User talk:VCDimension

September 2018

Hello, I'm Phenolla. I noticed that in this edit to Joker Xue, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Phenolla ⚫️🔵 15:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello, I'm UrbanDistrict. I found you have removed 2 parts, summary of Xue's response, and Li's deal with Wei Zhuo, for the reason of information from unreliable sources and self-analysis. The first part was a summary of Xue's response, cited from Xue, the person who involved in the incident, which should be considered as a reliable source. The second part was also cited directly from reliable sources, the person help to sell the photos, Tony Zhang, and buyer paparazzo Wei Zhuo. In the scandal part, both Li and Xue's statements were included. If you think anything was a mistake, from a unreliable source, or contains self-analysis, you are welcome to edit or send me a message via talk page to discuss, instead of removing the whole part. Completely removal of Xue's response made the incident biased. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanDistrict (talk • contribs) 11:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'll modify the citation and make sure they are cited from reliable news sources. 14:49, 9 October 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanDistrict (talk • contribs)

Hello. Can you please explain why you consider both NetEase and ETtoday as "completely unreliable sources"? Thank you. 15:48, 16 October 2018

After reading Wikipedia rules over again, I couldn't locate where "news reports cited should be written after the event occurred or at the end of the event" was stated. Instead of requiring the news itself to be written after the event, it recommends editors to wait till the end of the event, "It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details...". Although breaking news sometimes contain inaccuracies, editors are able to cite them with carefully selected content. In this situation, content of “A confidential contract of their relationship was signed between the two parties at the cost of Xue's 2 million” was cited from NetEase. The authenticity of this contract were not mentioned or questioned in the reports written afterwards. Thank you. 13:45, 17 October 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanDistrict (talk • contribs)

1. Editors should always follow Wikipedia rules. I agree that "Wikipedia does not need to go into all details". But it doesn't mean editors should sacrifice important factors of an incident to accomplish succinctness. In this case, the confidential contract should be treated as an important factor, to show the rationality or irrationality of the two parties' action after the agreement, and it directly related to Li's disclosure. 2. Reasons for the discussion of screenshots to be removed. a) It is a questionable or unreliable source. According to Wiki rule, "Questionable sources are ... rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions", "...several suggestions to avoid unreliable information, such as distrusting anonymous sources,". The source you cited heavily relayed on an anonymous analysis. b) A newer report of Xue's refutation source1 has been found after searching the same news website sina. It is hard to conclude with their arguments back and force. c) The screenshot is about Li' escapade during their relationship. This incident did not cause them to break up, whether it happened or not, it should not be included on Wiki as the rule not to go into all details. Thank you. 15:58, 18 October 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanDistrict (talk • contribs)

1. Do we both agree with the authenticity of the confidential contract and it is a important factor should be included in the incident? 2. I didn't say Sina was a unreliable source. I said, according to Wiki rule, news heavily relayed on an anonymous analysis should be avoided. a)It looks like the anonymous source is from a random Weibo user. So how to identify the user, and how to make sure his analysis is accredited? Actually it is much easier to prove the user to be unprofessional and careless. From the new citation (news china) that you've just added, point 3, about the 00:17 or 00;17. The user used the compressed version of the snapshot which made : looks like ;. If you go to Xue's weibo, click to retrieve the original image, you will see : clearly. b) NYT citing WikiLeak, should not be used as analogies as Sina citing a random Weibo user, especially for entertainment news. For sina news you've cited, there are lots of false information when anonymous sources are involved. For example, the news of 7 months of pregnancy source. That's why Wiki requires editors to avoid anonymous sources. c) Without a conclusion whether Li cheated on Xue, or Xue made the story, it's better not include in the incident. 3. I'm not sure what you point is saying Xue might not be more reliable than a random Weibo user. I don't see a problem citing NetEase for the confidential contract, although NetEase new is simply repeat Xue's statement. If you believe citing a news simply repeat person involved is inappropriate, why do you still leave the first paragraph that cited with the news simply to repeat Li's Weibo statements? I'll be travelling for the next few weeks and won't be able to check wiki message. Will talk to you when I'm back. Thank you. 18:18, 19 October 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanDistrict (talk • contribs)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)