Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:09, 28 November 2005

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 20:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I know, it is a bit confusing. I thought the same thing when I first started using Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports#Standardisation - Singapore Changi Airport?

Thanks/Wangi 15:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: PRC locator maps

Re: : I would be interested to know who is/are " pushing for the use of "Mainland China".. because they 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

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[REDACTED] and readers?Sghan 09:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)thanks

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 . — 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. — Instantnood 20:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• I added more Chinese bridges SchmuckyTheCat 23:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

wink wink, nudge nudge

figuring you were watching the page, and then I also wrote "HI" below dmcdevits request right here. . 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 Misplaced Pages? Your last edit seemed to be a bit troublesome for you.  :) --Andylkl 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 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 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 . 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

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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 ). 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 seems to spell it as Republik regularly. Same to the Ministry of home affairs . The Berita Harian spells it as "republik" , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, to protect it from the alien scum of the universe... I mean, uh, from Willy on Wheels and Misplaced Pages is Communism!

-- Миборовский 06:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Macau/o, China

The official translation 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)