User talk:Wahjaifan

June 2008
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Pandacomics (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Andy Lau
Youtube is not a reliable source. I repeat, not a reliable source. The only time it is reliable is if the material comes directly from the horse's mouth. Examples include BBC, who has an official Youtube account. Your Youtube link leads to a talk show that appears on Phoenix Television. The video's fine as long as it belongs to the original provider (in this case, Phoenix TV), but this is not the case. The video "belongs" to a user named "fy8896", who, more likely than not, simply downloaded the show off his/her own TV set or some other downloading service. In other words, fy8896 does not own the copyright. How can we tell that this scenario is a likely one? fy8896 hosts a number of other videos from the show 100% Entertainment, which is owned by Gala Television, not Phoenix. Once again, because the video does not come directly from Phoenix Television, the video absolutely cannot be considered as a citation. If you would like guidance regarding what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, see WP:RS. Pandacomics (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is NO reliable source that Andy's birth name is Lau Fok Wing. ANDY LAU himself SAID that his birth name is Lau Tak Wah @ 6:51 in the interview from Phoenix station, NOT Lau Fok Wing. This is definitely a reliable source. He is the one who said it.

Wahjaifan

You may say it's a reliable source, but on Wikipedia, we play by Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia does not consider Youtube to be a reliable source. I'm sure he said it himself, and you can argue this all you want, your source, by Wikipedia standards, is not reliable. You even said, "There is NO reliable source that Andy's birth name is Lau Fok Wing." I guess the onus is on you to find one. Pandacomics (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop
You still have not proven your point with a reliable source. Pandacomics (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Pandacomics (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You may say that the link I provided is not a reliable source "according to wikipedia rules", because someone could have pretended to be Andy Lau there or could have recorded over his voice, so that's why I no longer changed the birth name to Lau Tak Wah eventhough it's CORRECT information. However, Lau Fok Wing as the birth name doesn't have any source to support it, not to mention any reliable sources "according to wikipedia rules." Since there's no reliable source for Lau Fok Wing as birth name, which is also FALSE information, it should be DELETED like how you are deleting stuff that doesn't come from any reliable sources "according to wikipedia rules." I don't understand why you are doing this or have the right to add that name back again and again which has not been proven? I know a lot of other fans of Andy Lau who have also tried editing this page especially that birth name to Lau Tak Wah and they are also saying it in some forum that someone is changing the information back continuously to false information. I know the aim of "wikipedia rules" for having reliable sources is to provide more reliable information for people but in seeing this it is definitely NOT successful. There will never be a consensus because you will always say it's "wikipedia rules." This means wikipedia doesn't need anyone to improve the article because only you can "improve" it. Block me all you want, in fact, just cancel my account because in the first place, I just created an account thinking that the article could be improve by providing CORRECT information for people when seeing that the birth name Lau Fok Wing is obviously FALSE information, but unfortunately, this is not the right place to go to. I guess there's no point of creating an account here.
 * I haven't said you're wrong. Your video clearly shows Andy Lau stating it. But the fact remains that something like changing a birth name IS controversial, and according to V, which, by the way, is Wikipedia policy - exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Time and time again, I have asked you to provide a reliable source, but time and time again, you have been unable to. Unless you can find a reliable source such as a newspaper or magazine, your Youtube link simply can't and won't be accepted. Pandacomics (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Changing a birth name is controversial," but do you SEE that I am NOT changing a birth name, I am only DELETING the birth name as there's no reliable source that says Lau Fok Wing is his birth name. It is just the same logic as to why you are deleting Lau Tak Wah as the birth name. Why do you time again and again have to add that birth name section back in????? Why do you need that there? There's no point. I know that without adding the birth name section in, there's no need to provide a reliable source to prove that Lau Tak Wah is his real birth name. I'm ok with wikipedia continuing to provide false information for people.
 * Again, I don't know if what I'm writing isn't clear enough for you or something, but you still haven't proven, using a reliable source, that his birth name is Lau Tak-Wah. I've said, time and time and time and time and time and time again, provide a reliable source. In case you missed it, I acknowledged your proof via Youtube, and in case you missed it, I told you that this just isn't reliable enough of a source to place on Wikipedia. I don't know how many more times I'm going to have to repeat it for you to understand, but hopefully 5000 will be enough. By deleting the birth name, all you're doing really is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I know you provided that television clip, but honestly, the attitude you bring to this whole edit war, going as far as outright removing it, is just disrupting the whole editing a process just to further your personal agenda. If you wanted help in finding a reliable source, you could have just asked for assistance and brought it to the article's talk page, but instead you repeatedly inserted what I already told you numerous times was not a reliable source, and yet you seem to think it's ok to just continue pushing, thinking that it's in any way going to prove a point. Pandacomics (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think you understand me at all to what I was saying. I don't think I can explain this 5000 times. This is my final explaination. The problem here is NOT about reliable source anymore because I'm not changing the information so what reliable source do I need? I'm removing stuff that IS NOT proven just like you so what is wrong with that? What really bothers me is that till now, you still haven't given me a clear explaination to why you are repeatedly adding the birth name section in without providing any reliable source yourself. THIS IS THE POINT that I'm getting at. DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Please widen your scope, it's not changing/inserting the name anymore. Stop talking about insertion stuff because that is not the problem here. I don't see that a birth name section is mandatory for other people on wikipedia, so why do you need it here for Andy Lau only. If you stop being stubborn and repeatedly adding the birth name section in, then everything would be fine. There's no false information as well. You are the one stirring up this what you call an edit war. I do not know what is the problem with you? It seems that you are playing games with me and others who have attempted to edit this article. You have to REPEATEDLY go against us. It's either you don't let us change the information because there's no reliable source which I ACCEPT because I understand that it's wikipedia rules so I haven't been changing it for ages already but then you have to repeatedly add the birth name section in there which does not need to be there. This is what really bothers me. If you like Lau Fok Wing's name so much, why don't you put it in the "other name" section if that would make you feel better. What you are doing now is just giving false information to people, you are not improving this article at all. But good new, you've won.
 * I, of course, understand, but you, on the other hand, don't seem to be able to grasp the mere idea of taking time to read a Wikipedia policy that I've given you to read. Looks like this will have to be the 5001st time, but that's fine, as long as you finally comprehend. I don't have a fetish as you depict with the Lau Fuk-Wing name, but at least I went out and found a reliable source. And would you look at that, I've put up a reliable source to prove that Lau Fuk-Wing is his original name. Epoch Times, which is a newspaper with an actual editorial board. That wasn't so hard, now was it? That's what I meant by reliable source. You can just as easily find a reliable news source. It's not that hard. Google is your friend. Best of luck. Pandacomics (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I finally understand. I understand that you like to ARGUE with people and even if something is wrong and you know it, you still have to argue about it. That is just you so ok, I let you win this what you call an "edit war." I'm afraid that if I don't let you win, you will continue to bother me. Oh, and ofcourse it wouldn't be hard to prove a false fact. Don't you know that proving something that is true is always harder than proving something that is false? This also explains why "some people" tend to be easily cheated and easily believe things that are not true. So I can see that you are still stuck on that "reliable source" thing? I hope you will get over it soon and in the mean time, please learn how to count as well. How in the world can you count to "5001st" so soon? Again, congratulations for winning but now it's time for you to find another person to "argue" with. Who would be your next target? Who would be the UNlucky one?
 * It's ok to admit that you didn't have a relaible source. But interestingly, you point it out as a "false fact" How is it a false fact when I just proved it? If you believe it's false (and you did provide a video for such - unfortunately non-compliant with Wikipedia standards), then you can just as easily find a reliable source yourself. If you can read Chinese, there are plenty of newspapers who have articles online. Again, if you believe that it's "false", you can just as well prove it. It's not that hard. If you find a reliable source and prove the Lau Fuk-Wing "error" wrong, then that's wonderful, and to your credit too! It's not hard to find reliable sources; you just have to know how to find them. Just like the Epoch Times article. Pandacomics (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Get over with it. I admit? Ok, if you feel better that way. Just argue all you want, there's no point. However, I see that you are in your 3rd year psychology so is it true that if you tell a lie 1000x to somebody, then even yourself would believe in your own lie afterwards? I'm in my last year of dietetics so what I can tell you is that it's not good at all for your health if you eat such large quantities of foods and within such a short period of time. It's always good to spread your meals throughout the day with a well-balanced diet plus 30min of exercise for at least 3x a week. Good luck. Just to let you know, I won't have time to answer any of your messages tonight.