User talk:Huaiwei/Archive J

Current events in Southeast Asia

Hi. Thanks for converting the Current events in Southeast Asia to Portal:Southeast Asia/Current events. It's been long overdue. Are you familiar enough with portal coding to set up edit links for each date and the highlight box, like the Portal:Current events page? Again, as a frequent contributor to the SE Asia current events page, I appreciate your work. -Wisekwai 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I was actually delibrating whether to use one page per day, given the fact that it will be crazy having so many articles later in our Current events categories, but if you are comfortable, I certainly do not mind going ahead. This should make editing less of a pain in general. Anyway its just a small contribution...I was afterall one of those who helped setup and run Current events in Malaysia and Singapore. :D--Huaiwei 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the advantage of having one page per day will make it easier to track back to the news reports using "what links here" to see the latest developments related to the article. However, I'm now completely confused as to how to proceed with the Portal:Southeast Asia/Current events. I've issued a call for assistance in coding on the talk page of the main World current events portal. I hope you do not mind. I realize this is a test and only a test. Now, if I can just figure out how it works, I'll be happy to continue making contributions. Again, I appreciate the work you're doing on this. --Wisekwai 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I have already solved the problems. :D I changed the template and it should work pretty now. In the process of changing the formats for all earlier dates, so feel free to add news articles to the more recent dates. Cheers!--Huaiwei 12:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 22 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Police Coast Guard, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Brilliant article and well written! Thanks for the contribution. -- Samir धर्म 22:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alien2

i thot u got lost for good, so u came back..wel-come

More warring

Please stop. If you continue warring I will block you for a longer time. Joelito (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet

HI I have recently seen that towns and villages in Tibet are practically uncovered, but the category, Cities in Tibet, I propose to become Category:Cities, towns and villages in Tibet. THis way it is far less confusing for the reader and I can go through all the places in Tibet in the same category. James Janderson 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for categorising work

I recently realised the importance and usefulness of Category pages, and the excellent organisation and scope of Singapore-related categories. While your contribution in other areas are just as great, your categorising work should not go unnoticed. You deserve the Working Man's Barnstar. :D --Vsion 05:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you weigh in on this?

I'd like to bring forth a more definite agreement on what to do about archiving the current events article for Hong Kong. Could you join the discussion and vote?

Talk:Current_events_in_Hong_Kong#Concerning_the_archives

Thanks. --- Hong Qi Gong 17:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted List of Chinese dialects

Just wanted to add a word of explanation regarding my reversion of your change to List of Chinese dialects. Here's why I reverted:

In addition to reverting the order, you also reverted a lot of hard work to fix the internal links. That was the main reason for my reversion. If we have to pick between correct internal links and a particular order, the links being fixed win.
There was also a fair bit of work on wording that you reverted. I didn't see any NPOV text in it, so concluded that you just reverted instead of going through the changes more carefully and changing just the bits that you disagreed with.
If I understand correctly, you think that the order of the language groups represents a particular point of view, and that you prefer a different order that, somehow, isn't subject to a claim of NPOV. While that's possible, I don't think you've obtained any consensus for your conclusion, and you really ought to do so in the talk page before imposing your view.

I know it's not fun when somebody reverts your edits, and I apologize if doing so offends you. I'd encourage you to use the talk page, and see if you can generate a consensus for the order that you prefer. Waitak 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you may wish to realise, that the supposed "fixing" of links is itself a reversion, and is only valid with each renaming of the subcategories. A reversion to this current order will invariantly also result in the reversion of "fixed links". Your logic of "correct internal links" is thus entirely irrelevant.

I would not expect that subcategories are renamed. In almost all articles, major sections are very stable, and I'd have every reason to expect them to be here as well.

The POV issue is with the ordering of dialects based on the use of English names for some dialects, and the use of pinyin for others. This inconsistency asks for all viewers to actually know which Chinese dialect is better known by another name in English. The usage of common names may be preferred, but by this same definition, then, the word Chinese itself is also the most common name in reference to Mandarin, and Hokkien is often tought to refer to the entire Min dialect family, even if these associations are technically inaccurate. Why, then, should this list apply some cases of common usage, yet refuse to use others? A list which uses only one anglicisation system helps stamp out all contentions on common usage. Yout failure to find any POV issues in the main text itself is simply because you are looking at the wrong place.

Yes, I read the discussion in the talk page before I responded to your changes. No, I did not see any evidence whatsoever of a consensus. Further, the discussion to which you're refering petered out sometime in July.

And why are you looking at the wrong place? You claim there was no discussion in the talk page, when indeed there was, and it would explain to you in detail why this dispute takes place. As yet, no one there was successful in discouting the issue of POV, and hence it prevails here. If you disagree with this issue, you are most welcome to go participate in that article's talkpage as well instead of reverting and discussing only in my talkpage.

I do. Seven of the last 50 changes to the talk page were mine.

Thank you!--Huaiwei 11:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, all of this fuss is about two subcategory names - Cantonese and Mandarin. All of the remainder use pin yin romanization of the name of the dialect in spoken Putonghua/Guoyu, except Hakka, which gives preference for the name of the group in the group's principal dialect. Further, the only person that has given any evidence of being bothered by these names is yourself. I'd be happy to admit that this impression is mistaken, if you have evidence to the contrary. May I suggest that this isn't worth getting as worked up over as you seem to have gotten?

The reason for the note in the article's talk page was simple - I put a very clear request to discuss the issue in the edit summary. You ignored it and re-reverted it anyway, without a word. Not nice. Waitak 14:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your participation in this wikiwar is not helping to smoothen things out, if you are actually wondering otherwise. Even one exception is obviously not standardisation, so I fail to see why that should result in any less POV. Yes, I may be the sole person actively voicing out my concerns on POV, but that other editors did not attempt to revert them except for certain individuals who seem to share a certain common trait just goes to show that this cannot be merely seen as a process in democracy. It has been emphasized numerous times, that POV issues overide most other concerns, just as we use the ROC instead of China in appriopriate instances despite widespread global opposition. The same applies here.

As for me getting "worked up", it is hardly due to the revert warring. It is due to the unethical behavior in your conduct here. If you are reverting merely because you dont "feel good" that someone "ignored" your demands, then rest assures that it isnt going to have pretty results. May I just put it on record, that just as you think I ignored your request, you also apparantly ignored the fact that I pointed out past discussions did exist on this topic in that talkpage. Not a word? Proof it. Otherwise, I arent gonna feel sorry for you.--Huaiwei 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese dialects

Could I ask why you're consistently removing the links to internal sections of the article in favor of links to other articles on the same topics? I would have thought that the whole point of the links is to help people use the article more efficiently. Waitak 11:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change them to internal links if you wish, for I have no heavy preference for either option. My earlier edits actually did include the use of internal links [1], but they were removed subsequently when other users claim they cause problems in linking (although I find no such problem on my machine).--Huaiwei 11:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection and block warning on Huaiwen Xu and Xu Huaiwen

If you two continue this copy and paste move war, I'll definitely protect both pages and consider blocking both of you for disruption. Resolve the differences rather than enforcing your views. Thank you. --WinHunter ^(talk) 10:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts/Singapore

Since you immediately restored the content I removed from the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts article, here is my reason for the edit. This contribution appears to be unverifiable speculation as defined by WP:NOT:

The company CEO Robert Iger's description of impending "indoor, compact"-styled parks may be a hint in reference to the Singaporean proposal.

The cited reference says this:

This small scale, and Singapore's hot weather, could lead to Disney adopting a new generation of indoor theme parks that its CEO Robert Iger floated last year in a Wall Street Journal report. He said there were "three or four entities in the world, locations with money, that are looking for site-based entertainment" - full rides and shows within a building. "I'll call them theme parks but they won't necessarily be along the same lines as parks we've built before ... In the next year to two years ... we will commit to creating a new concept or some entity outside the US," he said then. Analysts pointed out he could be hinting at Singapore. (emphasis mine)

"Analysts pointed out he could be hinting at Singapore" is not a fact. There is no comment from Iger or Disney anywhere in the article about the location he was describing with his "site-based entertainment" remark. Saying that Iger's comment "may be a hint" is speculation by any reasonable definition. Whoville 14:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response in the article talkpage. Thanks for dropping a line here, but please bring content discussions to the article talkpage for input from the wider community.--Huaiwei 14:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Standard Mandarin

I've started a thread to try to build proper consensus about whether to move Standard Mandarin to a more intuitive and perhaps neutral title or not. I've left this message at your talkpage because you've participated in previous discussions about a possible title change. Please feel free to contribute with your thoughts and arguments at Talk:Standard Mandarin#The move.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regional language

The discussion about Cantonese can be resolved by consulting User:Calgacus. He's an expert on such matters. 84.135.251.135 12:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

--WinHunter ^(talk) 14:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was my entry in the 3RR page which was to be posted until your imposed ban. Both users broke the 3RR rule.

User:Yuje reported by User:Huaiwei (Result:)

Three revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [2]
1st revert: 04:59, 11 September 2006
2nd revert: 06:52, 11 September 2006
3rd revert: 13:19, 11 September 2006
4th revert: 13:57, 11 September 2006

Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (necessary only for new users) :

DiffTime

Time report made: 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: As above. I have noticed Yuje gaming the 3RR rules by previously stopping eveytime three reverts were made, but I suppose he couldn't control himself this time. Bringing in content disagreements into discussions here is also irrelevant, if he understands the basis for the 3RR in the first place. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and just because I was the minority in opposing his attempts to add inaccurate information (along with a whole bunch of like-minded individuals who have continously ganged up to oppose me) does not mean my comments are invalid or inaccurate. And to claim that I was singling him out to revert war is hardly any further from the truth. I act based on factual content, and not on the person. If the person chooses to continously add factual errors, then inevitably, it is his edits which will be constantly scrutinised, although far from the wikistalking ways of another famed user.--Huaiwei 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the rules? The revert war on National dish was a one-sided one. I was attempting to add in new evidence to appease your endless demands, only to have you summarily delete and revert everything, including my file, my summary, and later my attempts to add external links. As for three revert rule, keep in mind the 3RR's purpose is to stop revert wars, not for personal revenge. Only you seem to have a penchent for endless wikilawyering, stalling, and revert-warring. The mere fact that you have to go revert-warring against 5 or 6 different users is itself telling. "Wikipedia isn't a democracy"'s intended meaning is that everyone gain concensus, not an excuse for one person to ignore everyone else. --Yuje 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't even see how the first edit qualifies as a revert. I added in new material, including that picture and text, which was never previously in the article. How can I be reverting something that didn't exist before? And the 4th wasn't a revert either, but updating my entry with more external links. If you truly objected to my picture that much, why didn't you even bother even going to a talk page first before hitting that first, second, third, and fourth revert? Wikilawyering isn't an excuse for revert-warring.--Yuje 15:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Email

I previously was only able to find {{3RR3}} to notify the banned user, thus did not include the time of block in such notice. Thanks for your email, I have now found the suitable template of which I'll inform other 3RR blocked user with their blocked duration in the future.

As for blocking the other user involved, it would be only possible if you can establish that this first edit is a revert by comparing with a previous edit to show that he reverted your edits in whole in in part. If this is established I see no reason no to block the other user involved for 3RR. --WinHunter ^(talk) 23:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my policy of not revealing my e-mail address to prevent spam from the users disagreeing with my decisiong, I apologize for any inconvenience caused. Further reviewing the previous edits I have come to the conclusion that, although it was a addition but also at the same time a partial revert, and thus concluding that the other user have also broke 3RR.

However, be warned that DO NOT continue on edit warring after the block expires, I'll not hesitate to block anyone for disruption even if they did not exactly break 3RR (3RR does not entitle you 3 reverts per day). Please talk instead of edit warring. Many thanks.--WinHunter ^(talk) 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the block is determined by the past history of violation. You block is much longer because: 1. Your previous 3RR violations, 2. The fact that you are on probation. Btw, I do not track everyone on Wikipedia, I just deal with the one that I see. You are more than welcome to report anyone you see who is edit warring or disruptive to Wikipedia to WP:AN/I or WP:AN/3RR etc. --WinHunter ^(talk) 03:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM

Re: [3], please kindly follow steps 2 and 3 as suggested at WP:RM. As for this time, I've done that for you. All you now need to do is to make those lines unhidden. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 20:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange why you manage to find the energy to add those invisible texts deemed neccesary, yet cannot find the energy to simply add them without the invisible taglines.--Huaiwei 06:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is your obligation to follow the instructions and guidelines to fulfill all those procedures. Other wikipedians can provide whatever sort of assistance as long as it's helpful and necessary, but nobody is in a position as suitable as you do to finish the procedures. Now all you need to do is to remove those taglines. — Insta ntnood 14:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be my "obligation", whatever that means (I consider it my initiative, since I am the nominator (and which you obviously vehenently refuse to for certain reasons), and that gives me liberty in removing the nomination too at my pleasure) but anyone else who happens to notice lapses in procedures can very well help correct it, as you clearly did. Yet you stop yourself halfway, as thou you find it not in your capability to "assist" certain individuals, which is kinda interesting considering how enthusiastic you are in getting me to WP:RM it in the first place. Compare this to your over-the-top efforts to ensure no cut and paste moves (as well as in other selected wikiprocedures), and I am left wondering where your priorities are. What are you going to do if I refuse to remove those taglines?--Huaiwei 15:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome

Hey thanks a lot for the welome message. I'm just a layman who's a fan of law enforcement... so I may be learning more from you instead. Just 2 let u know, my photos were captured on a Nokia 7610 phone... so quality a bit crappy...

Oh btw, do u happen to know anyone working in Yishun North NPC? I need some photos of the Mitusbishi Lancer Patrol Car for the Fast Response Car page, and since most of the SPF Lancers scrapped alredi, I need these done quick.... the last one i saw (last week) came frm Yishun North NPC... scared will scrap b4 i get a chance to take foto... Thanks a lot man. Seng Yew 00:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC +8)

Hah some photo better than no photo. ;) As for that car..hmm...I tomorrow go check out if my NPC got or not first lah haha. YN NPC I only know a few officers, but arent that close.--Huaiwei 17:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How? Any luck yet? --Seng Yew 11:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC +8)

Hah none yesterday...unfortunately.--Huaiwei 06:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alamak, too bad lor... Was hoping the other NPCs still had their Lancers, ah well what to do... Thanks 4 d help anyway, btw any chance on getting ur frens from YN to take a couple photos? 'cause so far i see the Mitsubishi FRC more tzai than the other police cars... will be a waste to let it scrap without a photoshoot. p.s. sorry 2 trouble u ah, I don't have friends in the Police force lah... some more my photos all 'illegal' (shot when the cops were not looking) one :-P --Seng Yew 17:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC +8)

Well I am not sure if they are our "favourite" vehicles to drive, but I am certainly happy to see old cars go for the sake of basic comfort. :D Not sure if I can contact those folks (I dont have their numbers), but will try lah. Anyway if you are serious about having pictorial archives, then a "proper" camera should be a wise investment for you. I doubt you want to have merely a phoneshot after all the trouble in finding obsolete vehicles!--Huaiwei 15:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

p.s. Cisco patrol cars are the only patrol cars that use rotating police lights (instead of the strobe ones used by SPF) --Seng Yew 13:10, edited 18 October 2006 (UTC +8)

Another warning

You are very close to earning yourself another block. Edit-warring (e.g. Country, Demographics of mainland China, Huaiwen Xu) either on the same day or over time is unacceptable behavior. Continue in this manner and you will be blocked. Joelito (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Tan Keng Yam

Tony Tan Keng Yam is the way his name is said, so I reverted to that. Don't worry, though. I made sure readers know that Tan, not Yam, is the family name :) WhisperToMe 03:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello!

hey, glad to find another fellow Singaporean wikipedian... Could you teach me how you did those tables for your userpage (bottom)? Thanks! en-4 This user speaks English at a near-native level. zh-3 該用戶能以熟練的中文進行交流。该用户能以熟练的中文进行交流。 en-sg-3 This user Singlish quite tzai leh

US dollars in Singapore?

Do street vendors in Singapore take US dollars? SchmuckyTheCat 00:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, no, unless it is some poshy high-end touristy place. Only the bruineian dollar is universally acceptable besides S$. :D

Not that Universally. I tried using some in a major international brand shop in Plaza Singapura and was told that no foreign currency accepted. Taxi drivers will accept the notes with some reservation and will not accept coins. Most hawker centers would also not accept Brunei dollars. The trick is to buy something small in a large department store (Robinsons, Isetan, whatever), get them to break a large Brunei note (typically $100) and then use the Singapore dollars elsewhere. --Novelty 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that is more to do with ignorance mah. The Bruneian dollar is customary tender anywhere in Singapore, and merchants who dont accept it are as good as turning money (and business) away. This isnt quite the same as rejecting the US dollar which isnt customary tender here.--Huaiwei 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not legal tender though, so they have a right to refuse it. As you said, they are just turning good money and business away. --202.160.44.201 01:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Mailer diablo

RfB With A Smile :)

Splitting Turkey

No, I don't intend to split Turkey into two. But politically, Turkey is in Europe. No wonder they are trying to join the EU. By the way, look at Korean Air's destinations article. Vladivostok is listed under Europe, even though it is in Asia. And even Aeroflot's own destination list has all the Asian cities under Europe. Elektrik Blue 82 13:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics isnt the only indicator of where a country belongs to. How about assigning the Philippines to North America then? In most pages, we list destinations in one country based on which continent they are most associated with, so you dont have to tell me Russia is being classified in whole in Europe. In fact, I should be asking you why it is so, since you appear to be keen to make such a split.--Huaiwei 13:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not keen in making the split. But according to your statement above, you say that Vladivostok is more associated with Europe, that's why they are listed as a European destination, even though it is at the very end of Asia? My idea is, why not base the classification solely on geographi location, and if we need to be specific, the geographic location of the airport? Because your criteria of listing destinations in one country on which continent they are most associated with, is rather hard to measure. How can you tell? Politics isn't the only indicator, it is one indicator. What other indicators are out there? Tell me how you measure it then. Elektrik Blue 82 14:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not keen to effect the split, mind explaining your rationale for a revert by saying the "airport is in the European side"? Can I then say that an airport on the Asian side should be classified under Asia, a direct implication that you are asking for a split? Note that you did not mention classification by country, but by the specific location of the airport.

I am quite sure I refered to countries rather than individual cities, so please tell me when I mentioned Vladivostok?

Your proposal may sound rosy from the surface, but it is obviously not tenable. Turkish Airlines shall have Istanbul in both Europe and Asia thanks to it flying to an airport on both sides of the Bosphorus but still serving the same city. How logical is that? And how do you expect the international community to react when Russia gets split this way? And you must be thinking continental definitions are distinct, when they arent. Try convincing Indonesians that Gurada's flights to Irian Jaya are classified under Oceania, for instance?

You appear to believe that only in politics are things definitive, while my comment about "association" (which actually includes politics) needs an explaination. Do your own homework. Surely you arent ignorant to the fact that there are opposition towards Turkish ascention to the EU on geographical, cultural, racial, and linguistic grounds? What is the basis for this discriminatory behavior towards the Turks? By chance?--Huaiwei 15:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By saying "airport is in the European side" I was simply basing the revert on its geographic location. For Qatar Airways, that does not matter. I wasn't thinking of airlines flying on both sides, I only started thinking of these cases when you persistently reverted it back.

Fine, I'll give you credit for the Vladivostok argument. But one question for this is: how come Turkey is more Asian, and Russia (who happens to have a significant land mass in Asia) is more European?

And now that this issue has been brought up, basing it on geographic location alone is a rather transparent criterion on how to categorize the destinations. It is more transparent than the criteria you propose (which up to now you haven't elaborated on). Tell me how Russians would react on the split. I don't think there is nothing wrong in splitting the destinations, as long as there is a clear line of where Europe ends and Asia begins. In the case of Turkey, there is, the Bosporus. And since TK flies to both European and Asian airports, why not list them separately? In this way, the categorization is transparent and apolitical. By listing the airports on geographic grounds ALONE, then we therefore avoid dealing with other issues, issues that are illustrated by the opposition towards Turkish EU ascention.

I do not believe that only in politics are things definitive. I lost faith in politics a long time ago. And why should I do my own homework when you're the one who initiated the move? The burden of explanation lies on you.

And yes, by this time, I am keen on making the split, for the sake of transparency. Elektrik Blue 82 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So by classifying an airport based on its "geograhical location", you are ignoring which country they happen to belong in, and hence is asking for a continental split for transcontinental countries. I suppose sometimes one fails to reflect deeper before reverting, a problem common with habitual reverters.

As for that question on Russia vis-a-vis Turkey, would you mind asking yourself which continent would you culturally classify them under? Read Transcontinental country for elaborations on the status of Russia in particular, and why it is often seen as European despite having more landmass in Asia. I tought this was stuff taught in secondary school geography?

Mind defining "transparency" here. Isnt it clear, that even geography itself isnt cast in stone? The boundary between Asia and Europe is not universally defined particularly across Russian territory, so mind telling in what way is it more "transparent"? How is it "transparent and apolitical" if you split up countries only where the continental divide is geographically consistent (arguably so), but not for others? Is geography apolitical? I have problems accepting a number of your assumptions here, most of which will be debunked by theoratical logic.

I asked you to do your "homework" simply because you are asking the obvious (at least in my books). I refuse to waste time answering someone asking me if the Earth rotates round the Moon or the Sun. He can go check it up himself.--Huaiwei 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with a continental split? Is there a rule saying that a country should belong only in one continent?

Again, why should I classify them culturally? Isn't the destination list after all a geographic classification, not a cultural classification? I wonder why you prefer to classify things based on subjective criteria.

True, even geography itself is not cast in stone. But it is relatively clearer than culture.

Even if I am asking the obvious, for reasons of clarification, repetition doesn't hurt right? So would you elaborate on the criteria you are classifying the destinations? After all, it's your way of classifying things. I do not read minds. Elektrik Blue 82 17:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with keeping a sensible-looking list with countries listed where they are most likely expected to be at? Is there a rule saying that there must be a rule saying that a country should belong only in one continent?

In what way is culture distinct from geography? How, then, do you explain the field called Cultural geography? I find it ridiculous that you say its "classified by geography" and not "culturally" when culture and geography are intertwined, and that you impled that "culture is subjective" when geography is not any less subjective too, especially in the realms of human geography, within which resides political faultlines as well as continental divides not based on geology.

I dont know if I should bother commenting on your statement about "clarity". Comments like that would probably earn an immediate F grade even in pre-university classes.

You may enjoy repeatition, but I do not, and I am quite sure I have the liberty in abstaining from wasting too much time on unproductive behavior. May I remind, that it is hardly "my way" of classifying things. The issue of classifying transcontinental countries isnt something new, and isnt something defined solely by me. You are too kind.--Huaiwei 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the list is based on where the cities are located, then why the opposition to classify them based on geography? I wonder what is it that is not sensible in that idea.

I didn't say anything about the distinctiveness of culture from geography. I am aware that they intersect, but culture has more to it than geography alone. If you classify it by culture, maybe we should classify the cities based on the religion that is most common in the area then, since religion is also part of culture.

I did not say that geography is not subjective, only less subjective than culture.

I wonder what university you go to, but professors actually repeat stuff for clarity. By the way, in your case right now, you never even said it the first time. You assumed that other people share your knowledge. Teachers don't do that. They actually by saying what it is to be said, and sometimes, if needed, repeat it. Teachers don't assume that their students already know what is in the curriculum, just in case you didn't know.

And yes, I looked into the article on transcontinental countries. Even the first paragraph implies that the definitions can change based on purely geographical reasons. Elektrik Blue 82 17:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to continue rambling on my talkpage, at least have the basic courtesy of keeping to the formatting and quit wasting my time having to reformat your comments for you.

Is the list based on their cities alone? If so, why are the countries, regions, and continents doing there? Seriously, do you need visual aids next, or do you need to be knocked out of your sense of denial?

You do not have to say something explicitely for others to glean what you are implying. You specifically questioned why classifying by "culture" is better than by "geography". What kind of logical statement is that? Is that not an attempt to make a distinction? Yes, religion is part of culture. God knows why you choose to use only one single aspect of culture to do your classification thou.

Geography is less subjective than culture? Proof it, especially in relation to this on-going discourse.

The university I graduated from, the University of Singapore, expects students to venture forth and do self-research for condusive and fruitful discussions during tutorials. Students who persist in asking questions on basic theory are quite likely to get an invitation for a personal one-to-one discussion outside office hours...if the professor has that patience. If not, they simply see their lack of initiative reflected on their results slips. There is a reason why Singapore's students do well in just about any other university on earth. I arent sure if the same can be said about you, although I suppose linguistics dosent force you to transcend too much into the realms of the social sciences. How lucky. (for your information, I took courses on European history, European political geography, and even introductory linguistics during my undergraduate days).

So if the article states that geography can change boundaries, mind telling me why you choose to insist that geography is reliabily stagnant enough for you to do your classification exercise?--Huaiwei 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you consistently avoid answering even my first question, I'll stop. At least, I found that destination lists should be modelled to a master list found here. I'll follow that, for the sake of avoiding your biases against geographical classification. And yes, I followed the format in your talk page this time. Elektrik Blue 82 17:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your compliance is deeply appreciated. And who came up with that "Master list"? A bunch of white Christians who persist in thinking North America is more important than everyone else, and that the European realm of thought preceeds that of Africans and Asians? How much global consultation did it go through before formulation? Who gave them that authority? How qualified are they? And I find it innately disgusting that a fellow Southeast Asian chooses to be led by the nose just because he happens to be sponsored by them or something in his current academic pursuits? So much for a colour-blind world!--Huaiwei 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladivostok is clearly in Asia. Turkey is more Europe than Asia, except when we got to look at Anatolia based purely on geographical considerations. Based purely on geographical considerations, however, the airport serving Istanbul is entirely on European soil. — Insta ntnood 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are just stating your opinion (which we already know) without stating your reasoning (which we stil dont know, as usual). Turkey to me is Asian beyond geography, for I do not consider Islam more European than Asian, and I do not consider their social outlook more European either. I challenge you to show me in what way Turkey is "more Asian only due to geography".--Huaiwei 04:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. Seems you can't tell the differences between Islam in Turkey and the majority of the rest of the Islamic world. Anatolia is clearly in Asia from a purely geographical angle, yet the airport is geographically not on Anatolia. It is on European soil. — Insta ntnood 21:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (modified 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Woah...mine sharing with us what is the "different kind of Islam" in Turkey, and if this form of Islam is European, and not Asian?--Huaiwei 14:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I mentioned is was the differences between Islam in Turkey and the majority of the rest of the Islamic world. "Different kind of Islam"? Are there many kinds of Islam? — Insta ntnood 14:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (modified 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Answer the question, failing which it just shows how much of a liar you are. Or how about taking this topic to the Islam article and we shall see what others have to say about your interesting comment on "the difference between Islam in Turkey and the majority of the rest of the Islamic world"? I sure hope no one elses thinks you are implying a "Different kind of Islam", because what is exactly what I feel you are claiming (a claim which I hadent supported nor denied yet, if you didnt notice) And what does this gotta do with many kinds of Islam" Who implied "many"?--Huaiwei 20:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's your feeling. You can feel however you like. — Insta ntnood 20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I know that. And I know you cant answer the question. Liar.--Huaiwei 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say whatever and feel however you like. — Insta ntnood 21:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have an issue with that?--Huaiwei 21:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]