Arguments[]
由於全文被用於宣傳自己,和惡意借刀中傷他人以達損人利己之效,故移除。
As the vandalist above does not provide any evidence, so recovery is done. --YSW,
維護自己的發言權時, 請尊重他人的發言權22:41 2007年六月18日 (UTC)NeosunnyNeosunny
Your speech is totally offensive and incorrect, why should I respect you this vandalist? --Ysw 00:39 2007年六月19日 (UTC) 林智潤這個名字是你自己在「潛龜」那條目寫的,我拿過來引用又可錯之有? 至於攻擊性與否,公道自在人心,就算有,又如何? 你們不是主張多元包容嗎,自己講粗口,罵人pundit、vandalist就大條道理,人家「相應」地尊稱你為「真心膠」,你們就不能包容嗎? 哈哈--Neosunny 02:56 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
不能包容你這種沒事找著幹,亂寫個案人資料(仲要寫錯個隻 -- 我們二林一易是共用doraemonserv的花名的, 只有 http://xanga.com/doraemonserv_acg 才是林智潤的,你這外人要罵他請到他的留言版罵,不要對號入座和老作)的非御宅族異類。尊稱?你頂多是隨便附和的狗公或虛偽的找碴者而已. So collect yor skin! 哈哈? Are you a E.A.S.Y. patient?
P.S. Next time if you write rubbish again, I will call admin to ban you. --59.148.162.66 03:04 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
另,我現在沒空跟你混,這弱智條目我今晚回來在跟你玩,好心提提你,破壞者的英文叫vandal,不是vandalist,罵人也要罵對才可以喔! 當你用一隻手指指著別人,還有四隻是指著自己,你不是個白癡的話也應該懂吧。 --03:13 2007年六月19日 (UTC)03:12 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
自己寫那堆垃圾視若無睹,居然還敢說人家寫垃圾,這可真是公道自在人心了 --03:13 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
You write opinion while I write fact. So who is the real rubbish? Note that all 3 people 二林一易 share the same account in xanga. Mysinablog is Yeoung's, not Yun's.
vandal? this is American's saying. In Brtiain vandalist is politely called. You this 弱智 guy cannot play it so long, because YSW is a admin in evchk. What runnish you have written will be reverted. Save up your energy not to do thing unrelatied to you - this is the cordial advice.
--59.148.162.66 03:19 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
我今晚回來才鳥你--03:22 2007年六月19日 (UTC)~~
When YSW(me) and other admins are free, you must be banned. 敬酒不飲飲罰酒? 你這無聊小朋友,盲目批評別人? --59.148.162.66 03:23 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
唔好傻啦, ban左我又點, 我要開個新account有幾難? 而家你渣住雞毛當令箭, 好威?--03:22 2007年六月19日 (UTC)~~
你快D叫YSW佢本人ban我添呀, 咁我就大條道理投訴佢公器私用, 濫用職權 --03:39 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
You this stupid guy. YSW has a method preventing you to edit this page!
--59.148.162.66 03:40 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
咁咪公器私用, 濫用職權囉, 直必腸, 真係笑死人 --Neosunny 03:43 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
No. Admin's duty is to eliminate lousy people like you. It is a waste of time communicating with such a stubborn ennui--Ysw 03:48 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
Lousy, stubborn, 喂, 你講緊你自己喎--13:31 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
Anyway, it is appreciated that you have minded your own business and forgo any making of unneccesary changed. You should keep such good deed forever. To be frank, 59.148.162.66 is 林智佳, 株智龍's brother. 林智潤 is only my distant relative. I repeat, only 株智龍 make OJA STUDIES. If you wish, you may blame him or Lam Chi Yun in his mysinablog and doraemonserv_acg's xanga respectively, but not here. AS one has said, 借刀中傷他人 is inappropiate here except you are describing a fact, not your own opinion or even partiality to him. --59.148.162.66 15:30 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
你好心急喎, 今晚都未過, 我係而家先得閒打字, 事實就係Doraemonserv2係真心膠, Doraemonserv2係真心膠就係事實--Neosunny 17:15 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
No. 真心膠 is only your comment on some person. Such logical fallacy cannot happen in wikia. Personal assault will degrade the quality of wikia articles so if you write it again, you will deserve your meaningless work being reverted. --59.148.162.66 18:20 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
所以咪話當你用一隻手指指著別人,就有四隻指著自己囉。你話人地吳教授係專業小朋友就得,我話Doraemonserv2係真心膠就唔得,你咪咁弱智啦 ---19:42 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
岩岩check番你原來唔係@min喎,我使唔使投番個靚訴呢 --19:42 2007年六月19日 (UTC)
You are wrong, YSW is a admin but he still do not update his personal profile yet. AS you have cleared up the page, the admin team will ban you soon no matter how others thing you have contributed.
好搞笑呀, 邊有admin要同其他user一樣要一齊申請, 等admin去保護呢個條目, 你YSW係真心膠啫, 你唔好當我都係先得架
P.S 個post寫到明得兩個人入選, 你最好繼續冒認admin, 我好想睇戲
You are stpuid. YSW is friends of many new admins. Whenever the formal admin has time, you cannot play here for long. As you may know, you this Hi Hi is quite obnoxious, and all LSKC ITSG members are taking advantage of you (i.e. you are hacked by them!) ACtually your other contribution is good, but I don't know why you insist to vandalize this page and all of us have never infringed you before you insult us. So, are you crazy?
--59.148.162.66 09:27 2007年六月20日 (UTC) + YSW in MSN
不知所謂, 到你搵到真正admin先講野啦, 狐假虎威既真心膠。我喺呢度每一個貢獻都係咁好, 指證你班真心膠只係其中之一 --11:31 2007年六月20日 (UTC)203.217.76.12
你這自大隱閉青年兼垃圾,連我說的反話都當真,你唔死都無撚用! --59.148.162.66 16:42 2007年六月20日 (UTC)
我唔知你英文先生點教你,連反話都唔識寫,詞不達意,十足龜相學D垃圾文咁。請你好好地番去讀下D書,學好D英文,得閒睇多D英文報紙雜誌,知唔知?--203.217.76.12 17:59 2007年六月20日 (UTC)
You are saying bullshits, right? From now on, no one will respond to you. --59.148.162.66 18:45 2007年六月20日 (UTC)
個人研究[]
個人研究並非本網適合的內容。請以外部連結連至網絡上的空間。--Blackhawk charlie2003 02:56 2007年八月1日 (UTC)
fine. But refer to 潛龜, all technical terms related to it are NOT original research as they comes from Osaka. Although doraemonserv2 has quotes such terms in his theory, the etymology of the terms should not be regarded as any form of researches but summary of data collection. I will call doraemonserv2 to upload his own essays. --Ysw 18:57 2007年八月1日 (UTC)
NO one will identify with it. So I better put it in doraemonserv.mysinablog.com --59.148.162.66 08:52 2007年九月9日 (UTC)
Edit note[]
Aiko and sunoo and doraemonserv2 has been co-edited without logging-in. --59.148.162.66 21:00 2007年九月8日 (UTC)
To ewai_leong[]
網典不是你的一言堂。請理性討論。 --59.148.162.66 21:00 2007年九月8日 (UTC)
irrelevant and unverified content[]
I found some parts are irrelevant to the internet, like人生觀, 理論派表現, IQ的定義, 個人自創理論....and they cannot be verified by reliable sources of information, for example, how can we verify these descriptions, "許多人認為IQ高的人必定考試成績良好,但Doraemonserv2堅持IQ 只是思想速率的指標。因此,有中學舊同學譏笑他:「腦細胞也會比平常人死多很多。」", "其知識範圍遠遠超過同級學生,甚至是沒有讀過社會科學的 IVE 導師,因此時常被自我保護意識強的港女和狗公孤立和由妒忌心引發的排斥和對本頁的惡意修改。因此,他的危機感與萌系御宅族差不多高。"? Or it is just the primary information written by someone, which is not suitable in here.
Therefore, objectively recording his behaviors and events on the internet is enough.--kirk 14:39 2007年九月13日 (UTC)
- I digress. It is because all of them are history of doraemonserv2 with oral records which is relevant to doraemonserv2 (my) personality. So they are worth being kept. Without such information, the module "controversial people" will lack reasons. --59.148.162.66 07:08 2007年九月14日 (UTC)(Doraemonserv2)
補充一點,以當事人身份寫Doraemonserv2,最符合社會學的文化相對論,有助確保客觀和詳盡編年史(ethnography)和profile。正典運動應提倡這觀念。
- 不完全認同:見下面。--Blackhawk charlie2003 10:22 2007年九月14日 (UTC)
內容和香港網上社群的關係[]
如果由當事人身分(或過於熟悉其人的人士)去寫的話,文章會變得冗長,而且失去可查證性,而此處實際上是Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons中所列到的大忌。
另外,本網以記錄網上的事件為主,因此記錄的不論是人物或者是事件,都應與網上社群有關。在我看來,此人對社會不同現象,以至他的性格等(和個人著作)並不適合在本網刊登。而他和其他網上論壇人士的恩怨也應點到即止。--Blackhawk charlie2003 10:22 2007年九月14日 (UTC)
- So why not reach consensus with users together before taking any action? If not so, other users (not me) may deem you as abusing sysop's power. So before you are defamed by others, recover it first. --Doraemonserv acg 11:08 2007年九月14日 (UTC)
- I digress with your own view. Please remember that the deleted item related to my personality have WWW CD-ROM audience of LSKC and Tsing Yi IVE. So they are also regarded as WWW events as I have explained to kirkim. Most important of all, the deleted information contain keywords of other web events and records (not just personal writing) which can form a chronicle image to readers. So the removal of such is a loss to reader's understanding of WWW events related to me. The data is validable by email, not URL, for details, please contact the teachers in:
http://family.lskc.edu.hk/
http://www.vtc.edu.hk/ive/ty/chi/index.html
for information about 林智潤.
Surely after you have requested them, you can snapshot th e email as a supporting evidence. All of these does not belongs to my privacy but keys for others to understand rationales for all other records of WWW events in Doraemonserv2 page.
BTW, as stated that "本條目或段落需要精通或熟悉「Doraemonserv2」的專家參與編輯。", the editor (the identity of which is unimportant) must provide evidences such as my personality and portfolios to make sure that he is familar with me. Otherwise, the Doraemonserv2 will not be a sound chronicle and lack objectivity, which is a even more serious flaw (大忌) in wikia. So judging from the statement above, recovering 個人喜好取向, as ewai_leong (a member of 香港網上社群 as you and me, and my audience) has accepted as WWW event (otherwise he would not amend it) is a better solution.
--Doraemonserv acg 10:28 2007年九月14日 (UTC)
- If you are still not quite sure about the correctness of recovery, recover first (which is of no harm and make the Doraemonserv2 page more informative and sound reference of doraemonserv2's teachers) and see responses of other registered user for a few day, then reach consensus here before any further action is taken. Whenever any content is traceable and not of original research like the removed item, they should be keep for the interest of readers. --Doraemonserv acg 10:44 2007年九月14日 (UTC)
- In wikipedia, "Trivia" like the removed item in Doraemonserv2 page like this is also allowed to kept. So please recover it ASAP. Or it will be done by me as an experiment. OTL --Doraemonserv acg 10:54 2007年九月14日 (UTC)
some solutions[]
If admins still think that the removed item should not be recovered, maybe it is better to rename it as "Trivia" or move it to 用戶頁, or add something like this:
您 | 正在閱讀一個用戶頁。此並非一個香港網絡大典的條目 |
another solution[]
I have come up with a solution of conflict as to the removed item in Doraemonserv2 page: adding the following modules in that page as {{UserpageMerged}}. Admins please discuss the viability of such method and reach a consensus with me.
模板:UserpageMerged |
幾點回應[]
- 你所舉的wikipedia的例子只是用了一小段來交代他的血型,並非用大段篇幅去講。用一至兩段去寫你的私人簡介是可以接受的
- 你所謂的"traceable"不合符可查證性,這些與網絡無關的事件也不用特登去trace
- 你的{{UserpageMerged}}太冗長,要脅"移交警察處理"也不太合適
- 如果注冊用戶之間發生編輯戰,條目將會以其最"穩陣(最中立, 沒有透露私隱)"的版本受到全面保護。
- 共識早已寫明:"請記著香港網絡大典的共識機制,不是偏執孤立觀點、拒絕善意批評的護身符"、"香港網絡大典的共識機制不為頑固堅持孤立觀點並且拒絕善意的考慮其他意見的行為提供舞臺",現在普遍的共識就是用一至兩段去交代你的私人簡介,而條目之重點則是記載網上發生的事。--kirk 15:11 2007年九月14日 (UTC)
- 涉及大量網頁,不等於是網上發生,而又值得記載的事。
- 文章內容要諮詢當事人,甚至得到當事人同意才能刊登,不正就是現在內地政府打壓傳媒的手法嗎?為何古代中國記載歷史的是史官,而不是皇帝本人?因為皇帝作為整個政治的中心(當事人),難免會作出主觀和偏袒自己的意見。我完全理解為何Wikipedia認為Biography涉及本人編輯是大忌。
- 你正在學習如何包容,但與懂得包容還有一大段距離。
- 還有,請不要再用「移交警察處理」之類的詞語了。你應該很清楚知道,過去發生了不少網上以法律要脅的事件(雖然每次也只是「靠嚇」)。你繼續如此說話,第一,大家也會對你反感;第二,你的要脅有很多要點是錯誤的,不要胡亂說話來威脅別人。
- --Ewai leong 17:37 2007年九月14日 (UTC)
Fine. As to the UserPageMerged module, it is applicable only if the incident person has reported to police since her privacy has been exposed. Mistake in Mistake page has agreed to do so. The "police" statement is not a menace but a important remark to prevent vandalism to secure 正典運動. As to the removed 個人喜好取向, I will not recover all in the Doraemonserv2 page but provide an internal link to the user page detailing the content. I think it is the best solution when UserPageMerged module is not applicable like this case. I will perform so with a few word after 3 days when my doraemonserv_acg account will be allowed to edit protected post. So far I will put the 個人喜好取向 into User:doraemonserv2 page free for edit. Agreed? Or any ideas? --59.148.162.66 07:00 2007年九月15日 (UTC)
An request[]
Can any volunteer add the following few words (as source) regarding 個人喜好取向 before sub-topic 臭史? :
==個人喜好取向==
詳見 [[User:Doraemonserv2]]。
--59.148.162.66 07:19 2007年九月15日 (UTC)(Doraemonserv2)
- 我怎樣看也只覺得你是以私隱之名去隱瞞玩分身之事實。
- 本來我以為你只是打算以「ysw之死」,給自己一個下台階來結束了ysw此分身,然後逐漸把其他分身刪除,重新做人。但你仍然繼續利用眾多分身留言,我怎看也不覺得你有誠意改過。說白一點,你只是打算以退為進,放棄部分(如ysw的分身)以保留更多(如其他分身)。
- 有本事便真的去報警吧,我看你沒有給控告浪費警力已經是萬幸了。
- 如果你真的這麼介意私隱,倒不如把整個doraemonserv2頁砍掉吧,反正你的事跡也不算是甚麼大事。
- 還有,請不要再假借正典運動之名來阻止別人修改你的頁面。先想想你究竟做了甚麼,才會惹來人家惡意修改。不要老是以為自己是懷才不遇。你這種思想,就算你是愛因斯坦也不會成功。
- --Ewai leong 10:52 2007年九月15日 (UTC)
- Hey guys! Now only me (doraemonserv2) will use this IP to prevent conflicts. Please talk rationally. I don't wanna make enemies of anyone. --59.148.162.66 11:41 2007年九月15日 (UTC)(Doraemonserv2)
About the attitude of ewai_leong[]
To sysops:
Ewai_leong insists his subjective prejudice aganist Doraemonserv2 and he seems never understand what respect is. (This can be proved by seeing all talk page related to him - all of his saying is intended to insult doraemonserv2, like using the word 小白.) Even worse, in his latest edit, he even removed 正典運動 module without consensus, and add some logically contradicting allegement which blackens doraemonserv2's name implicitly:
但參加過馮漢柱舉辦的活動不等於一定是資優兒童。
What should we do? He is againsting 正典運動 deliberately. --59.148.162.66 08:25 2007年九月16日 (UTC)
- 如果你們二人不能達成共識,你又怕他亂改 (他亦怕你亂改),那只好全面保護頁面,待你二人達成共識後,才申請解除保護,重新編輯--kirk 08:46 2007年九月16日 (UTC)
- The crux of the minute matter is that, he committed the same logical fallacy as 港女 does (see 101 properties of such) - over-generalization, the process of which the opinion is deliberately packaged as fact to mislead others. Even thought 參加過馮漢柱舉辦的活動不等於一定是資優兒童 is a marginal possibility without proper explanation, this is not a general case, not to say facts. This is only ewai_leong's perspective, i.e. opinion. So what he should say looks like this conventional practice as he previously did:
部分網民參加過馮漢柱舉辦的活動不等於一定是資優兒童
Or to make the source crystal-clear, the detail of the opinion should be added with proper explanation (schema) like this:
有 www.light-novel.net 網民 ewai_leong 認為參加過馮漢柱舉辦的活動不等於一定是資優兒童,因為IQ是隨著年齡而遞減的。
Otherwise the article will contain agency(能動性), which limits the objectivity of it.
If he forget this, fine. I will make this amendment once "doraemonserv_acg" account is registerd over 4 days.
回應[]
百忙中也要抽時間來回應你。
怎麼了,又開新分身,新account作doraemonserv2的「代言人」嗎?我不清楚網典有沒有嚴打分身的政策。如果沒有我也沒辦法。
針對「參加過馮漢柱舉辦的活動不等於一定是資優兒童」這句,首先,如果馮漢柱過去依靠家長把子女推薦,最有效的方法來測試該孩子是否資優兒童,就是讓他參加一兩個試驗活動,從中觀察。因此,先不管有沒有觀察出錯,導致非資優兒童被當作資優這較小的可能性,試驗活動中的非資優兒童佔大多數,是很有可能的。再者,更令本人懷疑的是,如果閣下真是資優兒童,怎麼只參加了這麼少馮漢柱舉辦的活動?所以,我覺得最合理的解釋就是「參加了兩三個活動後確認並非資優,於是再沒有參加以後的活動」。
還有,如果你硬要說邏輯,你那句「因為IQ是隨著年齡而遞減的」也有問題。假設「IQ是隨著年齡遞減」是真的,也只會令資優兒童長大後不再是資優(即不是「資優青年」之類),不會因為他的IQ減少了而「時光倒流」地抹殺了他過去是資優兒童的事實。
關於正典運動,本人重申,如果成功了,當然是好事,但本人不認為會成功。本人不支持也不反對正典活動。本人只是覺得你不是真心支持正典活動,只是借正典活動「抽水」,把不利於你的修改硬說成是違反正典活動的惡意舉動。
說實話,如果你不是用分身跑到知日部屋,我也不會再理你。反正你現正申請新wiki來宣揚閣下的大作,倒不如你以後就待在那邊好了。留在自己的地方,做甚麼也不會有人怪你。當然,如果你的新wiki真的能開成。
再說一次,反正閣下的網上事跡也未至於值得保存和公開,如果你這麼介意醜事傳千里,乾脆刪了doraemonserv2頁面吧。
--Ewai leong 17:24 2007年九月16日 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, 分身 is not a important matter (it is a technical problem rather than ideology). At least you label others without proper explanation. For example, what does your Your 「抽水」 means? partiality is acceptable because you are not using cultural relativity (i.e. you are NOT FHC student). FHC courses are not compulsory (you intend to let audience neglect this fact). At least, your reasons for the empty statement「參加過馮漢柱舉辦的活動不等於一定是資優兒童」? It is lucky that sysops in EVCHK does not hold the same values and attitude as you, otherwise the world will be full of prejudice. Stop acting ennui and concentrate on your own study please. It is a dismay that even a undergraduate student cannot be reasonable.
p.s. I hate subjective-agented and interjectional words like "我覺得" since it is robbing acceptance as a typical behavior of GL partial aikolidyme which otakus hate. --Doraemonserv acg 17:32 2007年九月16日 (UTC)
- 你還真有趣,昨天才說本人的言論不代表所有人的意見,應該寫上「有網民認為......」;今天又認為「我覺得......」是主觀。看來你還真是會為符合自己的利益,隨便修改標準。
- 分身並不重要......你不會不知道所有事情都是因為你玩分身才弄出來的吧?
- --Ewai leong 01:19 2007年九月17日 (UTC)
- All of these problem belongs to the context, not standard. I think your stubborn attitude is the crux of the matter rather than even if my 分身 exists. --202.40.210.164 02:07 2007年九月17日 (UTC) (TY IVE)
你說本人頑固,但本人這樣堅持,是因為一直以來,你沒有證明你那些分身不是分身,令本人質疑你的誠信。
再多說些吧,為免討論失去重點
一.「支持正典運動」似乎只有閣下自認
二.甚麼看過的書和人生觀,和網絡事件根本無關,一兩句交代便應該足夠了
三.你那模版實在十分神奇,別說是網典,即使是維基也不會有這種東西。而且似乎你的喜惡,就是閣下對惡意修改和人身攻擊的定義。還有,你那「移交警察處理」一來令人極度反感,二來也不反映事實。
最後,請不要隨便用粗言穢語罵人。罵本人還好,罵別人早就令這討論失控了。別以為全世界的人都像你這麼「清高」,把人際關係蔑視成虛偽和黑暗的。
--Ewai leong 06:33 2007年九月17日 (UTC)
- reply:
1. 「支持正典運動」 is my declaration. You are not me. How come can you change other's identity?
2. So why don't you add the code?
3. That is your own opinion. (and only you say so). Sysops so far does not voice their view as to the module, which is representative.
Finally, the foul language belongs to HKGolden. 把人際關係蔑視成虛偽和黑暗的 is your misunderstanding because you haven't practise introspection yet. Don't think that only your view is absolute truth. Human relationship is hypocritical iff O.J.A. behaviour exists. For details, please study my blog carefully before uttering nonsense. --202.40.210.164 04:56 2007年九月18日 (UTC)(TY IVE)
- 只有你自己宣稱支持正典運動是未足夠的,還要其他人認同。否則你倒不如宣稱自己是特首好了。
- 不交代是道理,交代一兩句只是「可接受」,所以本人選擇不交代。閣下想交代請自理
- kirk有說過「你的模版太冗長,要脅"移交警察處理"也不太合適」
- 你的意思是,高登人指名道姓地用那句粗言穢語罵本人?那一頁在高登的哪處?還有,「把人際關係蔑視成虛偽和黑暗」是你說的,這代表你認為過去所有攻擊你和你的學說的人都有「O.J.A. behaviour」?太武斷了吧。
- --Ewai leong 18:03 2007年九月18日 (UTC)
- 膠都費時俾 --202.40.210.164 02:01 2007年九月19日 (UTC) (TY IVE)
澄清此人和ty acg soc並無任何關係
The assertion above is void because:
1. No proof is given
2. The person writing such thing is unknown or unverifiable.
--59.148.162.66 19:24 2007年十月3日 (UTC)
我對最近事件的立場[]
- 由於Doraemonserv2在網典及知日部屋等的行為及言論,他算是知名人物,本條目本身不應刪除。在網上,本來喊聲夠大之人,不論立場,已可有相當顯著性。
- 為免破壞條目中立性,Doraemonserv2(或其任何分身)不應修改本條目,但允許在討論頁提出對內容之意見。
- Doraemonserv2的爭議性大多乃基於其新岡田派御宅族理論等思想被人視為9up。因此該等內容應予保留,但亦應允許反對者反駁以證明為甚麼被人認為如此。
- 和其人相關的各種編輯戰等為事實者,應在不帶判斷的事實的基礎上報導。
- 本條目任何其他內容都應該有查證性;所提證據均應與所引證之事直接相關。除說明Doraemonserv2之思想時可引用本人作品,及牽涉他本人的爭議討論外,他本人的說話本身不能作為任何事實的證據。
- 網典純粹為記載網上人、事、物之網站,並非任何人公開其原創內容的場地。
- 任何人不得聲稱擁有網典任何條目。參考:英文維基百科 中文維基百科。
--澤田弘樹Freely I fly 00:25 2007年十二月9日 (UTC)
討論頁有如會議記錄[]
呀,Doraemonserv acg先生,有關上述討論頁的內容,是每個人之間的辯論,是否人生攻擊也各有各說。從一個會議記錄角度來講,這不能清空,因為這是他人的言論而不是對條目的描寫,所以我先回退。不過你可以收回你自己的言論。--不是維基人 2011年5月5日 (四) 08:13 (UTC)