User talk:Alouicious

Edits at William Cheung
This is a warning. Your continued attempts to forcefully include a link to a copyrighted video on youtube despite being notified of said video violating WP:Sources and WP:youtube, and deletion of other material, is moving towards disruptive editing. Take it to the subject's talk page to discuss a solution, or the next step will be citation for disruptive editing and possible blocking of your account/IP for a specific amount of time. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Newsflash, buddy: IF IT WAS COPYWRIGHTED IT WOULDN'T BE POSTED AT YOUTUBE WITHOUT DUE REFERENCES! And when was I warned? You have my e-mail address, no? People remove material all the time, why are you singling me out? Do you work for Cheung? I'm just trying to post the truth!!!


 * I'm sorry, but you are mistaken - copyrighted material gets posted to Youtube all the time (which is the very reason for the WP:youtube page to begin with), posting to youtube does not denote non-copyright status. That clip is taken from Leung Ting's copyrighted video, Dynamic Wing Tsun.  You were warned in the edit summaries, which is viewable by clicking the history tab.  The first time, per policy, good faith editing was assumed.  Subsequent reverts prompted the current response.  I am not affiliated with Cheung (which is irrelevant regardless), and you trying to put in "the truth" is subjective - however Wikipedia policies on content, biographies, references, etc. are not.  Likewise, nobody is singling anyone out.  When material is removed without explination, and repeatedly done over and over when reverted, that is what is termed as forcefull editing and is normally addressed. The fact that your only contributions to Wikipedia also appear to been in regards to this content also makes your motives highly suspect, which further magnifies your continued reverts.  I would sincerely advise you to take the time to become familiar with Wikipedia practices and policies, and refrain from politically motivated editing. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am merely trying to point out the truth(since no one has so far): that Cheung repeatedly boasted that his style was the only true style, and then proceeded to be publicly beaten by another Wing Chun practitioner. He apparently learned nothing, because he still says the same thing to this day. He has been very devisive to the Wing Chun community, much more so than Botzepe. Much of the material in the article is highly subjective as well, and is not backed up with any references. So I would also question your motives. Also, the video that you have condemned me for referencing is the same one that is referenced in the external link in the article, I was merely trying to call more direct attention to it. True, I need to study Wiki policy more- but at this point I don't care to, since many articles are clearly influenced by the opinions of small groups of individuals such as yourself, and are not objectively written. And BTW that's not my only contribution, I have tried to improve other articles by providing references, etc.


 * No, the one that had the publication in Florida is Martin Mark. I am not with William Cheung's family, and once again that would have little bearing if I was as long as Wikipedia policy if followed to keep material neutral.  Again, you've been pointed to the relevant policies, I'd suggest becoming familiar with them. Likewise, articles here can not be based on your personal feelings or interpretation of Cheung.  They have to follow policies on neutrality and biographies of living individuals.  That includes articles on Leung Ting, Emin, etc. etc. who I and others also monitored to keep the negative tone down.  Its applied evenly across the board. Likewise, the way Wikipedia works is the onus is on you - creator of the edits - to provide references that conform to Wikipedia's policies, not myself. If you want to change material that's already there, your references have to back it up or it most likely will be reverted.  Additionally, stating you're not interested in Wikipedia policy and continuing to make the type of edits you are will not support your position in the least here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)