User talk:Huaiwei/Archive B

Drug screening when entering Singapore

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ang Mo Kio

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

Norman Oh

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

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

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

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

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

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

Airlines destinations, Hong Kong and Macao

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLEASE VOTE

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

Instantnood

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

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

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

RfC

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

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

UWCSEA

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

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

List of schools in Singapore

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re : Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board

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

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

The three revert rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make Good Content, Not Edit Wars!

Hi Huaiwei,

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

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

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

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

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

Singapore and Malaysia geo-stubs

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

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

Infobox of Singapore

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

Instantnood, again

Would you care to show some community concensus?

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

SchmuckyTheCat 04:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Proposed Compromise

Hi Huaiwei,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lost comments at WP:CFD

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

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

Straits Times

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

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

sg-stub

Hi Huaiwei,

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

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

arbitration

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

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

Apology

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

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