目錄
對黃世澤的意見
- 經常性地要告人，但每次都話告得入，結果欠落人地律師信多不勝數。而係佢眼中只要係地球上生存gei人佢都可以告到，所以每一個人都應該聽佢講。可憐四大狀之前因為佢同買膠甲gei 關 係而流失不小支持度。雖然黃世柒"自稱"係好多樣野gei"芝心XX人"，但據胡說本人所以，佢其實係一個芝心編輯人，但唔係媒體編輯，而係wiki編輯。因為佢最會打編輯戰而且重可以24小時咁打，基本上一寫就即刻Delete。所以今次香港網絡大典究竟會學之前d網頁咁樣輕易被人大到？定係可以嚴守反硬膠陣線？
- 捫心自問，這是否傳媒人和大學畢業生應該擁有的品格？
- 永遠祇會黐著梁文道 (商台, 都市日報, 鳳凰衛視, 港台), 往往因表現差勁給人趕跑(都市日報專欄, 電台電視...etc)也叫吃得開? 我祇能感到是諸葛亮在扶劉禪.
- 唔係個個人都好似x澤咁得閒"部"住個網，x澤煩到連高登都唔再理佢喇，所以希望大家多盡點力，同時盡量和平理性一點，道理係我地這一方
- (我私自把謾罵刪除了)
- 樓上果位唔好咁激動住，用詞太激烈只會俾人有位入，實屬不智也。題外話，Oei係「黃」呢個姓o既福建方言譯音，佢係冇錯的。
- 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明受損,因而想盡辦法隱瞞自己的惡行.這些人做左衰野就罵人做咩唱衰佢,若要人不知,除非己莫為,如果唔係做咁多衰野,人地邊得閒寫咁多野.做錯野唔檢討不特止仲罵人,得此惡名係佢自己羅黎.
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)