Jump to content

User talk:Enrico Chou

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Enrico Chou, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 04:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Sungodtemple. I noticed that you recently removed content from Eileen Chang without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sungodtemple. To provide the belated edit summary, I mainly removed the inaccurate and repeated content, such as the repeated mentions of her rediscovery in the 80s and 90s and the strange title "a well-known feminist woman writer of Chinese literature," which is far from a consensus and, though popular among female readers, not the first word you come to associate with her. It's easy to find papers and scholars who dismiss Chang's feminist credentials:
https://www.hk01.com/%E5%93%B2%E5%AD%B8/530048/%E7%99%BE%E5%B9%B4%E5%BC%B5%E6%84%9B%E7%8E%B2-%E4%B8%8B-%E5%BC%B5%E6%84%9B%E7%8E%B2-%E9%A6%AC%E5%9F%BA%E9%9B%85%E7%B6%AD%E5%88%A9-%E5%BC%8F%E7%9A%84%E5%A5%B3%E6%80%A7%E4%B8%BB%E7%BE%A9%E5%8F%8A%E5%85%B6%E8%92%BC%E6%B6%BCIhttps://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/%E5%BC%A0%E7%88%B1%E7%8E%B2%E7%9A%84%E5%88%9B%E4%BD%9C%E5%B1%9E%22%E5%A5%B3%E6%80%A7%E4%B8%BB%E4%B9%89%E6%96%87%E5%AD%A6%22%E5%90%97-%E6%B8%A9%E5%B7%A6%E7%90%B4-%E7%A6%8F%E5%BB%BA%E5%B8%88%E8%8C%83%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%A6/142ad258ddc7e4684ecf2914216de2767aee9e6f
I also removed the mess of ISBN in her bibliography for a clear format. Enrico Chou (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZZH

[edit]

Can you provide a written source for your removal of information from the ZZH article? Current source lists him as the writer. If another writer needs to be credited, that can be so, but I don't think the removal is appropriate if ZZH is officially credited.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Tang Tian wrote it was only mentioned by Zhang in his last public appearance before the ban and before the song was released. No written records can be found for obvious reasons as Zhang was officially banned but Tang, a famous lyricist, still has a career in China. The fact that the song was finally released showed that they prob reached an agreement on how it'd be credited. I think it'd may be better to just remove the politically understandable yet factually inaccurate statement that Zhang wrote the lyrics. Enrico Chou (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citation credits ZZH and better to leave it at that. If the other person doesn't want to be credited and isn't credited, then no point in adding their name. However, it shouldn't be deleted since it has a source.  oncamera  (talk page) 22:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need a reliable source for "Ocean Zhang". When I search it on google, I get only one or two results relating to ZZH. His instagram posts or tiktoks aren't good enough since it's not clearly stated that's his name now. It's not even in the bio on his Instagram. Thanks,  oncamera  (talk page) 11:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not only his social media posts but also his first photobook which was just out months ago. The name Ocean Zhang is writ large on the cover. He also launched his tiktok under the name of Ocean Zhang and has an ongoing vlog series called "Ocean Zhang's basketball vlog." Your reasons to repeatedly revert are far-fetched to say the least. For one, it doesn't make sense when you see his series of videos called "Ocean Zhang's basketball vlog", featuring him playing basketball, and conclude Ocean is not him bc "it's not clearly stated that's his name."
And what kind of source would be more "reliable" by your definition than the firsthand source when talking about his own name, esp. when he is not famous at all in the English world? It'd be unreasonable to ask for millions of Google search results and mainstream media reports when you searched his English name which is obv a new name. You can have millions of results if u search on tiktok, and even the Google results are few, they can be sources if legit.
Lastly, countless wiki pages don't have any sources regarding people's names. ZZH's co-star Gong Jun simply lists Simon as his alternate name w/o any source. Same cases in The Rock for Dwayne Johnson, The Weeknd for Abel Makkonen Tesfaye, and Vicki/Vicky Zhao for ZZH's former boss Zhao Wei, all w/o sources on their pages. Why ZZH's page is such a special case?
The strange gatekeeping of this page and denial of obvious facts are unproductive. This little piece of info is not disrespectful and no need to censor it. Enrico Chou (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tiktok isn't considered a WP:reliable source on Wikipedia. Per MOS:BIOALTNAME: "Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject." It's not being censored, the sources you mention just don't fit the standard of sources used on Wikipedia. Journalists need to refer to him as Ocean etc.  oncamera  (talk page) 13:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really read the guideline you linked? It clearly says “official accounts from celebrities” are an exception and “Self-published … sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves…”
What’s more, you’re attacking a straw man by ignoring the other sources such as the just published photobook. I don’t know why you try to gatekeep, if not censor, this page so hard but it’s way too obvious from the fact that you desperately distorted the guideline and intentionally ignored the sources that may be harder to question. Our argument is pointless if you have an axe to grind. Enrico Chou (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I don't even watch or listen to this celebrity, I just know his page is "attacked" by both fans and anti-fans so I watch or edit it to keep it neutral and inline with Wikipedia policy so I have no "axe" to grind. His bio on instagram doesn't include "Ocean" and even the photobook title on the linked page says "Zhang Zhehan × Lan Feng’s Letter Hyacinth: First Travel Photo Book (Hardcover)" when translated. It doesn't say Ocean Zhang x Lan Feng. Until the nickname becomes common, it shouldn't go into the lead of the article because it doesn't even have a reliable source coming from the artist himself other than text on a cover or basketball posts (he's not known as a basketball player lol). On the Weibo for Gong Jun, he includes the name "Simon" in his name in his bio: https://weibo.com/u/2172061270. Right now, ZZH doesn't list it in a prominent place. If/when he does, then the article can be updated.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're doing all this for neutrality, please keep it in a reasonable manner instead of being overanxious or trigger-happy. You're contradicting yourself when you say Gong Jun's Weibo name is reliable while ZZH's Tiktok name unreliable, even tho he launched his Tiktok last year under the name Ocean Zhang only, instead of Zhang Zhehan. "If/when he does, then the article can be updated." This page should've been updated last year already by your standard.
Declaring his own vlog credits unreliable bc he's not a basketball player is also unreasonable, to say the least. Is there any logic relationship between one's English name and one's profession? He also posted "Ocean Zhang's London vlog", will you argue he's not known as a Londoner so he can't be named Ocean?
And how does the translation of a Chinese webpage mean anything? Ofc he doesn't go by his English name in the Chinese world and ofc you get the pinyin version of his name when auto-translate his Chinese name. Furthermore, how does the website's description of the photobook prevail over the photobook itself? Ofc there's no "reliable source coming from the artist himself" after you renounced all the sources.
Ultimately, if you're not even a Chinese pop culture consumer, on what standing and by what standard do you judge if his name "becomes common"? He will never be famous in the English world, and prob never in the Chinese world as he was blacklisted on the cusp of moderate fame. You'll not see millions of Google search results about his English name or a NYTimes feature on the rising star Ocean Zhang any time soon. Your self-declared standard smacks of a Catch 22.
Anyway, this is just a little piece of sourceable enough info about a not famous enough guy. I'm not a fan or anti-fan and the addition of it doesn't attack the neutrality of the page. Tons of wiki pages out there about ppl not famous at all, and he should have the right to his own name, even it's not famous enough by your standard. Enrico Chou (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need better sources, that's nothing more than that.  oncamera  (talk page) 21:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop here because you have monopolized the definition of "better sources". I have already addressed your ever-feeble reasons for reverting one by one, but all you do is constantly move the goalposts and avoid answering the question. In your own words, if he displays the name as Gong Jun does in his social media handler, "then the article can be updated." The update is long overdue. But now you're simply denying your own words.
A celeb goes by the name on his official accounts, is prominently credited as such in his work, and is called so by his agent (https://weibo.com/1785984725/OdH4PBSA4) and international fans (https://www.facebook.com/ZZH.HZVN), it should be more than enough to say this is his alternative name. It doesn't have to be his main name and it's out of point if the name is commonly known in the English world, when he doesn't even have a career there. English is a lingua franca in Asia as in the rest of the world and an English name doesn't appeal to native speakers only.
Again, when it comes to the subject themselves, the official accounts and self-published sources are totally acceptable, as in the guideline provided by yourself. All the additional requirements are unaccountably imposed by you. I appreciate your help with maintaining the neutrality of the page under attacks, but the stubborn blocking of normal and routine edits is really unnecessary. Enrico Chou (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ray Lui, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page To Be Number One. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

[edit]
Information icon

Hello Enrico Chou. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Enrico Chou. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Enrico Chou|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Amigao (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding fake news to Wikipedia. Also, please stop calling fact-checking paid promotion. The RFA misreported here. It only takes a few seconds to check her Weibo. Try to find even one more piece of reporting to corroborate your claim. Enrico Chou (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe WP:RADIOFREEASIA to be "fake news" then you're always free to propose an RfC at WP:RSN. Otherwise, we follow what WP:RSes state. Also, do you have any WP:COI to declare? - Amigao (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not that the RFA is unreliable, but that this specific piece of news is fake. It is extremely easy to check. You are being unreasonable by not going to the real source and instead relying on technicalities of Wikipedia. Your strange insistence sounds more like paid promotion and should have WP:COI to declare. Enrico Chou (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Enrico Chou, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Enrico Chou|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Amigao (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about "Label" or "distributor"

[edit]

Hello @Enrico Chou.

In the recent discussion about the album release history table, Andrew318 said that those are distributors, not labels. So if you have any further comments as you wish, as well as Chinese talk page. Regards. 183.171.120.208 (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 02:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Information icon Hi Enrico Chou! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Wallis Simpson several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Wallis Simpson, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message to Enrico Chou

[edit]

WP:ONUS is not a "technicality game", it's a core tenet of expected editor conduct, and for good reason. I suggest you self-revert on Wallis Simpson and abide by site policy like everyone else. It doesn't matter how right you might be, you are not entitled to unilaterally have your additions published without the consensus of your fellow editors. Remsense ‥ 论 06:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive reversions to Wikipedia. Your reversions appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undid.
I suggest you check the basic facts before reverting other's edits. Your reliance on technicalities and policy excuses is meaningless when you insist of keeping WRONG information on Wikipedia. She didn't "return" to HK, she went to HK from Virginia not Paris, and the very reason she lived in China is not contested by anyone as "marginal" except by you. Please stop dragging others into the edit war and be reasonable like everyone else. Enrico Chou (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with you about the content here or in edit summaries. Self-revert so we can discuss this on the talk page like I asked the first time. I'm not going to appease someone who thinks they're the only one entitled to publish their disputed edits to a featured article without seeking consensus. Remsense ‥ 论 06:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with you about the content here or in edit summaries either. I'm not going to appease someone who thinks they're the only one entitled to call other's edits "unconstructive" and "marginal," when these are corrections and critical part. To seek a consensus over whether to correct wrong information and whether to add WHY and HOW she lived in China, a critical and much discussed period of her life, is really "unconstructive" and "marginal." Enrico Chou (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edits have glaring, frankly embarrassing issues, so someone else will revert them soon given you won't. A lack of concern for consensus or what site policy plainly says doesn't get you anywhere, shockingly. Remsense ‥ 论 07:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully they will have the decency to point out what the "glaring, frankly embarrassing issues" are, instead of just saying meaningless words, as you always do. Enrico Chou (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Maggie Cheung, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please stop with the disruptkive reverts - your Bold edit has been Reverted, at this point it's time for you to start Dicsussing this on the article talk page. Adding trivial things like "st"ealing her boyfriend" (oh the horror) is the epitomy of tabloid journalism that has ZERO place on Wikiipedia. Stop the edit-warring, follow WP:BRD and start discussing the edit. Ravensfire (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And read WP:BLPGOSSIP, because that's too much of your edit. Dating life when it's inconsequential generally isn't warranted to be included, and that's what you are adding. Ravensfire (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I doubted you'd actually start a discussion on the article talk page, I've raised this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Maggie_Cheung. Ravensfire (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for your input into this discussion you initiated on the article talk page. Enrico Chou (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enrico_Chou&oldid=1263704025"