Linfengfei

Welcome

Hello, Linfengfei, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Content about living people needs not only the most reliable sources but also appropriate presentation

Hello, I'm TheRedPenOfDoom. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I cannot verify the content or quality of the sources, but aspersions such as "Although military service is required for all males in Taiwan, Lien never served. Reasons for his failure to serve have never been made public" can hardly ever be appropriate for inclusion in an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand that wiki is not concerned with facts but with what can be verified, and if the reports are widely made in the local media and never subject to refutation by Lien or his campaign staff, then why is this an "aspersion"? For context, please compare our last three presidents' wikipages--Ma Ying-jeou, Chen Shui-bian, or Lee Teng-hui--each of whom was a previous mayor of Taipei. Their wikipages make multiple references to allegations and controversies. So why should Lien be permitted to have supporters draft his own wikipage and make claims such as he transformed a Corporation into a profitable enterprise, when the only evidence for that is a singular report issued by the Taipei City government, the person who employed him, and who is his political ally? There have been many conflicting reports published in the media, and why are these ignored? Sincerely, I do not understand. As an aside, the failure to have served in the military is an important local issue.Linfengfei (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That other articles (badly) fail to meet our standards is a piss poor excuse for making more cesspools. Our policy about content related to living people is clear as is our policy about presenting content in a neutral manner, and that even if there is a source that says it, that still doesnt mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm missing something. Yes, I agree that "X does something" is not a good reason to say that "y should be permitted to do something." But you are going beyond that: you are saying that only positive aspects of a person should be permitted. Let me be specific: you are saying that even though only one source claims he did a good job at X, and multiple sources say he did a poor job, only the former claim should be permitted. In other words, there is a controversy here, and you are saying the controversy should be ignored. As a side note, because I assume you do not read Chinese: I would not claim that any of the local media are of good quality. But the articles I have cited are all mainstream media, including reports and formal charges that have been brought against Lien. On the other side, a city government report issued when the man stepped down from his position was cited to indicate that he did a good job. Truly, I don't get it. Unless you are saying that we can only say positive things about these people, I don't understand what you are talking about. I would allow that my edits would benefit from evenhanded negotiation, so as not to unduly favor one set of claims over the other, but you have uniformly dismissed all negative claims. Sincerely, this makes no sense to me.Linfengfei (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)