User talk:UrbanDistrict

October 2018

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Joker Xue have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 8th 2018

Hello, I'm MingFW. Wikipedia does not allow information from unreliable sources and self-analysis on incidents occurred, therefore those information should be removed. Please see the Wikipedia rules for further reference. Thanks. MingFW (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 9th 2018

Hello, I'm MingFW. Direct citation from social media websites such as Sina Weibo should be avoided. Instead, citation should come from reliable news sources. The neutrality of Wikipedia is endorsed by reliable sources, rather than citation from both sides on social media. Thanks. MingFW (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm MingFW. please read Wikipedia rules for citation for citation on incidents. Thanks. MingFW (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm MingFW.

1. It seems like you did not read the Wikipedia rules carefully enough. To avoid overly detailed description of "Breaking News", news reports cited should be written after the event occurred or at the end of the event. The citations you added are written during the middle of the event, and from the same news website there are numerous reports written afterwards refuting the news you cited.

2. ETtoday seems like an unreliable gossiping website that I never heard of. If you consider ETtoday to be a reliable sources, I would like to also add these source1 source2 two references from ETtoday to Wikipedia as well.

Thanks, MingFW (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm MingFW.

If you insist on writing the incident in an overly detailed manner (which is against the Wikipedia rule for overly gossiping), then by the Wikipedia's rule on "Breaking News" you would be mandated to also add Li's refute for Xue's response also reported by ETday or Netease. You should also not delete my citation from reliable new sources in regards to Xue behavior in falsifying screenshots of WeChat. In fact, at the end of the incident the news reports written by both ETNet and Netease shares an overwhelming sense of negativity toward Joker Xue. If you truly believe in neutrality, you should add those reports as well.

Thanks, MingFW (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm MingFW.

1. News written by the official Xinlangyulue account is actually a reliable source. In fact, it is one of the most reliable source of "gossiping" news. Citing "an anonymous analysis (it is actually not anonymous, but rather the news reporter choose to hide the identity of the user)" does not necessarily debunk the credibility of the report. We are know that WikiLeak is anonymous. Does the NYT citing WikiLeak on evidences debunk their credibility? No.

2. You mainly cited news simply to repeat Xue's Weibo statements because direct citation from Weibo is not allowed. How is Xue more reliable than a random Weibo user, especially due to the fact that he is deeply involved in this incident?

3. Here is the problem. Does the fact that Xue denying the accusation change anything? No, because there are numerous amount of evidences pointing out that the screenshots are falsified, yet he never replied to those accusations with any convincing evidence. Did any verified and truth-worthy news website refuted the accusation for falsifying screenshots? No, all they reported is that "Xue denies the accusation". Does any of them supported Xue's denial on falsifying screenshots? No.

Thanks, MingFW (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm MingFW.

1. By Wikipedia rules those sources are acceptable. I just added a new source by bjnews with a complete video analysis on the veracity of the screenshots. I believe we both agree that bjnews is one of the most reliable news source in China.

2. Here is the problem. Li's claim is that Xue owe her a few million RMB, and Xue never refuted that. He was basically attacking a straw man by claiming that he does not owe Li ten million RMB. Xue admits himself in the audio recording that he probably owe Li a few million dollars for paying the divorce damages, and the contract they signed was for Li's abortion, not for repaying back the portion that Li paid.

3. The news source published an article later citing Li's clarification for the seven months claim, but it never published an article rebutting the accusation against Xue for falsifying screenshot. In fact at the end of the incident all the reliable news sources hold the stance that Xue's screenshot is falsified, but none of them hold the stance that Li is pregnant for seven months prior to the abortion.

Have a great trip,

Thanks, MingFW (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]