User talk:Huaiwei/Archive E

"semi" away
Hey people, I am away on a "camp" now till wednesday, with very little time online, so I will get back to all of you in full when I get back? Sorry for the delays and inconveniences! ;) --Huaiwei 13:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Bon voyage! =) --Jerry Crimson Mann 13:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem, enjoy your "camp"! ;) - Mailer Diablo 15:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Planning area versus actual town
I noticed that under the URA classification since Ang Mo Kio Planning Area is different from Ang Mo Kio, wouldn't that imply most of these links (specified in a list of urban planning areas such as Districts and places in Singapore and Urban Redevelopment Authority) are wrong? Ie. Orchard Planning Area isn't the same as Orchard Road, etc.? Should I change all of them? I'll wait till you get back. -- Natalinasmpf 07:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood and the MTR
Hello, I found your name on the arbitration committee briefing on Instantnood. I found the evidence presented disturbing, as a very similar situation is developing over on the MTR page. Instantnood has taken it upon himself to change the formatting for all the article names without discussion, and to also change the bolded name in the articles to create redundancy. I am attempting to engage him in discussion, although after reading the evidenece presented on the ArbCom page, it may perhaps be futile. Discussion over this is taking place at here, and any support you could lend would be appreciated, as I cannot seem to find what the final verdict of the ArbCom was. Thank you! Páll 09:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

National dish
I'm pretty sure if I'm in need of an air ticket as you said at talk:Cuisine of Singapore, you need one too. At the time being I'd recommend to spend some time and read the article on nation. :-D &mdash; Instantnood 18:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * And in case you're not sure what BBQ pork with rice is, here's a nice menu for student lunch boxes on Café de Coral's website. In fact it's the icon of the production company of the film My life as McDull, as shown in the film. Local people in Hong Kong call it &#21449;&#29138;&#39151; in Cantonese. It's very common for lunch boxes, and some time eating in too at fast food shops. &mdash; Instantnood 18:24, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Haha...what makes you think I have not been to HK, nor tried HK food? LOL!--Huaiwei 18:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Then what makes you think I'm in need of an air ticket? Equally ridiculous. :-D &mdash; Instantnood 18:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. You deleted my response, a clear cut example of disruptive behavior. And you seem to have forgotten to sign your name as well. Anyway, have you seen Cuisine of Singapore? Oh of coz you had. But have you seen the entry there called "Char siew rice"? You probably hadent, for you somehow wants to give it a clumsy sounding English name. Oh, and horrors. Did Hong Kong invent that dish? And in what way is it a "national" dish in Hong Kong? How come when we eat the same damn dish here (and it is obviously found all over Singapore as well), we dont associate it with Hong Kong, but with Cantonese cuisine?--Huaiwei 18:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't delete anybody's response. If it has to be invented by that certain country then beer is not the national drink of anywhere. &mdash; Instantnood 18:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your "ignorance" is getting profound. The introduction in that page clearly tells you what would "qualify" as a national dish, and what would not. It dosent merely need to be invented. It can also be closely associated, as beer is to Germany. Other nations, on the other hand, actually produce various types of beer. But the most important factor is that the dish has to represent that nation. Would you mind telling us how should char siew rice and milk tea qualify in ANY of these definitions (Im sorry, but the only qualification seems to be popularity)? Meanwhile, you cant claim that you didnt delete anyone's comment if my history page records it. :D--Huaiwei 18:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, gentlemen, no food wars please. *Smack* Hey, who threw a cream pie on me?! (tastes good, anyhow!) :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL! Alright fine fine. I shall clean up the mess and go to sleep now. ;)--Huaiwei 19:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for giving me the Newcomer Award, I truly appreciate it. You have guided me well all this time and help me alot, please continue to do the same for other newcomers. I'm taking a 2-3 weeks wikibreak soon, but (as Arnold said) .... I will be back! Oh, please don't forget to help me check the Singapore coastline at WikiProject_Singaporean_places/Maps. Thanks! -- Vsion 20:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll take the oppurtunity to say...
On the subject of coastlines, one of the next projects will be to make a more accurate representation of Singapore's port, which being highly important, I should think be paid attention to. ;-) Keppel Harbour, for instance, is appallingly of low detail, and the Port of Singapore article pays little attention to the various ports and its evolution, etc. This is important because when I start working on coastline landmarks like beaches, I need an accurate description of the harbours (from the articles, although I have a vague idea) as benchmarks to start off with. Ie. the Old Harbour of Singapore, and what it is now, or the fact that the entrance into Keppel Harbour has been narrowed by half by the reclamation work on Sentosa (which might be a good thing in terms of shelter, and in traffic not so noticable in terms of trade off) - that reminds me, details on how land reclamation was also used to shield harbours from monsoons, the PSA history site makes a good starting point. Hopefully Mailer Diablo can take some photos. I'm going to Mount Faber sometime soon, so perhaps I can take photos of Keppel Harbour (and the wharves) from there. ;)

Anyway, I hope to start writing up on the beaches, and Labrador Park, more on HarbourFront etc., with hopefully some existing benchmarks to work from. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 21:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Good luck, fellas! ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 21:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew
Hello, Huaiwei, I have been observing on your edits quite sometime, and I have grown fond of you.

Concerning this issue, I would like to ask you a few questions concerning his name which I'm not very sure.

Firstly, I would appreciate if you can reinspect carefully between the English version of his biography that you have given and the Chinese version of his biography that I gave:

"But my grandfather's admiration for the British made him add "Harry" to my name, so I was Harry Lee Kuan Yew. My two younger brothers, Kim Yew and Thiam Yew, were also giben Christian names - Dennis and Freddy respectively. At that time few non-Christian Chinese did this, and at school later I was to find myself the odd boy out with a personal name like "Harry". When my youngest brother, Suan Yew, was born in 1933, I persuaded my parents not to give him a Christian name since we were not Christians."

"&#25105;&#20986;&#19990;&#30340;&#26102;&#20505;, &#23478;&#37324;.... &#20294;&#26159;, &#31062;&#29238;&#20986;&#20110;&#23545;&#33521;&#22269;&#20154;&#30340;&#20208;&#24917;, &#32473;&#25105;&#22810;&#21152;&#20102;&#19968;&#20010;&#27915;&#21517; Harry. &#20110;&#26159;&#25105;&#30340;&#20840;&#21517; &#21464;&#25104; "Harry Lee Kuan Yew". "

You notice that your version makes no mention that his "full name" is "Harry Lee Kuan Yew", but not the Chinese biography.

Also, I am wondering about the comment from Mel Etitis: "reverted attempt to circumvent consensus on naming": What consensus? I thought that he is going to ask his colleague concerning Lee's name, but days has passed and he had not given an answer. If you notice my edit that he reverted,, I made an attempt to say that he is "born Harry Lee Kuan Yew". However, the current state of the article says that he is also known as "Harry Lee Kuan Yew".

If this is the case, the introduction might as well be Harry Lee Kuan Yew, even though you say that his biography, and all other official document dealings uses "Lee Kuan Yew", just like Jimmy Carter, I think. What do you think? Your comment would be greatly appreciated.

Mr Tan 03:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Was thinking of nominating him, but didn't know how to go about it. Didn't want anyone to feel too paiseh about it either. -- Natalinasmpf 18:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, adding a '*' to this list means relatively little and most certainly does not guarantee a nomination. The motivation is to highlight folks who've been around for a while and provide an indication of those who have some interest in becoming an admin.  Perhaps someone will look at this list and then nominate someone on it, or perhaps not. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Both you guys User:Huaiwei and User:Natalinasmpf should become admins. I truly admire the contribution both of you are making; in content as well as organizing the articles. This will benefit not just Singapore-related articles but also that of this region as well. We need more active admins with a good perspective of the history and culture of the Southeast Asia region, which is somewhat neglected here, (e.g. see comments in Collaboration of the week#Southeast Asia) and poorly understood by other wikipedians. Hope someone with wiki-experience will notice and start the process. Good Luck ! :D -- Vsion 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Moi, moi! =D I can nominate both of you for adminship if you feel that you are ready (let me know), but I would say given that both of you are mainly content contributors it's best for now to work without the extra powers first. Learning to do certain procedures the "harder" way (which is made easier for admins, such as deletions) for a extra longer period of time is better IMO, because you'll actually learn to appreciate the workings of Wikipedia. For example, admins will find speedying vanity very tempting, but if you have been in VFD for long enough you'll rather follow "by the book" and put it through the VFD process. Speaking my bit from personal experience. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 00:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Rfa
Thank you for supporting me! --Kbdank71 13:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your first uploaded Own Image
Hi Huaiwei,

Congrats, you've made your first upload of your own photo Image:Cisco Security.JPG on Wikipedia. ;) Now, you'll have to tag it with a "Free image" license tag so others will know how you would like your work to be used. There are three major kinds of licenses you can offer :


 * GFDL - GNU Free Documentation License, The "standard Wikipedia license". =P
 * Creative Commons by 2.0 - Free use as long as credit is given to you (Attribution).
 * Release to Public Domain - If you don't wish to copyright your image, then this is the option.

If you have any further questions please feel free to drop a note of my talkpage. Hope to see more photos from you in future! =D

Cheers, Mailer Diablo 00:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am "away"....again!
My apologise for my failure in replying all these while. Basically my PC is down, and the motherboard is still being serviced, so I have no internet access. I manage to type this after going all the way to school and using my school account! Wont be able to use this for long even now, so I beg all your understanding once again! :D Jez....I do miss wikipedia! --Huaiwei 07:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pang uk
Sorry to bother you, but I do hope that you could kindly rethink your redirect vote. Another kind of stilt house, the Papua New Guinea stilt house, is added. I've stated some other reasons supporting to keep the artice in this page as well. Thank you for your attention. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 2 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

Mandarin terms
When I said I was from San Francisco, I meant exactly that: born and raised in the city. I never "got out of Asia". --Yuje July 6, 2005 13:31 (UTC)
 * I see. Do you have any familial links to anywhere in Greater China....I am refering to more recent generations of coz...not ancient ones. :D--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)
 * All my immediate family from grandparents downwards are in the USA and Canada, except for some scattered aunts and uncles. So the answer to your question would be "mostly no". --Yuje July 7, 2005 11:34 (UTC)
 * "Mostly no" isnt good enough, compared to the number of people of Chinese origin in Singapore, for example, who practically have zero existing links to anyone in Greater China by now. I myself am one of them, but that dosent stop me from being permanantly interested in Chinese affairs--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, geographic criteria was neither asked nor required for Wikipedia. You don't possess any authority in the matter, nor do I really care about your opinion. You know next to nothing of my background, and using distant Chinese aunts as a criteria for judging my edits, as opposed to the information within the edits themselves, constitute a logical fallacy known as Ad_hominem. If you're going down that route of argumentation, I can just as easily propose that since both Singapore and Hong Kong are former British colonies, you possess strong Commonwealth links with Hong Kong and therefore you lack the necessary neutrality in Hong Kong-related matters. --Yuje July 8, 2005 18:21 (UTC)
 * Haha...no it isnt indeed. But it sure puts into question your claims on your own "nuetrality" over this issue. Last I heard, West coast cities like San Fran are swarming with East Asians, so whats the big deal? And btw, your attempt to somehow claim I have "strong Commonwealth links with HK" is kinda flawed...quite seriously indeed. Singapore's Commonwealth ties is with the UK. Dito for HK. As for whether these ties flow through straight between the two colonies, it appears far less apparant...if at all. The facts shows it since day one. Singapore was founded through peaceful settlement. HK was conquered by force. Singapore has had periods of being part of a much bigger piece of territory during her colonial days as well as during her first two years of independence from the British. HK has never grown beyond the New Territories. Did I mention independence? Oh yes. Singapore emerges as a successful independent state by all political definitions of the word independent. HK? No one seems to trust that it could survive on its own without having to spend a huge part of its reserves on the military and potential slipping the territory's fiscal balance sheet back into the red. The idea of British colonialism in Singapore is to use it as a strategic base both for economic and military purposes. We dont seem to have the Japanese rushing to decimate HK the same way they did to Singapore. Post-independent Singapore's idea of economic development is a market economy with Government-linked companies leading the way. Post-1950s HK's idea of economic development is a market economy with British MNCs and huge local conglomerates leading the way. Singapore claims it is a "cosmopolitan and multicultural" city because 20% of her 4 million people are foreigners, the remaining are represented by the Chinese (76.2%), Malays (13.8%), Indians (8.3%) and other races (1.7%), and the Chinese in turn are represented by the Hokkiens (41.1%), Teochews (21%), Cantonese (15.4%), Hakkas (7.9%), Hainanese (6.7%), etc, etc....all using the arguably most international language of English as their lingua franca. HK? Oh...and speaking of the Commonwealth, Singapore is a Commonwealth country. HK?


 * So what kind of "Commonwealth link" do I have with HK? I didnt know I am related to the Canadians, Kiribatians and Zambians too!--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, you know nothing of my background, and you assume far too much with far too little information, and your shallow characterization of California shows lack of understanding there as well. I have no need for your condescending lecture on Singapore when I live there myself. In that vein, I'll spare you a point by point comparison of the many differences between the United States and China.
 * Quite frankly, you possess a seemingly low level of comprehension, in turn seemingly because you appear to have a grave tendency in forming opinions and therefore deduce their editing intentions and thoughts in grey situations, despite your claims that you "dont pretend to know me well". The above says it all. Basic statistics tells us that Calinfornian cities and basically the entire state itself has one of the highest concentrations of East Asians demographically in the US, and Asians are even predicted to become the majority soon. But as I said above...so what? Do I then say you have links to East Asia coz Californian cities are dominated by Asians? In what way is my comment, which is supported by hard facts, be "shallow"? And the greated irony is that my comment on California should be labelled shallow by the same person to whom I am demonstrating the "depth" of his attempts in deducing my "Commonwealth links". Hot on the heals of this irony, is that while I cant be bothered about making any assumption on who he/she is or what he/she does, this person can come to tell me that I "assume too much", when here he/she is telling me that I have "Commonwealth links with HK"?


 * Huh?--Huaiwei 9 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
 * As I said, I do not claim to know you or your character, nor do I "stalk your edits daily". All I see of you are your edits, which at times seem to flood half the pages on my watchlist because of your disputes with other members. I can and certainly do assume good faith on the edits of others, but that doesn't mean I need to ignore bad faith, either. And what have I seen? In just a single talk page, I've observed constant personal attacks on those with differing viewpoints, like insinuations on editors' ulterior motives, personality disorders, desperation, ad hominem comments based on users' backgrounds, accusations of (pick one) provincialism, nationalism, and/or pro-autonomy, emotional instability, physchiatric problems and so on (I'm half-surprised you haven't brought up sexual orientation yet). In addition, gloating over having reverted other users' edits, declaring yourself the superceding authority figure for certain NPOV matters, and questioning of Wikipedian background all show signs of possible bad faith, and at the very least, lack of professionalism.
 * Now of coz you do not stalk my edits daily. I didnt say nor assume it was, if that makes you feel any sense of relieve..haha. I can tell when someone is stalking my edits or not, thank you. :D But again, I notice you are quite prone in writing things completely out of proportion. Take your quotes: "your disputes with other members", "constant personal attacks on those with differing viewpoints". May I know who these "other members" are? Yes....list them ALL here. I got a feeling your comments dont apply beyond one person, unless you consider yourself as a latest victim, so that makes it two.


 * As for this one person which I suppose we all know who he is, I have made very clear warnings to him repeatedly. I told him to stop stalking my edits. I told him to stop being territorising. I told him to stop finding faults, big and small, in practically all my edits, especially when they are obviously targeted at contributions appended to my name. I said doing this is simply being too personal, and is NOT the way towards building trust and eventual goodwill in the wake of past turbulances. I made this request several times. And what response did I get? Its still recorded here for all to see. No...he wont back off. So fine. In the past weeks, I started unleashing hell upon him..but only a small part of it I suppose, since my internet access is restricted these days. I am on the verge of launching an all out war against him...if he still wont back off.


 * And when all this was simply confined to user pages and so on, I really didn't care all that much. However, this dispute is spilling over to a great many topics beyond the original mainland/PRC dispute, and this is certainly disruptive to wikipedia.


 * Pointing out that certain behavior is disrupted now a personal attack? I think the talk page speaks for itself, from the personal attacks you made to the ad hominems to the gleeful gloating over having disrupted Wikipedia to make a point (incidently, that was when I inserted myself into the discussion to point out this was harmful wiki behavior). "As someone who has no link to any part of greater China, would I be in a better position to draw the line, or someone who is?" is exactly the kind of arrogant statement where you somehow decided that your position somehow puts you in a more "neutral" position. And what about arrogant statements about my background being "not good enough"? If you feel I have misinterpreted these statements, then by all means please clarify what you mean, then.


 * Also, you have accused me of harboring knee-jerk reactions to your responses. Have you ever stepped outside your shoes and considered that you might hold such an attitude as well, ie that your rivalry might bias your opinion in HK-related articles? --Yuje 06:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, you claim that I "gloat over having reverted other users' edits" certainly raises my eyebrows. Evidence please? And obviously in the wake of having your ego bruised after I questioned your supposed "nuetrality" in issues related to Greater China, you now try to paint a picture of me declaring that I am somehow "the superceding authority figure". Wow...thank you very much for that label. I didnt know I have came this far. It obviously dosent occur to you that you have taken my comments out of context, and continues to frame them around your perceived notions of who I am as someone you seemingly think is a self-centered oppresive authoritarian who believes only in his own edits. And did you say you "do not claim to know me or my character"? Well, you lied. And this is not an assumption about your conduct then. It is a fact, supported by evidence right above.


 * So you say you "know me through my edits". Now thats funny. How on Earth, then, that the only people who give me such flattering comments on my character...are the very ones who are being lambasted by me for displaying "unprofessional" behavior in wikipedia in the first place? And how many people am I talking about? I can count only two!--Huaiwei 9 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)


 * That said, I certainly don't mean any of this as a personal attack, only as a reminder that the behavior exhibited destroys good faith and doesn't help anyone on wikipedia. Nor have I any desire to start a useless rivalry that will drain time away from productive edits. I don't know about you, but in most social norms, Wikipedia included, attributing disagreements to behavioral and psychological disorders would certainly qualify as obnoxious behavior. --Yuje July 9, 2005 08:01 (UTC)


 * A personal attack is a personal attack in any way it is being presented. I dont go round stabbing people to death and then say I didnt kill (intentional or otherwise). While I am more then willing to admit that yes, I am gulty of personally attacking other wikipedians, I have to point out that I only do this in truly exceptional cases (I dont seem to see this same willingness to admint one's own fault on the part of my two wonderful friends here?). I have already made it clear numerous times that my favourite wikipedian is going to get exceptionally good treatment from me so long that he continues to be personal with me. As for Yuje, he made the mistake of interfering in the personal duel I have with this person. Needless to say, he is going to expect the hails of fire to rain upon him too if he wants to continue being associated with my intimate dual relationship.--Huaiwei 9 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)


 * I'm mourning over the insult and disgrace you've given to my dearest home. I never realised you're that bad-mouthed. At least there's no language called Singaporean. At least Singaporean cannot demonstrate and express their feelings freely in the air. At least Singaporean cuisine is just a copycat of others' dishes. Sorry for my words, but I don't really mean that — you hurt me, and many Hong Kong wikipedians, too much! :'-( -- Jerry Crimson Mann 9 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)
 * Hey Jerry please don't attack some else's little hometown in this way, no matter it's a fact or not. Don't use the same no-good tactics. :-| &mdash; Instantnood July 9, 2005 18:13 (UTC)
 * "Little hometown" indeed. No-good tactics, eh? lol!!--Huaiwei 9 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
 * Well, I read through my above text again after spending another long day out in the sun today, and to be honest, I do wonder if your reaction was warranted. I wrote it in response to someone who actually claims that I have "links to HK via the Commonwealth", so I highlighted the various key differences in historical colonial events and the way both entities have developed economically in more recent decades to question the logic of "Commonwealth links". I dont see them as being demeaning, and I see no reason why they should be seen as such. If my words causes any distress to anyone other then my intended audience, then I have to stress that effect was far from my intentions. Feel free to tell me why it is demaaning in any way if you must. Or would you like me to tell you what my "implied message" in each sentence pair is?--Huaiwei 9 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)


 * East Asians do not and will not constitute a majority in California. The Spanish speaking population of California is the largest minority group at one-third of the population and is the one currently slated to become a majority in California. Both the birthrates and immigration rates are much lower for east Asians than for Mexican immigrants. Asians only make up around 10% of the population of California, and this population includes other East Asians, a not-insignificant number of Southeast Asians, and South Asians. The total Chinese population in the entire United States is around 2 million, with about the same number of Filipinos, and about a million Indians and Vietnamese each. Singapore has a higher Chinese population than the entire United States. The "high concentration" of East Asians in California is very deceptive, because in Southern California, for example, they form islands in the midst of a vast Spanish-speaking (mostly Mexican) population.


 * The ethnic Chinese themselves come from very diverse origins and do not by any sense of the word form a unified community nor political voting bloc. Third and fourth generation Chinese from the Gold Rush and railroad eras are largely assimilated and monolingual English speakers, more likely to identity themselves more strongly as Asian Americans than Chinese Americans. They tend to live in suburbs and do not form especially strong Chinese communities. Internal migrants from Chinese Hawaians are often of mixed heritage, possessing Hawaian, Filipino, or Japanese ancestry. Chinese communities also differ by geographic origins and dialect group. Many older generations found in Chinatowns in San Francisco and Oakland are Taishanese speakers mixed with an influx of more recent Taishanese or more general Guangdong immigrants from mainland China. These occupy a different economic distribution and status from Taiwanese immigrants, who either tend to be students or university-educated professionals or businessmen. They tend to live in smaller suburban communities and themselves are sometimes politically divided among KMT/ROC and pro-independence lines. Even the Cantonese speakers have very diverse origins. The Sino-Vietnamese communities in parts of Northern California originate as refugees from the Vietnam War, some who are many many generations removed from China. In Sacramento's community one is as likely to hear spoken Vietnamese as Cantonese. The Cantonese population of just the Bay Area originates from multiple origins, from descendents of the Qing Dynasty era workers, to post-WWII veteran immigrants (ROC era) to more modern PRC immigrants. Large numbers of Cantonese come from Hong Kong as well, since it had seperate immigration quotas from the PRC, these either immigrated for economic reasons and started up small businesses, or came as English-speaking professionals such as engineers. Though HKers identify more strongly with the Cantonese communities and integrate well, some communities in western Canada, and other parts of the west coast (in southern California) are largely Hong Kong-based. Visit some Chinese communities in the United States and you'll often see expressions of divided political opinions, with some community organizations, temples, and businesses mounting ROC flags alongside American ones, while others have the PRC flag. In addition, a number of Cantonese are secondary immigrants from Latin American countries. These are also Spanish or Brazillian speaking and tend to be Catholic and conservative on political issues. Among my own Chinese 哎呀朋友 in America, I know one born in Columbia, another from Venezuala, another who has roots in Brazil, and yet another who is of half-Chinese from Panama. My own great-grandfather was a permanant resident of Cuba. In addition, California also has a growing number of Mandarin-speaking Mainland Chinese communities, which constitute yet another group. I haven't even mentioned the more recent wave of Hokkien immigrants from Fujian, who are more concentrated in the East Coast and are often run resturant in more suburban, rural, or non-coastal areas of the US.


 * Your characterization of California as "swarming with East Asians" who are "predicted to become the majority soon", this is exactly what I mean by shallow and showing lack of understanding. Not only are you factually very wrong, but you seem to have very mistaken impressions of Chinese Americans. This is what I mean about "assuming too much", just like your (erroneous) assumption that all my non-North American kinship comes from Greater China.


 * My description of "Commonwealth links between Singapore and HK" was indeed shallow, and was meant to be, as an analogy. Chinese Americans are a very diverse group in many ways, and somehow trying to use it as a basis for a pro-China bias is very shallow at best.--Yuje 04:03, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Does it ever cross your mind that your above text just tells you how strong my analogy of your lack of depth was by using the "Asian California" analogy? Jesus Christ. Seriously....I dont know what you are trying to demonstrate by now. You gave me one of the most ridiculously shallow commentary that I am related to HK because of the Commonwealth in your futile attempt to argue against the fact that I have no direct dealings with Greater China at all in terms of familial roots. If that was meant to be an "analogy", I do wonder what it was trying to illustrate? So in turn, I asked you if it makes sense for me to then say you have "links to Greater China" because West Coast cities and California are basically swarming with East Asians (and like it or not, they are. 10% is no small number, and yes, demographies DO indicate that if present migration and growth rates were to be sustained, Asians are going to become the majority group in California. I dont pluck this from the air, my dear, and if demography is considered shallow, I dont know what else is deep. Your coffin? Where did you say you are from? San Fran? Now List of U.S. cities with large Chinese American populations tells us that this same city tops the table with a staggering 19.6% of Chinese Americans. Californian cities dominate that page. Chinese American tells us there are 2.3 million of them in 2000. You might be glad to know there are only 2.5 million Chinese Singaporeans in the same year. Not a huge difference as you have hoped perhaps, and a difference I belive may be quickly nullified by now). My analogy of stupidity tells you how stupid your statement was. Wont your desperate attempts to demonstrate the stupidity of my analogy (its meant to be stupid. Duh) in turn tell you how stupid your's is, and heaven's forbid, you are too, perhaps? So, what does your "analogy" do? Look. If you made a dumb comment, and you are too embarrased to admit it, then please pack your bags and leave my talk page. I may be Chinese, but I wont hesitate in making you loose face and "make it difficult for you to get off the stage", to litrally translate from Chinese, if you choose to continue to be an obnoxious irritant who simply refuses to back off even in an unsalvagable situation like this! :D


 * p.s. Your super long text bores me to death, but what I find most interesting is that you fail to mention at all the existance of the "red-scare" which prompted migration out of HK. Why? Is it taboo for HKers (and HK-related ppl) to speak this out in public for fear of Beijing? lol. Now I dont think not, but I just cannot stand the face-saving attitude which still forms an integral part of Chinese culture no matter where they are.--Huaiwei 09:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The text exists as a very basic point, really. You claim that California's large number of East Asians somehow biases my opinion one way or another, when the facts are that these large numbers of East Asians and even of Chinese themselves are of very diverse backgrounds and opinions.


 * Again, I don't find California to be "swarming with East Asians". California is a very multicultural place, and while East Asians form a percentage, the absolute numbers (5 million, around 1.2 million Chinese) aren't that high, especially compared to smaller countries like Malaysia, Thailand, and even Singapore. According to you, Singapore, with 75% Chinese, is "cosmopolitan and multicultural", but California is "swarming" with 5% east Asians?


 * I haven't seen your demographic data, but if true, I would certainly find it very interesting. Do you mind sharing it? Using the current Californian and Asian populations (33.872 million 3.392 million, respectively), and assume California's population as a whole grew at the national rate of .92%. A majority means at least 51%, and I don't know what you mean by "soon". If Asians were to become the majority in 50 years, they would need a phenomenal growth rate of 5%, around 3% for 75 years, and 2.4% for a 100 year timeline. (Yemen, one of the fastest-growing populations in the world, has about a 3.36% growth rate, and Yemenese women bear an average of 7 children.) For the 50-year timeline, the Asian population of California would need to grow by 23 million in those 50 years, and east Asians, the largest component, tend to have lower birthrates than the other ethnicities. (The total number of US immigrants from all countries between 1970 and 2000 was around 18.3 million)


 * And lastly, I'm not sure exactly which "red scare" you're talking about. Are you talking about the 1949 Communist takeover and general Cold War scare which led to the relaxation of US Asian immigration quotas and led to a stream of immigrants to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the US? The 1950's era of McCarthyism? The Tiananmen Square massacre that led to US accepting Chinese students? The eminent 1997 handover that prompted some HKers to immigrate to western countries? I'm not a HKer or descended from one, just an individual greatly interested in HK-related topics, so assertions of my "fear of Beijing" based on HK ties are exactly what I mean by shallow assumptions. --Yuje 05:54, July 11, 2005 (UTC)