User talk:Huaiwei/Archive K

There's a whole set of articles, in particular Singapore buildings going up for deletion, citing non-notability. I don't have as much time to look up for the sources as I have some real life things to deal with before they are wiped out, so some help would be appreciated. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Arh....I am particularly vexed when I see such nominators from obviously far flung places with no local knowledge at all attempting to claim non-notability. Reminds me of that mass nomination of bus interchanges and terminals!--Huaiwei 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

greetings huaiwei i had thought you agreed that we should put taipei's airport name as Taipei-Taoyuan Intl at least for the one at changi airport's page. please tell 218.186.9.4 abuot this because apparently he doesnt believe it. thanks!¬¬¬¬

I changed it before and Huaiwei didn't undo it back later when he edited it.So what's the problem? - 218.186.9.4 15:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please visit the Talk: Armenia and Talk: Armenians pages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenia&action=edit&section=3 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenians&action=edit&section=36 please voice your view on the current discussion, there is a small minority that are promoting and point of view that Armenia is geographically in Europe and Armenians are a European people. It is best to serve the factual truth and your support is desperately needed.

I appreciate you edit. You are completlely right about Tibet. Amoruso 09:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem, but I think we disagree over the inclusion of Palestine. I included my explaination in the edit summary. Feel free to discuss further in the article's talkpage. Thanks! ;)--Huaiwei 09:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't understand why you didn't include tibet and kept turkish cyprus etc. I think palestinian territories can be used but using the term West Bank and Gaza Strip... but I want to see Iraqi Kurdistan there too and Tibet... Amoruso 09:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Because Turkish Cyprus is de facto controlled by a distinct and independent entity from that of the rest of Cyprus, as opposed to the Tibetian administration which is subsumed under the Beijing government. I arent sure why you prefer West Bank and Gaza Strip over Palestinian territories? And why Iraqi Kurdistan? You may wish to discuss this in Template_talk:Asia#Consistency.--Huaiwei 09:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Because Palestinian territories is a WP:POV term. I see what you mean though , it should be Palestinian National Authority territories then. Amoruso 09:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re " Others have edited this list to promote political agendas in other similar templates " [1] [2] - Would you please kindly justify this claim? Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The justification isnt too far away: [3]. Satisfied? ;)--Huaiwei 14:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm.. [4] [5] She/he may perhaps be the person you were pointing at. What is her/his political agenda? — Instantnood 14:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since when are [6] [7] related to [8]? I already stated the source of my comments. Who are you to define my comments for me?--Huaiwei 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

" Others have edited this list to promote political agendas in other similar templates " [9] [10] - Who are the " [o]thers "? What had they done with template:Europe to " promote political agendas in other similar templates "? And which are the " other similar templates" ? — Instantnood 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why do I need to answer a question I have already answered? Stop cluttering my talkpage with useless garbage.--Huaiwei 21:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Alright.. Although you've not answered in a direct manner, I assume I am one of the " [o]thers " you consider to be " promot[ing] political agendas in other similar templates ". Which of my edits to template:Europe were " promot[ing] political agendas in other similar templates " (while I'd simply reverted the undiscussed removal/split of those that are not sovereign states)? Meanwhile, you've yet to tell what the " other similar templates " are, and what the " political agendas " are. — Instantnood 21:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh so you CAN talk directly after all? lol. Its fun imitating your "communication style". Which of the edits? Practically every single one which involves HK. There are so many its impossible to list them here, and you know it. You dont know what "similar templates" are? Do a search in your contribution page and you will see yourself even using it as a rational for a revert in one of those templates. As for your political agenda, only you yourself can best explain it to us.--Huaiwei 21:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had warned you repeatedly about edit warring be it on the same day or over time. As a result of your continued behavior you have been blocked for a week. Joelito (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey what's up man? Seen that a lot has been going on around here. Anyways, been digging up on Police patrol cars again, just realised that both Aetos and Cisco have their own police patrol cars... Any idea what are they used for? Since their ops are usually based on asset protection, why will they need patrol cars? Thought you may know... oh btw any luck on the YN FRCs? I think they have already scrapped... One more thing, do the NSFs (or any other officer) actually make use of the onboard computer in the FRC? What's its capabilities? I also seem to hear a lot about officers turning off the GPS so can go Jiat zhua? (my old friend last time police NS, had quite a lot of things to say abt the department that could easily lead to a P.R. disaster for the SPF...) p.s. Cisco patrol cars are the only patrol cars that use rotating police lights (instead of the strobe ones used by SPF) --Seng Yew 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC +8)

urm.... any luck yet? -Seng Yew 07:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whoops forgot to reply once again hee. So far no cars in sight...--Huaiwei 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok la nvm, anywaes wat abt the question above? U know what's the deal wif 'e cisco cars? -Seng Yew 14:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC +8)

Just to let you know I hadent gotten round to replying to you coz I am wondering if it will infringe OSA...haha. If I could discuss these things, I most prob will just add the info to the article itself man.--Huaiwei 15:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it appears that David Kernow's change was unilateral. There appears to have been no consensus to split the template. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

From my understanding, these regional templates were mostly based on Template:Europe, which did not include non-independent states from day one. Subsequent attempts to add such entities has led to a related fallout between various regional templates due to a lack concensus building, so I consider the inclusion of these as undiscussed, not their exclusion.--Huaiwei 13:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

FYI, [11] [12] — Instantnood 13:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding reversions[13] made on November 7 2006 to National dish

edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

 

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re your mail. It looks like 3RR to me. Whether you are correct or not I don't know; but stay further away from 4R if you don't want to risk being blocked William M. Connolley 13:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re your mail: That a bunch of individuals worked collectively to enforce their POV against mine means I am perpertually "disadvantage" in any revert war. Yes, thats how 3RR works: if you're in a minority, you can't win by reverting, you have to convince them by talking. So, don't try to win by reverting William M. Connolley 15:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re your mail: What I am asking for here is a fairer way of dealing with this issue then you should take this up on the 3RR talk page, since you are asking for a change of policy. But I doubt you will convince anyone to change 3RR. Is there any reason why you don't want to discuss this openly on your talk page? William M. Connolley 17:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please confirm yourself for the meetup on the 24th by November 18. If you have any ideas or suggestions, please list them at the meetup page yourself. Thanks. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 04:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just a reminder to confirm your attendance at the meetup soon. There are eight confirmed participants as of now. —Goh wz 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wah thanks...but I scared I will get beaten up leh. :D--Huaiwei 05:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why so? I won't beat you... --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 12:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I shall take as you are not coming. You may still like to come at the eleventh hour, its at 1500. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 01:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Turn out I wasent able to. Kana "recall". ;)--Huaiwei 17:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've nominated the article Star Awards for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Star Awards satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Awards. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Star Awards during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. --Lijnema 15:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I thought it would be a good idea to let you know. Since you are both creator and major contributor to the article, you probably know quite a bit about the awards, and also wanted to vote in the nomination. --Lijnema 18:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! First of all, I hope you have no hard feelings about the nomination. I was wondering if there's anything I could do to help improve the articles. I probably won't, because of the language, but you never know. About the layout of things, personally I think it might be good to remove the statistics section, and have results on the individual pages, and just a general overview, perhaps some history and naming some who's won a lot of awards on the main page. Again, I'm not sure if I can help, but if there is anything, please let me know. --Lijnema 10:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

As an outside observer, I've seen many good things come out of the SGpedians group. Despite any differences, I know that everyone involved is only interested in making the project better and reaching consensus to resolve problems. Please just take this as a friendly reminder from a stranger to always assume good faith. Thanks for your hard work and good luck! Strom 06:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The status quo before the edit wars back a few weeks was to include these entities. So I'd say that the consensus-building process should start with an attempt to get consensus to remove the territories, not to get them re-added. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, and "Let's try reverting again? Ridiculous." as an edit summary of your own revert is pretty damn ludicrous itself. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is a sock puppet request board if you think they are the same. I'd assume good faith first, but the knowledge of wiki-syntax, the subject matter, and the willingness to instantly engage in revert wars is... ominous. SchmuckyTheCat 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your insults against me in Single-party state [14] [15] [16] [17] are against Wikipedia policy. Please refrain for further insults, thank you. --Regebro 17:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit and this one on Talk:Single-party state:

 

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. Kimchi.sg 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am sad to see that you have taken up using personal attacks again: [18] [19] Also you are falsely claiming that I am harrasing you, [20] and houding you [21]. Please stop this behaviour. --Regebro 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whether those "claims" are false is not up to you to decide. Just as you deem it your right to insist my behavior constitutes as "personal attacks", I do reserve the right to also feel insulted, offended, and harrassed by your behavior. So perhaps you would like to take some time for some self-reflection on your own conduct before telling others how to behave?--Huaiwei 14:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you should stop with the personal attacks? --Regebro 15:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

How about you?--Huaiwei 15:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can not stop doing something that I have never started to do, which I'm sure you are well aware of. Your continuing accusations of me making personal attacks are indeed nothing but personal attacks in themselves. You are trying to make the attacks milder to see where the limit goes, by for example continuing with libelous personal remarks such as this [22]. I'm also interested in where the limit goes. Lets take your insults through an official process. I think it's time for that. --Regebro 12:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, I did that here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Huaiwei_2. You are surely more knowledgeable about the process than me, so you know what to do, I guess. --Regebro 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. A Mediation cabal case has been opened regarding the dispute at Changi Airport. The mediators, User:Hunterd and I, would like to hear everyone's stand on the dispute. Any input is very welcome at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport#Discussion, could you please indicate your stand regarding the dispute, and why you think the names should stay/go? Thanks, – Chacor 02:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder -- the discussion in this case is about to come to a close, and I'm afraid (?) the consensus seems to be that the other languages in the first sentence have got to go. You might want to chip in before it's too late... Jpatokal 04:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have noticed that you and User:Instantnood have resumed your old edit wars, please be warned that if this edit behavior continues that you may get yourself blocked, thanks. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whoops sorry I'll hold my horses there. This is becoming some kind of a routine weekend baptism of fire.--Huaiwei 14:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wonder when will this edit war stop, it is almost two years since it started. Stop edit warring be at peace for one week. Terence Ong 14:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request here, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. WikieZach| talk 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! It would be great if you could indicate if you agree to mediation or not, so we can get this over with. --Regebro 10:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please sign off on the Medcom case. WikieZach| talk 22:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm quite new to Wikipedia and I have a question. I added the category tag 'Religion in Singapore' to the article 'Methodist Church in Singapore', but it subsequently got removed by someone. I then reverted the edit, thinking the category was a relevant one, but you have now deleted it. Is there something I'm not realizing here about the types of categories that go with certain articles? Thanks. Jacklee 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Huaiwei, please remember: stay cool as a cucumber, remain civil, and avoid making personal attacks. If you make personal attacks, it will affect our chances in this dispute, and you risk getting blocked. Let Regebro and Instantnood make personal attacks on you, and let them suffer the consequences.

I agree with Regebro's refusal to allow a Singaporean to act as mediator; even if we are not consciously biased, we may be subconsciously biased. However, Regebro made a personal attack on Singaporeans, and you claimed somewhere that he had sent you nasty e-mails (please send screenshot(s) of said e-mails to the Gmail account I use for MSN Messenger).

I don't think we should file an RFC against Regebro. If the mediation fails, we can file a fourth arbitration against Instantnood. Since Regebro is involved in this dispute, the arbitrators will also investigate his conduct. (They will also investigate your conduct, so stay civil!)

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Heh thanks. Actually I was rather cool today, but I suppose the tone of my message was just too blunt for comfort for some. Maybe its the result of too much nicetie, sweet-sounding emails during working hours. :D

I too would actually agree that Singaporeans should not be mediators in this situation. However, we have to note that any mediator irregardless of nationality may very well possess some level of bias, so its more of an issue of finding a mediator who subsribes strongly to the NPOV policy than to place too much consideration on their nationality.

As for the "nasty" email, it isnt really that "nasty" lah. :D Just that he was practically hounding me to respond, both in my talkpage and sending that email. Not that I really minded, but I find it worth a mention. ;)--Huaiwei 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hildanknight: That can in no way be construed as an attack on anything or anyone. I strongly resent your claims that I have done any sort of personal attacks, and I strongly protest your implications that I would make personal attacks against you two if Huaiwei would "keep his cool". I have constantly, and will constantly focus all my attentions on keeping this factual. Hildanknight: Your efforts of trying to make this into a personal issue is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia, and I am honestly horrified by this behaviour.

I have also not sent any nasty emails (and Huaiwei, I have not "hounded" or "harassed" you either, please refrain from such statements. I took your first comment about "contant harassement" as tongue in cheeck, but now I am not so sure.) --Regebro 15:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Might not have been a personal attack per se, but I can definitely see where Hildanknight and Huaiwei are coming from regarding that diff. A blanket accusation which is at the very best incivil. – Chacor 15:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is not a blanket accusation. It is a statement of fact. I do not accuse anybody of anything. --Regebro 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

If one wants to accuse Person X of being an idiot, insist on the factual accuracy of that accusation, and then insist he isnt accusing Person X of anything, then he will just have to convince the mediator during the mediation process that no accusation took place, but not in my talkpage.--Huaiwei 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I didn't bring it up, and I have also not done what you imply. I have not called anybody an idiot or anything remotely resembling that, and I'm honestly becoming rather tired of your constant accusations and attacks. --Regebro 16:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

We shall see. It was of coz merely an illustration, but I think the message I am putting across is plain clear. Your continued participation in my talkpage speaks volumes about you and your conduct, irregardless of whatever picture you attempt to paint here. Enough said.--Huaiwei 16:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Exactly what volumes does it speak? I am merely defending myself against your and Hildanknights false accusations. Do I not have that right? If you two did not constantly accuse me of wrongdoings, I would have no reason to defend myself against them. --Regebro 16:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Time for some shuteye. Yawn.--Huaiwei 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am going to make myself clear. No correctly layouted airline page includes class codes. I will not ask you again to stop changing the class codes as I intend to change it everytime you add them.--Golich17 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Putting the heading First/Business/Economy, with a note that Business is not on all aircraft makes it pretty clear. Is there any particular reason the codes need to be there? Most people aren't going to know what they mean, but most do know what first, business, and economy mean. DB (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

For the simple reason that writing "375 (12 First/50 Business/313 Economy)" adds much more clutter than writing "375 (P12/J50/Y313)"? How is your format [23] be any superior to using class codes in directly telling the reader just what kind of configuration is available in each aircraft type?--Huaiwei 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Different airlines have different codes for first and business. I've seen F and C quite a few times. The info at the top makes it pretty clear what class each number refers to, whereas (Pxx,Jxx,Yxx) is not terribly informative. Some people may not even realize the numbers refer to classes. I'm not going to get into an argument over whether or not the codes should stay, but there's no reason the (First/Business/Economy) heading can't be in the top of the table. DB (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I find it hard to believe a heading with "First, Busness, Economy" only should be clearer than a set of codes for each configuration, the codes of which could easily be explained by adding a single footnote. It may be clear in SIA's case where aircraft either have three classes or only Business and Economy. I arent so sure about other airlines, some of which drop Business classes only, or have just one class. I suppose the poor reader will just have to make a wild guess? (something tells me this discussion is then going to degenerate into one asking if readers actually need to know class configurations in aircraft...)--Huaiwei 17:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

For all the shouting, did anyone notice you have yet to actually tell us why class codes are to be removed?--Huaiwei 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Single-party state. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hello there, my name is Peter M Dodge and I go by the handle Wizardry Dragon on Wikipedia. While I am not a member of the Mediation Committee proper I have offered to mediate this case. If this is okay with you, I would like to proceed. Please let me know either way, and if you have any issues with this please let me know so I may try to address them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 00:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

On Sailing at the 2006 Asian Games, where did you get the net stat from? Thanks for keeping the results up there while I was gone for the weekend. ludahai 魯大海 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I managed to obtain the information by clicking on each individual athelete's name in the results list, which will show his points for all races, position, total score, as well as net scores. For example: [24]. Hope this helps!--Huaiwei 07:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Who is simple reverting whose edit? Do you know what references and links to external materials are for? Are you new to Wikipedia? Passer-by 18:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do I need to condone such rude, immature comments in my talkpage?--Huaiwei 18:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Don't remove reference links. Your co-operation will be much appreciated by the Wikipedia community. Vandals are never welcome. Passer-by 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference links will be removed if the article text is removed. You hardly speak for the wikipedian community.--Huaiwei 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You removed reference links but you did not remove any content. Passer-by 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The specific reference in question was those tied in to statistics you tried to include, to which I amended them to reflect political correctness. When I am not alone in reverting your edits, perhaps it if you who should be reflecting on your conduct then I?--Huaiwei 09:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

What text did you remove when you removed the reference links? Do you have any official reference source to support your political correctness claim? Passer-by 21:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire bunch of text attempting to cover up your political correctness. And that includes what would have looked like normal, usefull edits to others.--Huaiwei 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You said you removed reference links because the article text was removed. Therefore I asked what text was removed when the links were removed. Please answer the question. Passer-by 12:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple. The number of countries. Still need more answers, mr "passers-by", albeit an obviously very politically involved one?--Huaiwei 14:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You did not remove the number of countries. You modified it. Can you quote any official source which says the relay involved 13 countries, instead of 15? Passer-by 19:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont really bother about the difference between "modifying" a text and my removal of your figure (along with its citation) and replacing it with a technically more accurate figure. You know whats going on, so you dont really have to waste my time asking the obvious.--Huaiwei 00:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The figure I used was quoted from official sources. In what way is yours a more accurate one than official sources? Passer-by 13:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

In what way are your official sources more technically and politically accurate? It has long been argued that we dont blindly follow "official sources" when we know it is factually inaccurate, or at least contentious. The North Korean govt officially considers themselves democratic (which technically they probably are, since communism is also a form of democracy according to some views), so wikipedia is supposed to classify them with the likes of the United States?--Huaiwei 13:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whether or not North Korea is democratic has been assessed by many people and institutions. Anyway, fine. You are simply insisting you're more authoritative than official sources and all other sources available (or else you are able to provide such evidence to support your claim), that you are the sole standard to rely on. Period. Passer-by 22:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)