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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Asiaweek, courtesy of Google

http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/98/0925/cs1-2.html

"For the most part, Lee delivered, providing previously unknown details about his life during the Japanese Occupation, during which he worked as a black-market trader, a glue-making entrepreneur and a transcriber of Allied wire reports for the Japanese."

You happy now?--81.178.187.180 04:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you please comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 1

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

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

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

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Huaiwei,

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

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

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

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

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

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