User talk:Zhanzhao

Easy to ridicule

User:Zhanzhao, despite your attempts to fight falsehood, the ColourWolf vandal always strikes in areas which you do not know which is true. I suggest that you team up with User:Arbiteroftruth to take me down. That would make things more challenging for me.218.186.12.213 (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

--Challenging indeed. I just have to log on. You have to create account after account. Have fun.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, blocked for 3 months

I am soooooo surprised. I wonder how many more IP addresses will be marked with my trademark ColourWolf name. I will be famous then, haha!StrongestManAlive (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

--Too bad there's more than just us 2 doing the corrections. StongestManAlive < Strength in Numbers Zhanzhao (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---Ohhhh... How lonely you must be. Because there's one thing you must know: You cannot protect every single page. My edits that User:Arbiteroftruth is attempting to stop are mere decoys, and both of you fell for it. Try stopping my more subtle edits. 218.186.12.204 (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---Huge ego I see. Don't flatter yourself. I merely correct where I see mistakes or a need for ammendment. You are merely one more of the nameless to me. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Toa Payoh ritual murders

Hi 朝廷玉猫 (do correct me if I wrongly assume the source you pick for your username). I have replied on the Talk page of the article, but would like to add a bit here. Articles need not interlink each other, i.e. Article A may link to B, but B need not link to A. Mdm Valli's case can talk about the speculation of her former visits to Adrian Lim, because they are talking about her medical condition, which is pertinent to her case. However, it would not be encyclopaedically suitable for an article on Adrian Lim and the Toa Payoh murders to talk about Mdm Valli, whose connection is only casual and disputed. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jappalong. I put my reasonings in your talk page already. Essentially I just could not find a better way to put that info in other than as trivia as I felt it is part of the whole Adrian Lim mythos in Singapore so it had to be put in somewhere.... just not sure how to put it in. It does give a more informative feel to the article as all the other victims were all essentially faceless and unnamed.

If medical professionals conclude that Lim's treatments of Valli caused her condition to worsen (and become a cause of her conflict with the exorcists), we could work that in the "Legacy" section ("Lim's acts continue to affect his victims even after death." or such). As of now, however, it is an inconclusive item that should not be chronicled in this article. Jappalang (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Created 1st archive User_talk:Zhanzhao/archive_1

ColourWolf Socks

Thanks for bringing that user to my attention. He qualifies as a ColourWolf sock per WP:DUCK, and he has been banned by an admin. Thanks! Keep up the good work! Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Madness

No problem. I know all too well what that's like. :) -WarthogDemon 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

While I can certainly understand the IP upsetting you, please be a little more careful when filing RPP requests. When you did your request you accidentally removed a bunch of other ones[1] :P Its all fixed now though.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, forgot to turn off "automatic page refresh" and I think that caused some errors with my entry, will avoid it in the future.--Zhanzhao (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

In the future, go to WP:AIV. It's much more closely watched. ⟳ausa کui ^× 07:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the heads up! --Zhanzhao (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy...

Obviously your main interest is to show everything about originals and remakes. And as always you ignore Wikipedia's policies and keep edit warring.

So do read THIS ONE: "Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Rule inappropriately cited as the points were made in the context of plagiarism claims and a pending lawsuit, not just points made without reason. Plus its already under a relevant, pre-existing subheading. Anyway the points were not originally made by me but removed without reason by someone else, who's apparenly interested in removing stuff about originals and remakes, ironically....Zhanzhao (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is you who misinterprets the nature of the guideline. Particular similarities or differences must be added IN CONTEXT. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Its already IN CONTEXT of the pre-existing "Accusations of plagiarism" section. Thanks for pointing that out and agreeing with me on that.Zhanzhao (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zinda (film). 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take it to the talk page rather than continuing to revert. The removal was appropriate per WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:MOSFILM. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually cited the WP:MOSFILM link already and the user is aware of WP:EW as he has already been blocked, so the warning does not really help. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Shahid.... Ah I remember you. You're that guy that got blocked blocked 3 times as much more than I was for WP:EW. And got blocked with me that last time. 17:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL yes, so? Do you think you're being witty by saying that? I was blocked and even admins were kind enough to admit they were surprised and uncomfortable to block an editor like me who did a real contribution to Wikipedia unlike certain users whose "work" is centred around (yeh your 200 edits - did you expect to be blocked more than once with this amount?) on... well, adding trivial similarities between film plots and writing all over that a film is a rip-off. I'd rather contribute to Wikipedia and do what I appreciate (and what others appreciate me for). Your speculation does not excite me and does not make me, but actually makes you, look bad. The proof is that I was right with this page and you were wrong. It pretty sums up the nature of your edits on Wikipedia. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"LOL yes, so? Do you think you're being witty by saying that?" Resorting to "lols"..... sigh. For an experienced editor to repeatedly get penalized by the same rule only shows one thing. You did not learn. Again. AND again. Also in that previous incident previous warnings, both of us were asked to cool down. But I guess ego is blinding you a little.Zhanzhao (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes it does... Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR complaint about Zinda (film)

Hello Zhanzhao. The case about the Zinda film has been closed with a warning to you. You have made a series of reverts on this article, after others removed some material that you wanted to add. The other editors complain that your edits are against WP:MOSFILM. Your additions must respect consensus. If you continue to add the material which compares two films, without first getting support on the article's Talk page, you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I just want to clarify that I was merely reverting information that was removed by Lexbevis(contribs)who apparently created an account just primarily for that purpose. The list prior to removal had been originally there for ages without any issues. In fact it was even useful in resolving a previous discussion where another editor claimed that Zinda was NOT plagiarised from Old boy. As for consensus, as far as I see there was only one editor on the opposing end in that issue. That same editor was similar in conflict with me in another WP:EW situation so I tend to take his comments with a pinch of salt, considering that he had been banned a number of times for edit wars in the past. When a 2nd editor Collectonian (talk stepped in , I respected her decision and stopped the edits. I did try to validate my reason for the reversion on her talk page but somehow the discussion stopped. Only upon my revision did it create an issue. Anyways I did find a review about Zinda that raises only the 4 glaring similarities, and this will be included in the talk page for about a week before I add them in the main page. As mentioned, I did not create the content so am not partial to it, but just want to highlight the similarities of the plagiarism claims which is the focus of the plagiarism subsection (which was also NOT created by me. I just want to enhance the content). Would that resolve the problem?Zhanzhao (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So you should not take others' comments with a pinch of salt, no matter who they are. And no, the similarities you added to the talk page will not be added to the main page - they are not acceptable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It abides by WP:OR and WP:V, so why not?Zhanzhao (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not? You have an answer on the film's talk page. :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats cool with me, her point is credible. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Zhanzhao is a motherfucking indian-chinese bastard born by a bastard father and bitch mother.

Zhanzhao is a motherfucking indian-chinese bastard born by a bastard father and bitch mother. Nuff' said.

(:

218.186.12.243 (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

http://twitter.com/phoenixreporter

Nuff' said