Talk:Wu Chun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wu Chun article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. WikiProject Chinese-language entertainment     (Rated Stub-Class) This article is under the scope of WikiProject Chinese-language entertainment. If you would like to help improve this and other Chinese-language entertainment-related articles, feel free to join the project. Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) More information about this article... Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

cool article it the best and hes so hat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.218.85 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible contradiction

...is a Brunei-born Taiwanese actor, singer, ... He is the only non-Taiwanese member of the boy band...

Is he Taiwanese or is he not? Back to back sentences seem to contradict one another. Creol (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Precisely why sometimes you cannot believe what you read anywhere. Mr Goh Kiat Chun is a Brunei Citizen. No contradiction there. It would be accurate to say "A Bruneian actor and singer in the Taiwanese boy band, Fahrenheit" and put Brunei Darussalam on the [mind] mapJanshim (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is he one of those overseas Chinese of Malaysia? Intranetusa (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC) "WU CHUN" is a Brunei Citizen. Period.Janshim (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a professional photographer in Brunei who volunteered my time and efforts to document the grand opening of Wu Chun's second Fitness Zone. I made several attempts to include a link http://shimworld.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/shimworld-feature-wu-chun/ to my galleries and writing because Wu Chun is officially recognised by the Brunei Tourism Board as Tourism Ambassador so my inclusion of the link is in all good intentions to promote Wu Chun's home and the passions he represent.

I apologise for not seeing messages that were left for me, I'm still not familiar with how Wikipedia works and I find the instructions a little daunting even for a seasoned internet user. The message says to discuss the appropriate nature of my site to be posted so here I am hopefully doing the right thing. Besides I'm the copyright owner of the all the photos and I'm supporter of Copyright Protection here in Brunei.Janshim (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely because you own the copyright to those pictures that we cannot show your pictures on wikipedia. If you take a look at WP:NONFREE, all images uploaded (especially to infoboxes) must be either under a Creative Commons license, or a GFDL license. Whether you are a Copyright Protection supporter in Brunei or not matters very little (although, good for you). Your link, needless to say, provides zero encyclopedic value to the article. Any news on Wu Chun and his gym can, and should, be easily found on a plain old news article. You yourself proved that point with the screenshot of that (poorly spelt) newspaper article. That is why we cannot (and likely will not) include your Wordpress link onto the Wikipedia article. Pandacomics (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I see that you have also removed the other "blog" entry that had remained there for a long time. Guess that puzzled me and raised doubts in consistency to the guidelines that was said and held firmly to. As I said, although Wikipedia has been around for a very long time, I've learnt through this discussion that going beyond reading/research opens up intricacies of Wiki. It's interesting yet at times I think there's a conflict of interest where the issue of photographic copyrights go.

Whether you are a Copyright Protection supporter in Brunei or not matters very little (although, good for you). Your link, needless to say, provides zero encyclopedic value to the article. Any news on Wu Chun and his gym can, and should, be easily found on a plain old news article. You yourself proved that point with the screenshot of that (poorly spelt) newspaper article.

I respect your stand and I won't pursue the matter of linking any further. However, supporting Copyright protection is anything but a selfish endeavour. In fact, the matter is of universal interests in protecting one's work that it's attracted concerns from people around the world. http://shimworld.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/copyright-lost-in-translation/ The irony lies in the article where the artiste violates copyright by submitting one of my images to the magazine without permission. While Wu Chun has apologised for the mistake, the article highlights the ever growing need to observe copyrights and I've made sure the article does not cast a negative light on our tourism ambassador—Wu Chun and the magazine involved were professional in the way they handled this matter. Looking at the bigger picture, I applaud Wiki's efforts to eliminate possibility of photographs infringement through Creative Commons although I remain doubtful of its effectiveness as a mechanism to practical protection.

As for the photographs offering "zero encyclopedic value" to the article, I now see the need maintain the literary tradition of good old printed encyclopedia—words over pics which is what I understand Wiki to be. While a photo-journal offers more food for thought but I see both end of this information spectrum merging some day to bring viewers the best of both worlds. Today that's called blogs, someday it may be called something else!Janshim (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)