No. Why do we treat some territories as thou they are independent countries, but not others? Why do we accord more attention and special threatment for some dependencies/autonomous regions, but not others? Because no two cases are alike, and they have to be re-evaluated by their own merits.

One particular issue when I look at the way dependencies are presented, is whether the territories in question are geographically contigious or not. Aruba and the Netherlands are seperated by an ocean. Will it cause confusion should Aruba be listed in Europe? Similarly, shall we list the Isle of Man as seperate from the UK, when it is geographically contigious? If so, then how about Gibralta? That Hong Kong and Macau are geographically contigious with the rest of the PRC, and they also exists within the same regional influence is one factor for listing it together with the rest of China.--Huaiwei 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see. In your opinion it is geography that make the differences. Should Guam and the Northern Marianas be listed under the United States (which in turn is under North America)? They are not "geographyically contiguous" with the lower 48.

I don't know which set of conventions you are following to list Hong Kong and Macao under the PRC. Listing Hong Kong and Macao in the same way like other dependent territories do not imply independence or secsession.

I will take a look at the mainland China article, and will probably put up a reply out there.

The above two points are actually related to the following set of conventions: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). The listing of "Mainland China" as a country is simply erroneous and unacceptable. Meanwhile, as I said above, I am personally opposed to listings which combines dependencies with independent states, not just because this implies political status uniformity, but also because they are not always directly comparable in the first place.--Huaiwei 08:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China" is not a "country". But to me it looks fine as proper solution to differentiate it with Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. — Instan tnood 10:21, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

It looks fine to you, but it does not to all those who had to revert that means of representation.--Huaiwei 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind telling the reasons behind? — Instan tnood 19:06, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

Your personal opposition is obviously not the current conventions. You may consider bringing your concern to the relevent discussion pages, addressing the current treatment with Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Greenland, and many others. — Instan tnood 10:23, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

You apprantly think that I am alone in holding this particular set of opinions with regards to this issue. If so, perhaps you might wish to check the editing history of countless pages, and see for yourself just how much backlash the above edits are creating. And to top it off, the "offending person" I mentioned earlier unilatarily created a Wikipedia:Naming and listing conventions (Hong Kong and Macau) page over the Chinese one I showed you earlier, in which he tried to spell out the ways the two SARs should be represented across wikipedia....namely as seperate from the PRC unless it was about national defence and so on. It is too bad I dont have a copy of that page left, but it was pretty impressively detailed, including how Macau should be spelt, how the "cities of Hong Kong" should remain, and so forth.

And the result? The backlash was enough to get that page deleted through a process of voting (and which I didnt even had a chance to participate in as I did not visit the site during that time). Refer to this archive: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Naming and listing conventions (Hong Kong and Macau).

So if you think this whole issue was my own unilateral initiative or something, then you might be glad to know that we do have some company out there....--Huaiwei 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for telling that was such a vote for deletion. It's too bad the original article was completely removed, that I cannot read it. Some opposes the procedures, but not the content itself. Notably, Juntung Wu said "I am not against what you are advocating (I have no view on this) but this is NOT how policy is formulated. There are proper procedures to do so.". Some said that it is covered by the conventions on Chinese-related topics, and should be redirected there. Nevertheless as the original proposers had pointed out the treatment on the special administrative regions was not (and in fact is not) outlined at that set of conventions, except the spelling of names, and a brief definition and usage of the term "mainland China". How Hong Kong and Macao should be listed is not mentioned at all. — Instan tnood 19:14, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

What is the conglomerate of cities issue, and which list are you referring to? Hong Kong is not a continuous urban mass, and its government has not definition for what constitute a city. "City" is not part of its structure of administrative division. But Hong Kong is definitely not one single city. — Instan tnood 07:58, Feb 5 (UTC)

Refer to the debates over Victoria City and so forth, as well as the listing of cities by country. As I have mentioned before, A "city" is not neccesarily defined by a contigious urban area. Saying that Hong Kong is not one city just because it is not a continuous urban land mass suggests that Istanbul and New York City should not be one city too. Besides this, what forms your opinion that Hong Kong is definitely not one city?--Huaiwei 08:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Back to the basic.. What constitute a city or a town? What makes a city a city and what makes two (or several) cities two/several cities? — Instan tnood 10:24, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

I am a geographer. I would be more happy to hear how you define it, because you seem to be the one insisting that Hong Kong is not one city. On the other hand, I am quite open to the idea of accepting Hong Kong as not a city at all, but merely a territory.--Huaiwei 12:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I read the discussions at Talk:Victoria City and Talk:List of city listings by country (well I went straight to Talk:List of cities by country and discovered I was at a wrong page, anyway). I read the discussions there, and I don't really understand the way you, as a geographer, defined a city. The government of Hong Kong has never (including the colonial government) created any definitions on what constitute a city, like what the articles city and town mention for some countries. It calls itself a city in the same manner as London (Greater London, not the City of London) is defined as a conurbation all over wikipedia on one hand, but at the same time it is listed as a capital city, and a former host city of the Olympic Games. The contributers of the first three sections of Talk:List of city listings by country did mention about why Hong Kong should be kicked, when the list was merely a list of cities by alphabetical order (with the former title "List of cities"). — Instan tnood 19:25, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

For your information. an edit of the article Thirty most populous cities in the world. The source of the list does not include Hong Kong. — Instantno od 20:11, Feb 7 2005 (UTC)

Romanisation

Hi Huaiwei I would like to know if you're insterested to say something at Talk:Romanization#Singapore. -- 10:05, January 27, UTC

Thanks

Hi Huaiwei,

With regards to the Singapore article, thanks for your help. I wanted to avoid confrontation and follow the Wikipedia:writers rules of engagement, but Neutrality did not reply to my post on the Talk page but deleted the whole discussion instead. The section was brought back by you but it was deleted again by Neutrality.

I could only back off and hoped that other people could talk to him.

Once again, thanks for being objective. I hope I didn't come across as being offensive (that might be what Neutrality thought). If I do, please leave a message here so that I'll learn (I'm just a newbie - don't bite! LOL).

--202.156.2.170 02:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hahaa....I consider myself a newbie too. :D He is an obvious abuser of the site, and you are right in doing what you did. His sign-in name speaks of trouble, quite paradoxically, isnt it? ;) I suppose folks like us will just have to keep reverting his abuse.

Meanwhile, you might wish to consider signing in with a user name. People tend to place higher regard to those who sign in, as they give the impression of being more responsible and a probability of being a long term member here.--Huaiwei 06:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Drug screening when entering Singapore

Hi, I have one question. In the German Wikipedia there is a discussion whether there is an "hidden" drug screening when entering the country, especially by Changi Airport? I got the information from my German guide book which states that the air in the gangway when leaving the airplane will be hoovered (hope it is the right word) and transferred to some drug dogs. I noticed when I was leaving the airplane that there is indeed a very strong wind in the gangway (as per 2002). Further it would be very interesting if such a installation is only in the Airport or also at the customs checkpoint on the causeway border crossing. (if there is anything like this). Hope you can help me with this question. Thank you. -ThorstenS 13:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it is secret...indeed it is a well-kept one, because I have never heard of it before too! :D

There was no "strong winds" in the causeway crossings from the times I have used it....but there are probably other "secret" means of doing so. When travelling by bus, I only remember having to bring everything down, go through customs (while the bus is also ochecked, I would presume) and checking of bags, before boarding the bus again.--Huaiwei 19:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have checked with my Guide Book (printed 2001), it says that it only happens in the main station when coming from Malaysia. I have removed the section in the German Wikipedia since it looks I am the only one who insists on this procedere. Maybe can you ask some friends, maybe they know "something" ;-) -ThorstenS 11:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh...I have a friend who works for the Singapore customs authorities...maybe asking him will help. :D Might take some time thou, as I hardly get to see him often nowadays, but will keep you informed once I get news!--Huaiwei 15:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for much your help :-) -ThorstenS 16:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ang Mo Kio

Hello Huaiwei,I seen you did some details works on Ang Mo Kio, and thanks for the correction! I am just a newbie and appreciate your elaboration. The whole section of Ang Mo Kio was left as a empty slate until you come! That's great! keep the good work!

Norman Oh

Hey, no probs man! ;) Most of our pages for places in Singapore are embarassingly under-developed, so I am hoping to contribute to them one by one. Meanwhile, your text on the history behind Ang Mo Kio's name is amazing...how about having the whole text in the discussion area moved to a new page dedicated to the naming of Ang Mo Kio?--Huaiwei 16:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Norman at Norman Oh WEll Huaiwei... I am a little bit scary to come here. It is like myself (old grandpa trying to cope with punk'id and whiz’ boy with IT expertise.) and i do feel new and intimidated (as a newbie)compare with others(pros). Perhaps you can do it for me. eh! do it under your name with my full permission! Feb. 25 ,2005

Hi Huaiwei I have successfully (1st timer) download a picture of an older Map with the name of Mukim XVIII to go with my article you mentioned as from above quote of yours (how about having the whole text in the discussion area moved to a new page dedicated to the naming of Ang Mo Kio?--Huaiwei 16:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)) How about go to take a look at it.(?) see goto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:MukimAMK.jppeg.jpg Thanks for attention! Norman Oh 25/2/2005 at 7.46 am

Huawei it looks like you have objectively potong the page with a few telly tales there see: below. haha ! Gerrymandering by the dominant political party is considered the normal here in Singapore. Ang Mo Kio GRC is one of the lopsided electorate GRC constantly manipulated. For instant Serangoon Gardens once an electorate division has disappeared. It is added to other political zones to accommodate the intent of the ruling party so as to remain the ruling single party system on the little Island. Usually each GRC group will have a few candidates with one or two minority representatives included.

I am not offended, just don't think u r 100 unbiased(!) I read your potong pasir! AND u LEFT OUT mR. c sEE TONG JUST YOU ALSO DID NOT LEAVE lEE hS LOONG! RegardS UNCLE.Norman Oh 08:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei, perhaps you may want to edit further on the Ang Mo Kio topic. I have high respect for your editing talent. Thks a lot! Norman Oh 05:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Airlines destinations, Hong Kong and Macao

Hello Huaiwei. I would like to know your position over the issue after the lengthy discussions. I noticed you have recently edited China Southern Airlines. Does it imply your position is still the same? Thank you. — Insta ntnood 17:16 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

I felt discussions with you are quite pointless. In the end, my position remains the same, because I remain hugely unconvinced. Meanwhile, are you now saying you do not approve of my edit to that page as well?--Huaiwei 17:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for telling. And basically yes to all articles that involve listing of Hong Kong and Macao. Please keep such articles as they are, and avoid asserting your view while editing. Stick to the naming conventions if possible, although it tells little about the treatment regarding Hong Kong and Macao in this case. — Insta ntnood 20:53 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

By the way, it doesn't matter if you prefer answering on your discussion page, and indeed it's easier to read. But if you feel like convenient please drop a notification at my discussion page. — Insta ntnood 21:16 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

Your request is odd. By insisting that I "keep articles as they are", I suppose you are telling me to stop adding additional information (not neccesarily political) to ALL pages pertaining to anything remotely related to anything Chinese just because it happens to have even a tiny relation to Hong Kong? I challenge you to point out anything which is factually wrong in specific pages, the most recent one of which is that page for that particular airline.--Huaiwei 21:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't have imagined my words would be confusing in this way. What I meant by "keeping articles as they are" was to keep the article's way of presenting mainland China, Hong Kong and Macao.

What is factually wrong for that particular airline? — Insta ntnood 23:33 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)

You said "keeping articles as they are". Now, if the list was INCOMPLETE in the first place, and I completed it by adding the entire list of destinations, may I know if you are asking me to stop adding information to wikipedia just because they include mention of China/HK/Macau?

I am sorry, but do I sence that my actions in this website are being tracked by you down to the last edit, and that you are now asking me to stop my edits as well?--Huaiwei 07:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. I requested not to change the way that information is presented until the dispute is ressolved. I did not request anybody to stop editing. Don't misinterpret people's word. — Insta ntnood 10:21 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

Oh? So are you sure what exactly have I edited to that page before telling me to stop it? And meanwhile, perhaps I should be asking you to stop adding Hong Kong as a seperate entity to every single listing of countries and adding the word "Mainland" to "China" since that also involves enforcing your point of view, am I right, nevermind that it also means telling you to stop adding information to wikipedia?

Stop telling people to quit editing and taking advantage of the impasse to enforce your own edits. That is unethical and downright dishonest. If you see enough reason to have a proper debate over how the SARs' information should be presented, then initiate a proper means of discussion over it. Your refusal to accept majority views seems to be your reasoning to stop edits by others now?--Huaiwei 10:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you know it is unethical and dishonest. I do not know what do you mean by majority views, and who are the majority. — Insta ntnood 10:42 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

The more important thing is....do you know it? Majority views? Well tell me...how many people have actually agreed to your views on this, if you have ever tried gathering views on it in a proper manner that is?--Huaiwei 10:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And did any one agree on yours? — Insta ntnood 15:15 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

Try asking Jiang or Ran, for example. ;) Anyway, why are we wasting time discussing trival stuff like this when an actual attempt to get concensus should be the way to go?--Huaiwei 15:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well over the discussions at the section above I did try to know your arguments, and the evidence backing such arguments.

The real facts are: you did not answer why some territories are listed on the list of dependent territories and not the others. You did not tell why Hong Kong and Macao are not treated in the same way as other cities or provinces by the WikiProjects. You did not tell why Hong Kong and Macao should be listed under the PRC along with other cities or provinces. You did not tell why the airports on Aruba, Bermuda, Cayman Islands and the Netherlands Antilles are not listed under their corresponding sovereign states on pages of airlines desinations. You did not answer why airports on Guam and the Northern Marianas are listed under the United States, which is in turn under North America, if geography does matter. You said the short-lived naming conventions for Hong Kong and Macao was deleted, without telling the fact that some supported removing it because of procedure. And I am still confused why you ~~challenged~~ insisted that Hong Kong is one city. — Insta ntnood 16:56 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

Actually I did, and you are apprantly blind to them. Nevermind. I do not need to repeat myself. And secondly, I challenged the notion that Hong Kong is not one city, and not the other way round.

As I said, its quite pointless talking to you. You will just keep trying to dig up inconsistencies just to get your way, when I have already explained the rational behind the inconsistencies!--Huaiwei 18:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes you did for some of the questions. By asking more specific quesions I want some more specific answers. For instance, for airports on Guam and the Northern Marianas. And you're not telling which written conventions you're following that Hong Kong and Macao should be listed under the PRC along with other cities and provinces.

I knew that in your opinion Hong Kong is one city. Sorry for typing the wrong word while I was doing something else. What are the inconsistencies? Between the treatment of Aruba and Macao? — Insta ntnood 19:27 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

And when Instantnood that annoying little gnat doesn't get his way, he resorts to Goebbels-styled rhetoric by calling his opponents liars and state that their arguments are built on lies. —ExplorerCDT 18:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You said I was a liar because I put up false evidence. The same arguments are also mentioned by MarkSweep and some other contributors who shared the same view as I did. That's why I said if I were a liar I were not the only one. I did not say anything about people with opposite view as I did. — Insta ntnood 19:30 Feb 21 2005 (UTC)

Whoa buddy, stop trying to rewrite history. You're the one who started calling people liars and trying to dissuade people by false rhetoric. Why are you such a damned pest? —ExplorerCDT 21:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. I did not call anybody a liar. If you believe people around are rewriting history, please request to move the article about the country from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan" (and move "Taiwan" to "Taiwan (island)". — Insta ntnood 01:02 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the case, if our friend here continues to be lazy in doing a proper exercise of gathering feedback on how HK and Macau should be displayed in lists about countries (a HK noticeboard which the majority of non-HKers dont ever step into dosent exactly seem like a very nuetral place to do it!), then I dont see what is the use of discussing anything with him. Someone who takes advantage of disgreements to enforce his edits is understandably hesitant about gathering feedback, since he probably cannot stomach any resolution which is against his favour!--Huaiwei 20:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I found it hopeless to reach any compromise or consensus with you. I have been giving plenty of evidence, and showing sincerity to discussing with you over this matter. Obviously what I have said did not satisfy you. You simply stopped giving any response all of a sudden, and accused me by misinterpreting my words. Everyone with clear mind can have told who is hesitant to gather feedback, and is enforcing her/his point of view. — Insta ntnood 08:01 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)

So where are the "clear minded" folks you talk about? ;) The above basically sounds like parroting what I said about you, hardly a case of originality I have to say. I suppose you absolutely fail to understand the meaning of gaining concensus from others, which means gathering views from MULTIPLE members other then me alone. Constantly chasing after me alone isnt going to get you far, because someone else is still going to counter your views, as I have seen it constantly happening. Since you still do not know what is the meaning of conducting proper multiple-user opinions, and think popping a "two versions" message on top is going to solve anything when you dont even bother to therefore initiate the discussion on it, what else can we do for you?

The amazing things people can do just to avoid the fact that Hong Kong is 100% a part of China!--Huaiwei 15:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep your own ostrich way then. — Insta ntnood 18:52 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Meanwhile, stop cluttering my talkpage. Its going to get a MediaWiki:longpagewarning soon! :D--Huaiwei 10:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE VOTE

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of running away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 18:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood

You have a major beef with this character as do I: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Instantnood

Jesus...I didnt even know anon IS indeed Instantnood...something I have suspected before! Thanks for the initiative man....have you informed the others about this? I can help spread the word.--Huaiwei 16:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have only run into him on a few of his edits, starting with Hong Kong, though, I'm aware he is making changes to anything remotely related to the PRC. I did make a few entries to the RfC on some user talk pages in the Taiwan community, but you are much more in touch with these regional pages than I am.
- IC...I must be a tad too tolerant then. :D Anyway, am I allowed to edit the top half of that page? I dont seem to have any specific location to give my points of view other then signing my name?--Huaiwei 18:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I do not know if you can edit the top of that page. I've never used it before even when dealing with other belligerent users. There is a discussion area at the bottom. Maybe add info there, and ask if it is appropriate to edit the top part detailing the dispute. Eventually some admin will respond, I hope. SchmuckyTheCat 19:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RfC

The sharing at RfC seems to be over. I have made a response there. Please take a look. I do hope that with everyone's effort Wikipedia will soon be the best encyclopedia ever. :-D — Insta ntnood 21:05 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

It just so happens that I saw it before you dropped a line here. Lets see how things go. I didnt come to wikipedia to argue day in day out.--Huaiwei 21:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

UWCSEA

Hi there, just wanted to say thanks for moving the UWCSEA page... I kept looking at that thinking I must correct that and just never got around to it! -- Lochaber 11:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hehe...its my pleasure. I think there are still a few links which need to be corrected thou. Will get about doing it later...(or you can help in that also! :D)--Huaiwei 11:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of schools in Singapore

Just a further comment though, on the List of schools in Singapore page, why have you split out local universities, surely all universities in Singapore are local in the sense that they are all local to Singapore? I know that you might want to differentiate from the different US or UK univerities that have affiliates or branches in the Singapore however maybe it would be more appropriate to leave the three main universities under Universities plain then sub-divide with <country> universities with branches or affiliation when they are added to the list? -- Lochaber 11:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thats coz the University of New South Wales will be setting up Singapore's fourth university come 2007, so this is just to make way for it. It was hailed as the "first foreign university in Singapore" by the government and the press. Another university from Britain may be next. Do note that these should not be confused with other universities having only affiliates and branches.--Huaiwei 12:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Understood, it's really just the use of the word local that looks odd to me because well, they are all local in that they are in Singapore. Possibly it could be changed to "Singaporean Universities" to make it clear that local means home-grown as opposed to foreign? Don't get me wrong, I think you're doing good work expanding the list, it's just a matter of language. BTW when I said branch I meant in the sense of a foreign university that has an overseas campus in Singapore, exactly like the University of New South Wales will, I didn't mean like a branch office. -- Lochaber 17:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ic...although I personally feel "Singaporean Universities" may be just as unclear as "local". I understand the later sounds clumsy, but I cant seem to think of a better way to put it. Terms like "local universities" are quite commonly used in Singapore to refer to these universities thou, as far as the press and common usage goes, and they are not calling UNSW's Singapore campus a local university, as I noticed.--Huaiwei 17:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean, I lived in Singapore for a relatively long time (13 years) and I know the usage of local that you mean... it's just that in my experience abroad - I'm based in Ireland now - it's not common in the rest of the world. Here or in the UK if I said local university it would mean the university that is down the road from me as distinct from the university that is on the other side of town or in another city. Given that this is an international site I think it needs to be a little more formal. It may seem strange to say Singaporean universities but I think it would be clearer to those reading from overseas just because it has the national implications that using the word local does in Singapore and it sets them apart from the foreign ones. Anyway, whatever you think, it's just a observation ;-) -- Lochaber 18:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Haha..ney...it isnt really about what I think...I need international feedback as well for the list to make sence to others! :D Do feel free to edit it as you wish...in fact, I find the sub-classifications for UNSW and the other 8 "foreign" universities in Singapore as rather clumsy as well. If you could think of better classifications for them, please do edit them! Thanks! ;)--Huaiwei 19:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re : Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board

Wow!! Impressive!! This is wonderful news for all SG Wikipedians. Great job on your part, I had this idea in mind but didn't expect you to actually set it up! =D - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Haha...it was actually a very stressful endeavour. I wasent a wiz with the codes, so I had to copy and paste from other boards and experiment along the way. I didnt think it was necessary to do it now actually, but the recent weeks of spending too many nights trying to setup even basic info on various aspects of this place, and realising its going to be too many late nights for me...I think its about time I get company. :D And your red link in that page finally sparked it all! ;)--Huaiwei 17:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The three revert rule

You have violated the 3RR rule on Macau. PLease consider this as a warning. The next revert will lead to a block and potentially to a protection of the page - invariably on the "wrong" version. Refdoc 23:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please keep your fights off my talk page. If you have smething to tell me tell it there. If you have something to tell others do it somewhere else. Refdoc 23:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its for you to see as well of coz. How nice it is to know that someone is talking behind my back.--Huaiwei 00:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As it is you have broken the 3RR rule on Macau and are close to it on several other articles, which I am now watching. I would really ask you to show some restraint. Refdoc 00:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. So an edit is also considered a rv now, and it somehow counts for me, but not for the other party. I suppose I am restricted from returning an unauthorised edit to its original state through a rather clever way of circumventing that ruling by the other party. I would have hoped for a more nuetral assessment of the whole matter, but if that is not to be, then I suppose his conduct is endorsed here? Tragic.--Huaiwei 05:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not endorsing anything. Anything east of the Ganges is of and west of the Atlantic is of complete and utter irrelevance to me. I did not even read the article, nor do I intend to. I am here solely to ensure compliance with the 3RR rules.Both of you violated and both of you were warned. I have absolutely no problem with you or Instantnood to continue editing. I would encourage this actually. What I do not encourage is to do clever games trying to subvert the 3RR rule. Normally there is always a solution possible between two adults. If you think there is no solution possible, please do a RfC on the article, not on each other. Remember, not everything what you believe to be true, would be recognised by others equally as true, subsequently we are striving to an NPOV which acknowledges different POVs. Refdoc 09:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have more or less calmed down by now, so I apologise for the rather terse remarks made earlier. I understand the position you are coming from, and I respect that. I just didnt like the idea of having to actually ask myself if I am "violating" something without knowing it from now on...especially when some would consider an edit as a revert, and vice versal, and as you say, how some people takes advantage of this to avoid simple rules.

I am more then aware that my views are just that...my views. They are not neccesarily true, nor are they representative. The issue I have with the above is the lack of discussion and concensus before changes are made, and I am still unfamiliar with the full range of tools open to me when trying to come to a resolution in disagreements, other then the typical talkpages and so on. I apologise for that handicap.--Huaiwei 10:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Make Good Content, Not Edit Wars!

Hi Huaiwei,

I can see that both of you (Instantnood and Huaiwei) are valuable editors that have made significant contributions to your own respective countries. I would wish to appeal to both of you, to avoid coming to blows at every meet on a same particular article. Assume good faith! The other party is certainly not some POV-warrior out to annihilate you or something!

Getting into edit wars is only a lose-lose situation both to yourselves and to Wikipedia. Eventually if this doesn't settle, like many other cases I have observed, one party would be banned, forced or leave, or/and go through RfA. If anything happens to one of you, other editors will have a more difficult time trying to fill up the gap of the roles you editors have taken up. So please, refrain yourself into edit wars or conflict with each other, why not try in the meantime to concentrate on your own-country related articles for now. We all are working together to make this encyclopedia a better one, isn't it? :)

- Mailer Diablo 19:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I will respond in full later when I come back, but meanwhile, do I respond here or in your talk page? Seeing him shifting all blame on me over there is enough to make my blood boil.--Huaiwei 08:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer in my talkpage. I can see that both of you want a way out of this, but worry that the other will not stop. No matter what, don't get into any future disputes anymore. I'll probably take a status quo stand - that is if any edit war ensues, I'll probably revert to an edition before both of you are involved unless there is something that even in my view, is seriously wrong that needs fixing. Fair enough? - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Singapore and Malaysia geo-stubs

Hi Huaiwei, I notice you've just created these two new geo-stub categories (without going through the debating process on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, but never mind, they're probably needed). Just thought you'd liek to know that these stubs are already listed in Category:Southeast Asia geography stubs, so you might like to look through that category and see which ones need to be transferred to the two new categories - I suspect there are about 20 of each. Grutness|^hello? 23:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whoops...I didnt realise there was a discussion process needed before their creation. I apologise for that.--Huaiwei 07:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Infobox of Singapore

Hello Huaiwei. Would you mind sharing your comment on this proposal? — Insta ntnood 09:43, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood, again

Would you care to show some community concensus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Laws_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_countries_by_coverage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Commerce_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hong_Kong_law

SchmuckyTheCat 04:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By doing what? :D--Huaiwei 11:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise

Hi Huaiwei,

I have seen both of your messages, and a bit of the situation at CfD and page histories. This is the first time I mediated (or tried to in Wikipedia), so I guess I still have a long way in dispute resolution =P

Reverting both of your edits in any "revert war" isn't a long-term situation. How about reaching a compromise. The following is my proposal on a compromise :

Categories Airports of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong & Macau

The two categories Hong Kong and Macau are sent for CfD. The categories should be kept. (General Community Consensus)
Airports of Hong Kong and Macau remain as subcategories of Category:Airports of the People's Republic of China
Add "the two subcatergories are aiports of PRC's two Special Administrative Regions, Hong Kong and Macau" to Category:Airports of the People's Republic of China

I listed them on CfD, not Huaiwei. Merge them if thats a compromise, but whats the real issue with upmerging? SchmuckyTheCat 23:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong, Macau, Category:Cities in Taiwan & Hong Kong

Add "These are the cities of geographical China, which includes the People's Republic of China, its Special Administrative Regions Hong Kong and Macau, and Republic of China (Taiwan)." to Category:Cities of China (Note the word 'geographical' as well as the link to the article)
Category:Cities in mainland China should be populated, or else be listed for CfD.
Add Category:Dependent territories to both Macau and Hong Kong, while retaining Category:Cities in China with the above-mentioned changes.

Let me know what do you think. If everything goes fine that I hope this dispute can be settled once and for all. :)

- Mailer Diablo 21:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not Huaiwei, but HK and Macau are not dependent territories. I'm all for deleting Cat:Cities in mainland China. I'd be fine splitting out the Taiwan stuff from Cities in China. Then you don't need a disclaimer. SchmuckyTheCat 23:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After Instantnood's and SchmuckyTheCat's opinons on the plan, some amendments have been proposed. Please see both user's talkpage for more information, and do let me know what you think so I can adjust accordingly or edit the articles along with the agreed plan. - Mailer Diablo 19:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I will give you my line of thought when I am ready...which should come soon. Sorry for the delays...--Huaiwei 19:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Don't start an aruguement in my talkpage, please. It'll not help in ressolving your differences. I'm almost burnt out for other problems outside Wikipedia. Give me a break for the moment, I'll get back to you both again when I'm done. Thanks for your patience. :) - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lost comments at WP:CFD

I am sorry that I did not restore your comment. I did a comparison, and your comment was not highlighted. There might be more comments that I haven't restored. :-) — Insta ntnood 12:04, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh....no major problem....--Huaiwei 12:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Straits Times

Hi Huaiwei, Would you take a look at Straits Times. Do you think the article at present to be neutral enough, from your perspective? Would like an extra opinion since I am tired of fending off a lot of (to me) unwarranted criticism of the paper. I am not a total fan of it, but I do find it misleading that the article makes it sound as if the Singapore press is a minion of the government, especially from people who do not to have seem to read the papers.

Appreciate your comments. Mandel 22:06, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

sg-stub

Hi Huaiwei,

Template:sg-stub has been created. Hopefully you will find it useful for SG-related articles. Do note it's case-sensitive though. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

arbitration

it finally came to a head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:SchmuckyTheCat_.26_User:Instantnood

tata SchmuckyTheCat 04:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I apologise for mistakenly added your name to WP:RFAr. It has now been fixed. — Insta ntnood 07:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for accepting my apology. — Insta ntnood 08:00, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hi Huaiwei,

I would like to thank you for your vote of support and confidence for my adminship, it has been much appreciated. If you need anything in future that requires my attention, please do not hesitate to contact me. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)