Hi Huaiwei,

I would like to thank you for your vote of support and confidence for my adminship, it has been much appreciated. If you need anything in future that requires my attention, please do not hesitate to contact me. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With regard to your edit summary: The category was created before the article was moved. — Instantnood 06:27, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

When pages are moved, all link needs to be updated. Which means you are supposed to change Culture of mainland China to Culture of Communist China. Interestingly you have been ADDING new links of Culture of mainland China instead.--Huaiwei 10:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't me who moved the page, and I didn't know it was moved until you fixed the link. By the way, please reply at my discussion page if possible. Thanks. — Instantnood 11:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

And why get so defensive? I would be surprised if you are actually ignorant in this case, but I shant bother commenting on this. Meanwhile, why should I reply on your page?--Huaiwei 11:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I knew the page would be moved some time, as Jiang has suggested at talk:Culture of Communist China on Feb 13. But I didn't know it was actually moved, and when it was moved. It seems like you're blaming me for not updating the link after moving the page, and assuming I knew it was moved.

If you're not going to reply on my discussion page, it's just fine. I'll add it to my watch list. — Instantnood 11:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

It doesnt matter to me. And as for where I reply, why do I need to bother when my userpage is already on your watchlist, and that you check my user page and my constributions as closely as a mite already anyway?--Huaiwei 11:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. Should Talk:Wang (surname) be moved back to Talk:Wang? — Instantnood 14:11, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah why not. Sorry I didnt notice the talkpage was on something else.--Huaiwei 14:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fixed :-). By the way, come over to Talk:Chinese surname#Chinese surnames on Wikipedia and say something. — Instantnood 14:27, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ah you're there already :-D. — Instantnood 14:28, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make changes to the fleet status. The figures were derived from SIA monthly fleet status report and verified to be accurate.

Hmm...I double check them from yet another source which gives even more accurate data of when planes are delivered or scraped. Where may I check the "monthly fleet status report?" Btw...please do sign your name.--Huaiwei 16:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that you and Instantnood have been sparring over the use of Category:Hong Kong eating culture in the Dim sum article. I have to say that even though Dim sum is not strictly confined to Hong Kong, it is a very central part of Hong Kong eating culture, and I don't think it should be left out of the category. Having the category listed does not mean that it's only confined to that single category, otherwise, you would have to remove even Category:Cantonese cuisine and Category:Dumplings since on that logic there exists dim sum outside of Cantonese cuisine and there are certain dim sum that aren't dumplings. Would you mind adding the category back in? Thanks! --Umofomia 17:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am actually fully aware of just how prevalant it is in Hong Kong, but his insistance in demanding that food-related categories by country are to only refer to food specific to a certain geographic locality before it can quality to be listed, runs counter to this situation. If I wish to be particular, Category:Hong Kong eating culture will become a subcategory of Category:Cantonese cuisine, and you wont need all the double-categories. Is he agreeable to this? I dbout so. Perhaps I can make an exception for Dim Sum, but none of the rest is any more justified then this one.

Btw, I know dumblings are not neccesarily dum sum. I eat Chinese food too.--Huaiwei 17:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't realize Category:Hong Kong eating culture is a subcategory of Category:Cantonese cuisine, so leaving it off could be justified. However, then we should probably remove Category:Chinese cuisine since there's no need to include the parent category when the child category is included. Do you agree? --Umofomia 17:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Er...if it applies to the parent category, then the child category will get removed, which was what I have done. Whether we consider Dim sum as more of a Cantonese or Chinese cuisine, I leave it up to you guys, but I would personally classify it under Cantonese only, and not Chinese. What do you think?--Huaiwei 17:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's what I said... classify it under Category:Cantonese cuisine and remove Category:Chinese cuisine. --Umofomia 17:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the World seems to think Dim Sum = Chinese food, but we know better. :D Yeah I agree to that from my perspective of coz.--Huaiwei 17:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

mmm, yum yummy dim sum. the rest of the world thinks all norwegians regularly feast on lutefisk too. thats why they aren't writing encyclopedias. SchmuckyTheCat 20:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 14:24, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the surprise.--Huaiwei 15:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's nothing surprising at all. — Instantnood 17:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

A surprise is a surprise from my perspective. I do not think you could define it for me.--Huaiwei 20:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright. It's now me the one who's surprised why you were surprised. :-D — Instantnood 20:35, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

And that is none of my concern.--Huaiwei 20:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine. That's your right and I have to respect. — Instantnood 20:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

And I would greatly appreciate it if you could keep your hypocritical niceties off my page.--Huaiwei 20:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it an accusation, again? — Instantnood 20:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

And is that an accusation that I am accusing? I do not have time for petty exchanges. If you are looking for evidence in order to launch an official complaint against me, feel free to quote this line.--Huaiwei 20:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for lecturing. I will when the situation has gone so bad that it has become necessary to do so. Here ends the conversation. — Instantnood 21:07, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the situation has been bad a long long time ago. Goodness knows where my patience came from. Thanks for enjoying my lectures, but I am quite sure you can learn how to get less of them in future.--Huaiwei 01:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your comment in the edit summary " We generally do not use "domestic/international" distinctions in destination lists ", I'm afraid you're not completely right. Some lists, such as Lufthansa, Varig, are sorted in this way. And by the way I have requested of protection of the lists for China Southern and Air China. — Instantnood 21:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Notice the quantifier "Generally". That is not the same as "All", so dont jump to conclusions too quickly.--Huaiwei 21:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification on the naming issue. It is very useful for me and for all concerned to be able to see and appreciate the diverse viewpoints on this issue so as not to pigeonhole all participants into one of two groups. If you have any further information you think might be useful that has not been brought to my attention, please alert me to it. Yours, Wally 20:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest maybe a seperate page in your user space, or start a subsection of my evidence page, and just drop off diffs of his most outlandish behavior (not content) with a one sentence summary, rather than continue to hash it out with him in talk pages. Especially lots of the historical evidence, like creating cats like "Cities of mainland China", the population of them, and then other users reverting him. SchmuckyTheCat 20:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive replies on User talk:Wally/Instantnood advocacy. I just realized that i summarized some of my edits as "reply to Mababa". I'm sorry about the confusion. — Sebastian (留言) 23:56, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, although to be honest, I am not too sure what you have done to spark an apology? ;) Kinda embarrasing for me now!--Huaiwei 09:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never mind then! I guess i was just being a fussbudget. (In case you're curious: I meant the summary which is displayed in the page history.) — Sebastian (留言) 19:30, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Ohh....now then I get it. ;) Btw your username very pretty leh. My page is very colourful now! :D --Huaiwei 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the block should only have affected the one IP address specifically blocked, so I suspect the problem is that your ISP moves you between several different IPs, some of which are also used by vandals. The only real solution would be to change ISPs, but for the moment I've put a note on the talk page for that ISP that it's used by several different users. Mark¹ 07:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see. I even tried refreshing my IP, but to no anvail. I wont be able to change ISPs, coz there is only one Cable modem provider in my country. :D Thanks for placing the notice thou! ;)--Huaiwei 07:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you had a chance so far to ask you friend at the customs authority? -ThorstenS 02:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not yet...still waiting for a chance whereby I could meetup with him personally. Sorry for the delay!--Huaiwei 09:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Huaiwei. If you'd like to changed the content of a page next time, like what you did to Nanyang (from about a city in Henan to Southeast Asia), please change the article linked to that page. Thanks. — Instantnood 15:08, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oh sure I would do that, if you would stop undoing my edits.--Huaiwei 15:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah did I? I'm sorry about the edit conflict. — Instantnood 15:42, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

And please help fixing talk:Nanyang, talk:Nanyang (geographical region) and talk:Nanyang, Henan. Many thanks. — Instantnood 15:15, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. Please help check Special:Whatlinkshere/Nanyang, Henan, Special:Whatlinkshere/Nanyang (geographical region) and Special:Whatlinkshere/Nanyang and see if I've missed any. Many thanks. :-D — Instantnood 15:23, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am doing that. Patience please.--Huaiwei 15:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And I'm pretty sure you know there are much more references to the city in Henan than to Southeast Asia through "Nanyang". Please be reminded to check in advance when you're moving something like this edit (before I moved it to "Nanyang (geographical region)"). — Instantnood 15:42, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "much more references to the city in Henan than to Southeast Asia"? And what is that link you are quoting, becase I do not understand what you are refering to?--Huaiwei 15:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. 1) Links to Nanyang were mostly meaning the city in Henan, and a few referring the geographical region. 2) You added the content about Southeast Asia to the Nanyang title (before I moved it to "Nanyang (geographical region)"). — Instantnood 15:53, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I am perfectly fine with either arrangement, and you seem to be reading too much into my actions. In addition, your commentary that "Nanyang" links more to the city in China is highly elementary. Many of these links exists because of a template, and not because they were texts in the articles itself. And if you do a google, you will realise the term Nanyang gets an overwelmingly higher reference to Southeast Asia or Southeast Asian usage than it does to refer to a small city in China.--Huaiwei 15:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact Nanyang is among the largest prefecture-level cities by population in the PRC, and its population is more than twice that of Singapore, and perhaps more than the that of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. And please note Singapore is English-speaking, Malaysia to a certain extent though not official, Henan is not. Not counting the articles linked by the template, there are still more links the the city (eight articles, roughly) than to southeast Asia (five, again, roughly). It would be perfectly fine if links to one is overwhemingly more than the other(s). — Instantnood 16:14, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

The population figure is completely besides the point, and you know it. A place with greater populance does not make it more important. You try to dismiss google by insisting Singapore is English-speaking (oh really?), yet you youself relied on google before. I do not pretend that it is the best representation there is, but the fact is that this is the English version of wikipedia. In addition, I simply do not understand the rational of using the number of links as a representation of proliferation in usage. Nanyang Technological University is obviously not linked to Nanyang, yet it uses that name. In addition, there is Nanyang Polytechnic, Nanyang Girls' High School, Nanyang Commercial Bank, Sun Yat Sen Villa (full name: Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall), and alternative name of South Seas Communist Party. There are also articles awaiting creation, such as:

• Liu Kang, Artist, from Liu Kang
• Nanyang Junior College, from List of junior colleges in Singapore
• Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts, from NAFA
• Nanyang Primary School, from List of schools in Singapore
• Nanyang Siang Pau, from List of Malaysian newspapers (Malaysian paper)
• Nanyang Siang Pau, from Lianhe Zaobao (Singaporean paper)
• Nanyang Chinese cuisine, from Cuisine of China
• Nanyang Avenue, Nanyang Circle, Nanyang Crescent, Nanyang Drive, Nanyang Green, Nanyang Hill, Nanyang Link, Nanyang Terrace, Nanyang Valley, Nanyang View, Nanyang Walk, from List of roads and expressways in Singapore.

So in this sense, is it logical to use the number of links to measure usage of words, sine it is also unfairly tilted towards those who bother to create articles from certain regions?--Huaiwei 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not try to say it's important because of its population size. You said that it is a small city, and I was telling you it's not. It is neither a good way to compare the importance of the two meanings by a google test done in English. And.. yes there are many entries with the word "Nanyang" meaning Southeast Asia, but many articles on Wikipedia pointing to Nanyang were about the city in Henan. By the putting the article about Southeast Asia under the title "Nanyang" could create troubles. That's the reason why I had to move it to elsewhere. — Instantnood 20:35, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

My definition of small city is obviously fluid, and no, 8 million dosent count as a big Chinese city to me (Hong Kong isnt big in my book, in case you are wondering). But that is completely besides the point, as I said. Small can refer not only to population, but also to regional and international importance. If you read atlases regularly, you will get what I mean. The city of Nanyang is simply not as well known as the same term refering to Southeast Asia and Southeast Asian Chinese societies. And as I have already said, one major consideration behind me not moving it to Nanyang (geographical region) is simply because it sometimes means more than merely a geographical region. You have not addressed this issue yet, have you? Either way, the move has been made. I am perfectly fine in the current arrangement, and I see no incentive in further debating this with you.--Huaiwei 07:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By your involvement in Wikipedia I suppose you know well what trouble could be created by putting Southeast Asia under "Nanyang". — Instantnood 10:50, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Trouble?--Huaiwei 10:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you blank this page and mark it as a speedy delete? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The disambig contents has been moved to Nanyang.--Huaiwei 16:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you did it by cut and paste. We need to keep the edit history. — Instantnood 18:23, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have to do it by cut and paste simply because Nanyang already exists, and I wont be able to do a move operation.--Huaiwei 18:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it by listing it on WP:RM, or requesting an sysop to delete Nanyang before you move it. — Instantnood 18:30, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

How is this relevant to having the stuff on Nanyang instead of on Nanyang (disambiguation)?--Huaiwei 18:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page started under the title "Nanyang (disambiguation)". We have to keep the edit history even if you want the page be moved to another title. — Instantnood 18:58, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone could list it on WP:RM, including yourself if you feel the history must be kept. Right now, it appears as thou you are objecting to using the Nanyang page just because of the edit history. I am surprised why your response to this was basically nothing except by asking Mel Etitis to merge the two articles.--Huaiwei 19:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The history must be kept, always. Cut and paste move can never be justified. If it must have to be moved I would recommend asking a sysop to delete the existing article at the destination, before moving the article. Mel Etitis is a sysop, and I asked her/him to help decide what should be done to the two titles, and merge the edit history if possible. — Instantnood 19:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Strong words, considering others have to remind you about the same in far more critical situations such as in [1]. As I said, if you feel so strongly about this, I wonder why you did not simply list it in WP:RM yourself, and instead sat idly by asking Mel Etitis to merge, and saying its ok to use either page to do the merge.--Huaiwei 19:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're getting too personal.. and is misleading by not quoting my response on MarkSweep's talk page. Back to the cut and paste move. I was asking for a sysop to do the move/merge, as I don't think this has to be discussed anyway. WP:RM is usually for those that discussions are necessary. — Instantnood 20:23, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt so. Your strong words seem pretty unusual considering how careless you can be yourself, and I am left wondering what inspires your unusual enthusiasm in this instance. Again, I am left wondering why you would suddenly insist that the history MUST be kept as the main reason for opposing my use of the page Nanyang as a disamg page, yet you only asked Mel Etitis to merge the two without telling him which page to use. You made no mention to him that the page history should be kept, suddenly talking about it only when Mel Etitis decided to oppose my edits, as thou you are taking the opportunity to irritate me, as you have consistently done for the past months? Ok fine...assume good faith, I have to remind myself! ;) I shant comment much on this anymore, but meanwhile, I am still awaiting a better demonstration of basic understanding in wiki disamg policy, and a better justification for keeping unnecesary entries, failing which I dont see why they should remain.--Huaiwei 20:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get too personal. Mel Etitis reverted your edits once, and I reverted to the same version again, with the edit summary "The move was a cut and paste move.". (see the edit history of Nanyang (disambiguation)), and I'm quite sure everyone, exept you, would be able to tell what had happened. I do not object moving the content to "Nanyang". The problem here is that you performed a cut and paste move. Edit history must be kept, unless the entry is deleted. A usual practice to deal with cut and paste moves would be merging the edit history of the two. — Instantnood 20:47, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

You might wish to heed your own advice about keeping personal comments off the discussion. In fact, you writing in my talk page amounts to being personal already, as thou this cannot be discussed in the open. I suppose sentences like "I'm quite sure everyone, exept you, knows what had happened." are not personal..no? Actually, there are just 3 of us here, so I dont know what "everyone" means. Your reference to the edit history is precisely what I have been talking about. Why do you revert the edits to mimic Mel Etitis' revert only after he has done so? Why do you not list it in WP:RM if you feel the history for this page is so important? Personally, I do not think it is, because the Nanyang (disambiguation) was created by you to place as a disambg header above Nanyang when it was still a content article on Nanyang, Henan. Within the space of a few hours, Nanyang has become a disamg page and all relevant meanings having their own distinct pages. Based on formats spelt out in Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Nanyang will become a disamg page, so there is no longer a need for Nanyang (disambiguation), since there is no page link to Nanyang (disambiguation), and we are created an addition revert, which is not encouraged in wikipedia. Nanyang (disambiguation), hence, was put up for deletion on the same day it was created, with a history not worth keeping considering the only major change was my edit, and it was discussed in Talk:Nanyang. We regularly loose edit histories via page and category deletions, so are you freaking out because of this?--Huaiwei 21:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not me to decide whether edit history is important. Edit history of any entry on Wikipedia, unless for a deleted entry, must be kept. To repeat myself, the problem here is that you performed a cut and paste move. — Instantnood 21:53, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

And again I say: you "solved" a problem of a C&P move by reverting it instead of listing in on WP:RM?--Huaiwei 22:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't solve it, and, as I'm not a sysop, I can't solve it. — Instantnood 22:39, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

You obviously dont get the implication of the above. No matter.--Huaiwei 22:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed all the material on Nanyang (disambiguation), and made Nanyang a redirect. I don't understand why you keep removing a number of the entries, all of which seem perfectly reasonable for a disambiguation page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation for the proper usage of disambiguation pages, in particular to the section When to disambiguate. Nanyang Technological University and Nanyang Polytechnic are always refered to by their full names, or by their official abbreviations (NTU and NYP respectively), and never as Nanyang alone. This therefore does not neccesitate their inclusion.--Huaiwei 18:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen your message on my Talk page. Why do you want the disambiguation page to be the one that doesn't say "disambiguation"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the new entry I just created in Wikipedia:Requested moves.--Huaiwei 18:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is common practice on disambiguation pages to include entries that start with (or even sometimes merely includes as a major component) the disambiguation term. I know of no reason not to do this; why are you so against it?
2. Reasons for reverting should be placed on the Talk page of the article; gesturing at your own Talk page isn't really acceptable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(to point 1) Right. Sometimes entries with similar spellings would also be linked. — Instantnood 20:23, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Can you define "similar spelling"?--Huaiwei 20:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harbin (disambiguation) and Victoria (disambiguation), for instance. — Instantnood 20:50, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

This example is more interesting. — Instantnood 23:42, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

1. Please show examples for this "common practise", because if so, they are probably not adhering to policy as spelt out in Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I am against it, as much as I am against any instance in which I find the disambig page being unnecesarily extended beyond its main purpose. If it is common for all disambig pages to list names which are part of longer names irrespective of whether they are causing confusion or not, shall we make United States a disambiguation page, and list every single page with united states in it as part of that disamg page? I am honestly surprised by this lack of understanding in basic Wikipedia:Disambiguation policy!

2. Sure. Meanwhile, the discussion for the above continues to pile up on my page for some reason? In fact, that was the first time I actually had to write "refer to my talk page" as reason for a revert! Btw, I do not think it is equally acceptable to revert without stating any reason in the edit history, or on its talkpage either?--Huaiwei 20:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. You need to read [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#The disambiguation page (for example: "There is some flexibility in creating the disambiguation page itself"). As for examples, try Naples (disambiguation), or Webster, or Hack, or any one of hundreds of other disambiguation pages that contain entries other than the simple version of the term in the title.
   Your next point makes little sense; you're the one who wants Nanyang to be the disambiguation page, so your attempt to present the United States artice as analagous fails.
2. I don't understand the first part of your second point, but you go on to chastise me for not explaining my reversion of your unexplained reversion... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oh yes I read that through and through, and I can clearly see the flexibility discussed refers to the approach, in that it talks about whether we should have a disambg page with links to all relevant articles, or one article linking to other meanings of the same name without the need of a disamg page, related to the types of disambiguation section. It also describes various ways of placing the disambig notice. It does not contradict what has been noted in the When to disambiguate section, because this section clearly tells you:

"Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion." and Disambiguation pages are not search indices -- do not add links that merely contain part of the page title where there is no significant risk of confusion.

• In what way does the term Nanyang confuse a reader into thinking it is refering to a city in China, or a university in Singapore, when the university in Singapore is not known by the term Nanyang alone?
• Note also, that it does not dictate that a disambg page should not include any entry which starts of with the "confusing" term in question. That is not what I am asking for, contrary to what you think above. My argument for their exclusion has always been on whether they are only used in the form Nanyang in popular usage, and whether they are causing confusion. They are clearly not. If so, please demonstrate this before adding them. And why add only these two institutions, when Nanyang Girls' High School and Nanyang Commercial Bank also begin with that name? And since we are so fearful of confusion, shall we add Sun Yat Sen Villa as well, since its full name is Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall? And how about South Seas Communist Party, which is also known as the Nanyang Communist Party? When do this end? Now do you understand why I talk about the United States? Shall we make the US a disambg page, and link every article with US in it, for fear of "confusion"?

2. If you feel it is "not proper" to have me ending up directing reference to my talk page, then please explain why is this conversation taking place here. I didnt dictate this. In actual fact, it demonstrates a lack of open discussion on the issue in its relevant talk page, and has actually moved from one person's talk page to another. If we look at that page's edit history, we see two instances of Mel Etitis not explaining the reversion. In contrast, I have initiated discussions in Talk:Nanyang (which was obviously missed coz for some reason, Nanyang ends up as a redirect page. I am still awaiting explaination of this, because [[Nanyang {disambiguation}]] is only used as a header in cases whereby one page is being used as a primary page with links to other meaning!), in my talk page, and only through me directly questioning you did you come up with an explaination for your reverts.--Huaiwei 21:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then move the conversation to the article's talk page, for heaven's sake. Explain your conduct there and don't do this kind of stuff again. Why does Mel need to explain his reverts? Isn't it obvious? - JMBell° 11:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of writing my response here, I will henceforth write all relevant discussions both here and on Talk:Nanyang. I reverted because you reverted, and your list was incomplete. Mel wrote down all the articles beginning with Nanyang as a reference, and you decided to take them down because of your own reasons. From now on, this must be discussed in an open forum, and no drastic changes should be made until a consensus is reached. It's always been like this - I don't know why you have to go ahead and do whatever suits you without consulting anybody. It's a bit Macchiavellian, don't you think? Anyway, waiting for your response. JMBell° 11:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For you to revert just because I revert dosent make sense. You are not doing it based on content, but seemingly based on your personal contacts with Mel. This is further demonstrated by your obvious unfamiliarity with the sequence of events. The person adding the extra entries is not Mal..its User:Instantnood. I fully explained the reason for taking the entries down, fully based on policies clearly spelt out in Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Your lack of familiarity with that policy is not an excuse to conduct a revert war. I roundly refuted Mel's flawed intepretation of that policy, and instead of responding to my comments, he chose to do another revert. My user page was used to debate this because some folks decided to post the questions in my talk page. I obviously cant initiate the discussion in my own talk page. Your allegation that there is a conscious attempt in "hidding" the discussion is bordering towards defamation. To sum up, please READ all above comments, as well as READ the Disambiguation policy, before engaging in such immature games and firing off all sorts of accusations against me.--Huaiwei 11:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all familiar with the usage of Nanyang in Singapore - however, these articles clearly have "Nanyang" as their first name. People looking for these articles (they're universities, I think) will normally look under "Nanyang," and where are these articles? Removed by you. And Mel did not start this edit war, if I may say so. You provoked him by removing those few elements and so you should be held responsible. I am not at all surprised. Mel is only doing his job as an admin and as a Wikipedian, and he can surely protect this page once a consensus is reached (re. this matter). He will not abuse his powers, I'm sure. JMBell° 11:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said over and over again, please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation. A Disambiguation page's primary purpose is not meant to list a collection of pages which carry the same term as part of their titles. For these entries to qualify, they must present a possibility for confusion. I have already said Nanyang Technological University is NOT refered to as Nanyang in Singapore or anywhere else in the world. A person looking for Nanyang Technological University will NOT be typing Nanyang, because that is like typing California when looking for University of California! I have to remind again, that the term Nanyang refers to a geographic region, that of Southeast Asia, and it is used as part of much more entities than the two listed above. How about Nanyang Girls' High School and Nanyang Commercial Bank? Why are they not listed? Heck, lets therefore make California a disambiguation page, and list every single entity with the term California in the title, shall we?

For the record, when Instantnood added the entries, I immediately asked in Talk:Nanyang why they were added. He could not give me a satisfactory answer, and so I removed them. Mel then came around form out of the blue, and started adding them back without explaining why. Naturally, I would remove them again, since I dont take unexplained reverts as definitive behavior. And then the revert war ensues. Clearly, your view with regards to this issue is horribly one-sided, and your attempts to defend his actions hardly cut it, based on evidence presented here. I am beginning to wonder if disciplinary action needs to be taken against him now, although I am still wondering whats the best approach to take. This remains the first time I have ever seen such behavior from an admin, and yes, all more shocking after having read his userpage.--Huaiwei 12:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can take a look at California (disambiguation), Ohio (disambiguation), Miami (disambiguation) and Maryland (disambiguation). A nice way to have this settled could be adding a "see also" or "other uses" section like Maryland (disambiguation) and Miami (disambiguation). Alternatively we can use the paragraph format like York (disambiguation). And as a matter of fact some people do call the bank "Nanyang" when talking about Nanyang Commericial Bank. — Instantnood 12:30, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, look carefull at those entries. How many of them are listed because of a possibility of confusion, or are they listed just because they have the term California in them? Is it a comprehensive listing of all entries with ther term California, which is what you were trying to do? If you argue that Nanyang Commercial Bank is refered to as Nanyang in Hong Kong, then please feel free to add it. I do wonder why you fail to add it, instead chosing to add two Singaporean entities which present no confusion at all. Since you added them, may I ask if you know how Nanyang Technological University is refered to in Singapore? And how about Nanyang Polytechnic? Nanyang Girl's School? Nanyang Primary School? Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts? Nanyang Junior College? Is any of them refered to as Nanyang alone in Singapore or anywhere else, because if yes, you may add them to the list, and if no, I would expect them to be deleted?--Huaiwei 12:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they are lists of places, things and creatures named after California. Nanyang Techno, Polytech, and Girls' are all named after Nanyang, so yes, technically, they should be in the list. I'd suggest a "Schools" section, or the like. I don't understand your reasoning at all. Please explain it in detail. -JM*Bell° 14:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to display a lack of understanding in Wikipedia:Disambiguation policy. If you persist in refusing to read that document, how do you expect this issue to be resolved? My reasoning is reflected and explained by the said policy. I need not explain further.--Huaiwei 14:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the stuff through and it seems that from the start, you were on the wrong side of the fence. Moving by cut-and-paste, turning Nanyang into a disambig and so on. You stubbornly removed the links. They were added because they have "Nanyang" as part of the name. "United States" disambig won't work bec. the US is very well-known, and people know what they're looking for: e.g. U.S. Government, or U.S. Civil War, and so on and so forth. But Nanyang is not very well-known outside China and Singapore, and so we need this disambig page, as well as the links Instantnood added. I hope this explanation suffices. As for Mel, I suppose he has the same reasons for doing this. You are the biased person around here, by the way. I suggest you leave this matter to people who are more experienced, such as admins like Mel. It is your view of him that shocks you when you read his userpage. Your perception of him is tainted - I, as an impartial observer, have made the above conclusions without any influence whatsoever. I hope this answers your retort. -JMBell° 12:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is over the inclusion of those two entries. You lump the entire chain of events together as thou I am out to create trouble. Perhaps the history sections has become messy thanks to my cut-and-paste (which was certainly not intentional), but may I remind that the whole issue started with the Nanyang, Henan page, which was formally the Nanyang page. The whole chain of events started off when

• Instantnood added a disamg notice to that page [2] and created Nanyang (disambiguation) (which looked like this [3]). This format will not do, because no new page was created for the alternative meaning in reference to Southeast Asia, and worse, it was still found in the original Nanyang page [4].
• Sensing that the term Nanyang is more often used to refer to Southeast Asia than it is to a city in China, I proceeded to break the contents in Nanyang into two by first moving the contents to Nanyang, Henan [5], and then rewriting the original Nanyang page to refer to Southeast Asia with the Nanyang (disambiguation) notice on top [6]. I then modified Nanyang (disambiguation) such that Nanyang, Henan and Nanyang are properly linked, and removed the unnecesary Singapore entries [7].
• In response, Instantnood added a the disamg notice again, as well as reintroduce reference to Southeast Asian in the Nanyang, Henan page [8]. This does not make sense, when the text for Southeast Asia could have been in the disambg page. Also, a disamg page with the "(disambiguation)" tag is always used when one page has a dominant meaning, and hence the notice is added to direct to alternative meanings. Therefore, it would have been useful only when Nanyang is used to refer to a dominant meaning, with Nanyang (disambiguation) on top of it. In addition, he rewrote a bit of Nanyang (disambiguation) [9], before deciding to move Nanyang's reference to Southeast Asia to Nanyang (geographical region) [10]. Now the problem is Instantnood then proceeded to move Nanyang to Nanyang (geographical region), resulting in Nanyang itself becoming a redirect page to Nanyang (geographical region). This creates an off circling of refirects and references, whereby should a person be looking for Nanyang, Henan, and types Nanyang, he gets redirected to Nanyang (geographical region), clicked to reach Nanyang (disambiguation), before he has to click again to reach Nanyang, Henan!
• Therefore, I decided to turn Nanyang into a disambg page instead, since Nanyang no longer exists, and someone typing "Nanyang" into the search field is going to end up in Nanyang (geographical region) instead of a disambg page. I therefore removed Instantnood's additions to Nanyang, Henan [11], moved the contents from Nanyang (disambiguation) to Nanyang [12], and marked Nanyang (disambiguation) for deletion, since it has become a dublicate of Nanyang [13]. Finally, I also removed the link to Nanyang (disambiguation) from the top of the Nanyang (geographical region), since Nanyang already links to these pages [14].
• Strangely, Instantnood rekindles Nanyang (disambiguation) by copying the contents from Nanyang, and adding the two Singaporean entries again [15], despite the fact that Nanyang (disambiguation) is already an ophaned page, and dublicates Nanyang. This he did at 15:13, UTC time. At 17:37 the same day, he has asked User:Mel Etitis to merge Nanyang (disambiguation) with Nanyang [16]. I am left wondering why he added the entries back again, and then asked User:Mel Etitis to do the merge? Now, this is not the first time Instantnood uses such tactics to get things done his way, especially in his attempts to get Hong Kong listed in Country articles. Just refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Instantnood, in particular to this section.
• So, I removed the two entries again [17], but not before I have discussed this in the talk page. Take note of the time stamp. My last post made in Talk:Nanyang was 15:36. My above removal was at 15:50 hours, after waiting 14 minutes in vain, only to get a rather unconstructive comment from Instantnood at 16:01 hours [18]. In addition, I marked Nanyang (disambiguation) for deletion again.
• Enters User:Mel Etitis. I suppose he dint quite understand Instantnood's request, for instead of doing a merge, he reverted my edits to Nanyang [19], and resurrects Nanyang (disambiguation). I flaggedNanyang (disambiguation) for deletion again [20], since at that time, I was not even aware that a merge operation has been created, and I wondered why was the page restored. The resulting sequence of events was a confusing mess, in which I myself have lost track by now, but it eventually resulting in both Nanyang (disambiguation) and Nanyang remaining in existance, but with the information merged to Nanyang (disambiguation) with Nanyang becoming a redirect. As expressed in my protests to this, I questioned the need for Nanyang being a redirect to Nanyang (disambiguation) when Nanyang itself could serve the same purpose, and elinate an unecesary redirect step. Mel would have none of this, insisting Nanyang (disambiguation) should stay. The lack of pure logic was baffling indeed.
• Thankfully, User:Lachatdelarue corrected the unusual setup by moving Nanyang (disambiguation) to Nanyang [21].
• Henceforth, the issue degrades into one over whether the two Singaporean entries should be included or not in the Nanyang page.

The above is a more or less complete chronological record of what has happened. It seems pretty clear, that both User:Mel Etitis and User:JMBell displays insufficient appreciation and understanding of the above issue before jumping to conclusions, and showing hostility towards me when I asked reasons behind some unexplained moves. It seems to me, that both User:Mel Etitis and User:JMBell are letting personal prejudice cloud their judgements, their refusal to acknowledge their handicaps in the interpretation of Wikipedia:Disambiguation policy despite repeated reminders and extensive explainations. Instead, we see plenty of examples above showing User:JMBell attempting to defend User:Mel Etitis's good name, and apparantly moving in to do a revert operation prior to greater understanding of the issue, and taking sides with User:Mel Etitis in an manner which shows a lack of objectivity and good naturedness. Are they taking things too personally, choosing to stubbornly stick to their stand in reaction to my well-documented and well-substaintiated responses, and somehow taking my comments as thou I have ulterior intentions to demolish their reputations at all costs, when my objection is towards the revert wars taking place?

And meanwhile, can the person accidentally dublicating the last part of this page remove it please? I do get a feeling that whoever made this error dosent seem familiar with this website at all?--Huaiwei 14:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei may not mean to accuse anybody of anything, but what she/he said above is not the entirety of the true story.

Given the fact that most Wikipedia articles (excluding those linked by the template) linking to "Nanyang" at the time I added the disambiguation notice, I decided to keep the Henan city entry at "Nanyang". I did not proceed to create an article for the Southeast Asia meaning and I am no expert in Nanyang/Southeast Asia-related stuffs comparing to Huaiwei.

After an article on the Southeast Asia was created, the Henan city article moved to "Nanyang, Henan" and the cut and paste move by Huaiwei, I helped fix the links to the right articles.

Because of the said fact, I didn't agree it's desirable to place the article on Southeast Asia under the title "Nanyang", and therefore moved it to "Nanyang (geographical region)".

What's left were "Nanyang" and "Nanyang (disambiguation)". The right procedure should be either make "Nanyang" a redirect to "Nanyang (disambiguation)", or "Nanyang (disambiguation)" be moved to "Nanyang". For the latter, which is now done, has to be performed by a sysop. It was more complicated because of the cut and paste move. Being aware that Mel Etitis was involved in reverting Huaiwei's removal of the two colleges, I requested her/him to do the merge.

As I said, I am no expert in Southeast Asia comparing to Huaiwei, and I don't know whether the two colleges are never referred to as Nanyang (just like the HSBC has never branded itself as HongkongBank since 1999 or so). Average readers know what "United States" means, not Nanyang, and it is common, at least among English speaking people, to call a university by its name with the word "university" omitted. But anyway I'll leave this for more experienced users to decide. — Instantnood 20:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Relax, I'm only trying to make an impartial view of the events. I can say bad things about Mel right now, but that wouldn't be fair. Let's just break down this stuff as calmly as possible. Regarding the prequels of this current story: what Instantnood did. Based on your statements, we can deduce three things: 1) Instantnood was out to get you and did this as a way to spite you; 2) Instantnood didn't know what he was doing; or 3) it was an SOP (standard operating procedure). Whichever the case, Mel stepped in to try and fix the problem or what he thought was the problem (In cases like these, you must make yourself heard - what you want, what the person did wrong). Mel was right in some way that Nanyang disambig should stay - the name says it all. But you were also right in insisting that Nanyang should stay, as this was the original. Anyway, protocol prevailed, and the disambig page stayed, while Nanyang was redirected. Then someone stepped in and fulfilled your request. And now we come to the present matter (which is what I wanted to talk about in the first place). You remove the Nanyang Techno and Polytechno links bec. you think they shouldn't be there. The statement of events you give does not state why you think they shouldn't be there, however - it only gives Nanyang Geog., Henan, and disambig. I would gladly try and clear this up, but the facts are still somewhat incomplete. Please add something and then we can continue. For my argument on why I think the Singaporean entries can stay, look at my previous message. 84.154.65.17 14:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- this is James. The browser won't log in for some obscure reason.

Sigh....finally the blood pressure drops a notch. :D No, at this juncture I wont want to comment on Instantnood anymore. The two of us has enough history for a long-running drama series. I felt obligued to detail the above, because I sense the great difficulty in following the sequence of events, which has somehow led to accusations of "bias" and such.

Before I go further, I would like your reassurance that you have read Wikipedia:Disambiguation in all its entirety. Once done, I would like you to answer this quiz:

Q: A disambiguation page:

A1: seeks to list all entries which shares the same name, either in whole or part.

A2: seeks to list only entries which are of the exact same. For other entries in which there are only similarities in part, they are added only when a reasonble level of confusion could be expected.

Whats your interpretation? A1 or A2? Thanks! :D--Huaiwei 15:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A2 would be the answer; for example you search for the city "Memphis." Do you want Memphis, Tenessee or Memphis, Egypt? The disambig is supposed to show that. And also a bit of A1. Let's say you make a "Washington" disambig. Of course, you'd put in "Washington, DC," the "State of Washington," and perhaps even "Washington, George." One could also put in something interesting such as "Washington Memorial" or "Famous institutions named after Washington," which is what makes it partly A1. But purely A1 would not be a disambig. It would be a "List of things named after Nanyang." The right balance of A1 and A2 would make a very good and accurate disambig page (you might not need A1 elements at all). The two Singaporean entries could stay in Nanyang, but maybe under a separate heading; I'd suggest "selected schools named (after) Nanyang." This is what you should now discuss with Mel and Instantnood: if you're going to leave the entries in, and if so, if you're going to place them under a heading and what. You may meet some dissent, but I'm afraid it's the only way we can get this problem fixed. Remember, this is only an opinion, what I'm giving, but it's the best compromise I can think of. I guess we'd meet better results in an open forum, with the other(s) participating. And yes, I assure you that I have read Wikipedia:Disambiguation. -JMBell° 16:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree it was A2, then I am surprised we should be discussing this thus far. From what I see above, there is an attempt to create an A1, when A2 should be what disamg pages are for. If we were to refer to your example of Washington, lets look at Washington (disambiguation). We can clearly see, that it is common to list cities named Washington, because we do not often refer to them as Washington, North Carolina, Washington, Iowa, but merely as Washington in everyday usage. It is also similarly common to refer to Washington, D.C. as merely Washington. People's names, similarly, are often cited, because it is common to refer to parts of their names. Institution names are sometimes added, as we see some there, because some are indeed often refered to as such. Cambridge, Oxford, Yale are some examples. However, I note a tendency in overdoing things. While we often refer to UC Berkeley as Berkeley, we hardly call it "California". Listing it under California would therefore be considered unnecesary.

Back to the issue of Nanyang in Singapore. As I have mentioned before, because there are so many institutions named after Nanyang here, it is not common at all to refer to any of them merely by the term "Nanyang" alone except in very obvious contexts (such as a casual conversation between two students of Nanyang JC in casual reference to their institution). They are never, however, used in more formal contexts, such as in proper conversations, in the mass or print media, etc. Nanyang Technological University, may I point out, it normally refered to as NTU in English, and Nantah in Mandarin. Not merely as Nanyang. Nanyang Polytechnic is known as NYP. Nanyang Junior College, as NYJC. Nanyang Girls' High School, as Nanyang Girls'. Nanyang Primary School, as Nanyang Primary. Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts, as NAFA. The only time any institution named Nanyang may require a disambg page, is when Nanyang Technological University gets renamed as Nanyang University a few years from now, because we do have a seperate but now defunct institution also known as Nanyang University a few decades ago. It is therefore clear, that none of these terms are actually as much a source of confusion as otherwise imagined--Huaiwei 16:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point. The Singaporean entries should not be there because they are only some of very many schools in Singapore that start with "Nanyang" (which, incidentally, means what? Singapore?). I guess what Instantnood is trying to do is to place these two institutes on the disambig in the meantime, because they start with "Nanyang" and because non-Singaporeans may have a hard time distinguishing between them. The only flaw here is that there are so many institutes, universities, and schools named "Nanyang" that it would be illogical to place them all here, right? And if "Nanyang" means "Singapore" or the name of a place, then it would just be like making a disambig page for (e.g.) New York, where the content is just the names of all the schools beginning with "New York". This is your point, isn't it? I guess we should leave the entries if they are the only articles made so far about institutes named "Nanyang" and if they are very important or prestigious. When the list grows longer, we could make a link to a list of schools called "Nanyang" or the like. That would solve our problem. -JMBell° 17:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er...if you read Nanyang (geographical region), you will understand that is does not mean Singapore. It is a Chinese term used in China to refer to the region south of China. But in contemporary usage, it is also a collective term to refer to ethnic Chinese societies and cultures in Southeast Asia. The term happens to be well used in Singapore, because Singapore is the only country in Southeast Asia to receive so many ethnic Chinese migrants that they form the majority of the populance. There is little check to prevent ethnic Chinese Singaporeans from using that term as a form of self-identity with fellow ethnic Chinese in this region. Feelings of Chineseness is much more suppresed in other countries such as Indonesia, but it does not mean the Malaysians across the border does not use it.

Hence, unfamiliarity of the term can hardly be equated to unfamiliarity with Singaporean issues. It is unfamiliarity with Chinese culture and language, and the term is much more pervasive than believed (try typing Nanyang in google. I get 689,000 hits, although of coz it could also have other meanings and references. I tried typing 南洋, and I get 837,000 pages in simplified Chinese). Like the whole debate surrounding the Taipei vs Republic of China issue, ignorance cannot always be taken into account in policy and decision making, although I am beginning to recognise the fact that the term can raise puzzled eyebrows outside the Chinese sphere of influence. I believe your worry, is that people less familiar with the term might end up typing "Nanyang" in the hope of getting a specific result, say Nanyang Polytechnic, not knowing it was actually a well-used term for multiple entries?

I have traditionally avoided adding or deleting entries based on the notion of "importance", because it is often an issue of POV. But I suppose exceptions have to be made sometimes. In this case, I am quite torn up. If we are to indeed include the two institutions, then I have to point out even Nanyang Primary School can be said to qualify, because the "Nanyang" brandname happens to be attached to some of the most prestigious schools here. This ends up in us listing every Nanyang there is...which makes almost a mockery of the original purpose of that disamg page. How shall we draw the line?--Huaiwei 18:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to include a link: e.g. "Most universities in Singapore are also called 'Nanyang'. Some of them are (put the best or just selected schools here). For the whole list, please click here (and include a link to the list of schools)." This, I think, is the best way to combine your wishes. Of course, I'm not an admin, nor do I have much experience (yet), so you'll have to ask Mel or in a forum if this would be acceptable. On my part, I think it's a good compromise. You were right about what I was worrying about, by the way. :p - JMBell° 20:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]