黃世澤的意見

  • 經常說要控告別人,並辯稱一定控告成功,但結果往往都是不了了之,欠下極多『口數』。而世澤眼中只要是地球上生存的人都可以單純地『控告』了事,所以遇著意見不合者,當告之而後快哉。可憐公民黨四大狀因為與『甲澤』扯上關係,而流失部份人士支持。雖然黃世澤"自稱"是某某項目的"資深評論員",但據網友長期所見所聞,除了日以繼夜地篡改關於自己的wiki內容,以及在勢力範圍內的討論區禁止別人發言外,黃世澤並未能說服其它人他如何『資深』?
  • 請撫心自問,這是否傳媒人和大學畢業生應該擁有的品格?
  • 永遠祇會叨別人光,例如: 梁文道 (商台、都市日報、鳳凰衛視、港台), 往往因表現差勁而給辭退(都市日報專欄, 電台電視...etc),自已在Blog內卻強調『吃得開』? 令人感到這種手段實差勁
  • 黃世澤的Oei是「黃」姓的福建方言譯音,十多年前在電話BBS網絡時,還未強調自己是『旅港印尼華僑』時,使用的是港式拼音『Wong』。
  • 如果所載的事是真有其事的,根本不用理會他的投訴。只怕有些人怕自己做過的醜事被公開而聲名受損,因而想盡辦法隱瞞自己的惡行。這類人『使銅銀夾大聲』,反客為主先發罵人,非常令人髮指。若要人不知,除非己莫為,空穴來風未必無因,假如本人並無過錯,何來許多網友百般指控? 眾人皆要工作幹活,哪來空閒誣蔑黃先生? 拒絕承認/承擔自己過錯,還要惡人先告狀,得此惡名是黃君自作孽
  • 未敢遺忘,不願忘記;網路惡棍,屌你老味!公民政黨,包容禍根;終有一日,禍黨害民!

By 胡說 (增刪、修改口語文字: Optimizr)

Wikia's vice president Angela's comments

I have removed this page since because someone suggested it was defamatory. I don't know whether it is, and it is for this community to decide whether to replace that page, but if you do, please make sure the information in is true and give sources for where that information is from. I think it would be better for this wiki to have a policy that says people who don't want an article on themselves will have their wishes respected. See w:c:furry:WikiFur:Personal information for an example of another wiki with this policy. Angela (talk) 03:32 2006年4月21日 (UTC)

(Angela唔會係度覆,請到她的talk pagetalk)

Let's talk in English

Let's discuss how Martin Oei behaves in the net in English so that the administrator of Wikia can know the truth.

First comment

Hi, Angela, nice to meet you. I suggest this page should be kept because of the following reasons. Firstly, the person mentioned in the article (Martin Wong, he calls himself Martin Oei) is a public personality, an active Hong Kong journalist in newspaper and television. He is also extremely active in the Internet and his behaviour is highly controversial. Thus, we believe that there is a must to preserve this page because the public has the right to be informed about the behaviours of such an active public personality.

Secondly, we do try our best to achieve objectivity of this article. We also remove some offensive comments and wordings and the comments now in the article are based on facts, so they are fair comments and are not defamatory according to the common law of Hong Kong. However, we realize that the comments in the article are predominantly negative, so we invite other people who have some positive comments to edit the page, but no one does that.

Thirdly, you may not be familiar with Martin Wong's characteristics and histories. Martin Wong also has a page in Wikipedia, but when some people try to add some "negative comments" on it, he opposed swiftly and waged an "edit war", finally his page is protected. Recently, some people suggest the page should be removed because the information is totally useless and meaningless and is only a personal introduction (Martin Wong opposed all negative comments and it is the consequence). After failing in wikipedia, the Internet users try to build another wiki-styled website to introduce some popular Internet figures, Martin Wong is one of them. Nevertheless, when Martin knows about that, he waged another "edit war". He also phoned the Webmaster to force him to delete all of his pages and threatened to take legal actions. The Webmaster replied that Mr Wong should point out which part of information is defamatory but Mr Wong fails to do so. Finally, the Webmaster closed down the website because of Mr Wong's annoying behaviour.

After a few months, another Internet personality-targeted wiki-styled website was built. Mr Wong complained again and sent more than 10 letters to the website's hosting company within 5 days. The Webmaster again required him to specify the defamatory parts, but Mr Wong ignored again and continued to send complaining letters and use "the legal threat”. Finally, Mr Wong used some device to obtain the personal information of the Webmaster and disclosed them openly in his blog. That Webmaster is forced to close down the website.

Therefore, it is our third attempt to build a wiki website that introduces the famous HK Internet personalities. We sincerely hope that it will not be destroyed by the blackmail or "legal threat" of any person. (In fact Martin Wong has never really taken any legal action, he uses legal authority as a threat rather than a means to achieve freedoms and justice) We will also try our best to ensure the objectivity of every article. (User: kirklim)

Proving the Facts

It seems that we're still claiming that Wong had done something negative sometime before so far, since there isn't many solid proof to those "facts". To frame him for good, IMO we need the proof, say, actual documents accounting the incidents, with a reliable time of last modified. So far, I'd expect the 10 letters of complaint to KDDI (against Chimaigun.com) is sufficient enough to convince myself to believe it, as long as I have a look on those letters.

I know that my word may sound bad, but it's also the reason that Wong got solid ground against us, and striking us hard.

大部份資料都有證據

除了小部份久遠的事跡沒有證據外,大部份資料都有證據,最勁係keep左佢寄律師信的紀錄

黃世澤想炒起整個香港網絡大典,一定要想辦法阻止

為了不想對他不利的新聞流傳,即使香港網絡大典已經對他的條目進行修改,但他仍不滿足,維基百科內黃世澤的條目已經如此,我不想再見到這裡成為他的一言堂.這裡所記述的大部份事情都值得留念,而家絕大部份都有根有據,為一條條目而要炒想整個香港網絡大典,是香港網絡界的悲哀.

(我私自把謾罵刪除了) x 2 Please post constructive comments only. Otherwise you are not helping evchk.

Turth is turth, fake is fake.

As title.

If Martin WONG's story is fake, why many people said that unless his story is positive or nagative? Why many administators afraid him and Buyer A(買家甲)? Who's (fuckin) care with them?

By siukaa (I'm apology my english is not good. Please see chinese version together if you understand chinese)

中文版本

錯就要認,打就要企定 d野係錯ge點解咁多人要寫佢, 唔通貪利是咩 就算係衰野都係講一頭半個月遮....但係黃世澤同買家甲我相信佢地已經比人講左差唔多成年有多 就係因為佢地所做ge野令好多人睇唔過眼, 而且間而不絕不斷打壓網上有關他的言論 我都知人要面樹要皮, 之不過黃世澤一路都無提供證據證明d料係假, d衰野又要做又怕比人知.....

所以本人絕對支持保留所有有關黃世澤的文章, 那怕他告上法庭, 最多我地一齊夾錢打過 記住一句說話, 黃世澤殺到一個講佢ge website, 重有千千萬萬個講黃世澤衰野ge website 我地一人一個mirror睇佢殺得邊個, 佢一殺文我就即刻mirror黃世澤所有資料及衰野去我個website, 反正我個w/s都係用泥放file

By siukaa

A Convincing Proof

The comment "Proving the Facts" is actually mine.

The hard part of "Proving the Facts" is not just gather it, but to present it in a manner that it can convince us to believe. It is the reason that if we can get those documents, along with a reasonable last-modified time, it will start to make more people believe into the facts.

Away from the above fact, IMO we oughta let Angela know if the points and facts listed in this page are justified. It would involve the above paragraph, and possibly a translation to those material. (User: Blackhawk_charlie2003)

編輯問題

看不見黃世澤有抄襲的地方,故先刪除,如有異議請提出,--kirk lim 02:27 2006年5月17日 (UTC)

黃世澤真不長進

黃世澤近來可能比較空閒,所以又再故態復萌,愛起人底要脅人的惡習依舊不變,真不長進。雖說此網不是個人財產,但黃世澤對付虛擬名人大全chimaigun網主的手段,各位仍歷歷在目。奉勸網主小心一點。--kirk lim 13:34 2006年6月7日 (UTC)

首先多謝您的關心,黃世澤如果要向人施壓而要脅關站的話,我想他可以省回力氣了,因為我和另外兩位管理人員並沒有關閉本站的權力。--Hotplug 16:54 2006年6月7日 (UTC)

Wongxxsss123.JPG

看來黃世澤是告硬李偉儀的了

黃世澤先生不要再逃避了,如果有人"誹謗"你,就請採取法律行動,不要再把電郵投訴信當作律師信。--kirk lim 06:19 2006年6月8日 (UTC)

這文的中立性和可信性已可以接受

如有異議,歡迎再改。--kirk lim 16:07 2006年6月22日 (UTC)

移除沒有資料來源的部份

這段文字十分敏感,沒有資料來源,且有中傷成份--kirk lim 01:20 2007年七月25日 (UTC)

加入公民黨

隨著公民黨成立,不少昔日跟隨四十五條關注組打江山之舊將如買家甲、蔡銘禧(Edwin)等亦紛紛入黨,唯獨黃世澤因余若薇親下密令對其封鎖組黨消息,又拒絕黃世澤之入黨申請,因而無法成為創黨百人之一,對身為四十五條關注組資深兼忠心顧問的黃世澤自是一大打擊。

雖然遭此奇恥大辱,但黃世澤仍未放棄加入公民黨,更請求其恩師關信基出面。其後關信基在一次公民黨內部會議上提出討論黃世澤之入黨申請,余若薇隨即表示早前已對此作出討論,並已拒絕其入黨申請,作為公民黨執委及炙手可熱新秀的余冠威更不諱言絕不能讓黃某入黨,最後在關信基一力擔保之下,及黃世澤向公民黨進貢一幅據稱出自黃世澤父親手筆的山水畫後,方勉強通過黃世澤入黨,但黃世澤在黨內地位比買家甲等人更低,現為九龍西支部普通黨員,從未出席任何公民黨的會議及活動,連公民黨早前慶祝新總部落成的會員派對上亦不見其踪影,七一遊行中黃世澤亦沒有跟隨公民黨大隊一同遊行;而黃世澤亦一反常態,對其公民黨黨員身份保持低調,僅在其一篇批評公民黨政治立場的評論文章上輕描淡寫帶過[來源請求] 。

這似乎是黃世澤臭史的必然續頁

黃世澤又發作啦,今次是他老屈台灣人torrentpien為共匪KMT人,只因torrentpien質問他「為什麼打壓粵語也是賣台求榮」.......有請網典高手-65.110.6.33 2010年7月28日 (三) 13:11 (UTC)

除非另有註明,否則社區內容均使用CC-BY-SA授權條款。