User talk:Huaiwei

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end.
Do note that I will be replying to your messages here, unless you specify otherwise or in unusual circumstances.
Start a new talk topic. | My archived discussions : A | B | C | D | E | F | G

---

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,

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)

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)

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)