|This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
|— Wikipedian ♂ —|
|Time zone||SST (UTC+8)|
|Education and employment|
part-time white-collar worker,
|Education||GCE Advanced Level|
|Hobbies, favourites and beliefs|
|click here to email me
(registered users only)
|Joined||3 October 2005|
|First edit||3 October 2005|
|Edit count||≈58,000 (and counting)|
|Search user languages|
Places I have lived in or visited
(arranged in alphabetical order)
I am an overseas Chinese born and raised in Singapore, a Southeast Asian island country. I have Cantonese and Hakka ancestry – my paternal ancestral home is in Guangdong while my maternal ancestors were Hakka Chinese Indonesians from Sumatra. I am fluent in English, Mandarin and Cantonese. I am currently reading for a bachelor's degree (double major) in a public university in Singapore.
I first joined Wikipedia in 2005 when I was in high school and have been editing more frequently since 2008. I semi-retired from Wikipedia in early 2014. The userboxes on this page help me speak other things about myself that I wish to reveal.
About using Wikipedia
Notwithstanding the fact that Wikipedia's reliability is in question and that it exhibits strong systemic bias, I enjoy using the online encyclopaedia as a source of knowledge and as the first stop in my quests for answers. Editing Wikipedia has become one of my hobbies since I committed myself to the WikiProjects I am currently involved in. Since 2008, I have been contributing on a regular routine occasionally interrupted by long breaks and "self-imposed exiles". I still edit from time to time even though I semi-retired from Wikipedia in early 2014.
My personal views on Wikipedia
Wikipedia is a democracy even though it is not supposed to be. Consensus is – and has always been – determined by the number of participants taking a particular side in a discussion. A dearth of minority views often culminates in the drowning out of a few dissenting voices, especially when that handful fails to display resilience in defending their beliefs or lacks the courage to challenge their opponents for fear of being deficient in knowledge of how Wikipedia works and the subject matter of the dispute. After all, since democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people, I do not see why they should not acquiesce in the decisions of their rivals (aka the majority) as opposed to choosing the (less wise) option of bearing the brunt of their adversaries' aggression and retaliating.
Wikipedia is certainly making fine progress on its way to becoming a bureaucracy well decorated with red tape. Many editors, including me, frequently cite policies and guidelines and have become so familiar with the shortcuts we toss them around casually everywhere, from edit summaries to talk pages. (And on this page as well!) Ironically, sometimes, I run foul of certain 'laws' myself, especially with WP:OR and WP:FICTION. I came into conflict with editors who employ these 'statutes' as weapons to achieve certain goals or to advance their personal prejudices. In the process of doing so, they misrepresent or distort the fundamental principles on which these policies were created. Alarmingly, based on my experiences, a significant number of the aforementioned preconceived notions contains traces of Sinophobia and reeks of intolerance towards non-Western cultures.
Although vandalism may prima facie appear to be the biggest threat to Wikipedia, the most disturbing issues are systemic bias and a strong deletionist culture which stems from said bias. Vandalism may be reverted instantly by mechanical means (eg bots and tools), but systemic bias and deletionism are behavioural characteristics inherent in certain editors and cannot be eliminated. Wikipedia's demographic patterns sometimes merely exacerbate the situation even though now there may be a higher influx of editors from the less represented communities.
About editing Wikipedia
The type of users I regard most highly are those who adhere to Wikipedia's etiquette guidelines and provide suggestions for improvements when they find flaws with my editing. I am very grateful to them for their valuable advice. On the other hand, I detest people who persistently complain about problems without recommending solutions or offering to render assistance. If they feel that something is not right, then they should stop whining and fix it (in a civilised manner, of course)! If they choose to remain passive and hope for a deus ex machina, the issue will not be resolved until someone takes the initiative.
The presence of the watchlist function is one of the things I like about Wikipedia. It allows me to track all recent changes and maybe catch a vandal once in a while. I am equipped with Huggle and Twinkle, which I use them on random occasions when I feel like fighting vandalism. I have a strong aversion towards IP users because, from my experience, many of them can be easily classified as either a typical Wikipedian vandal or disruptive editor out for mischief. Besides, it is difficult to accurately identify the culprit because they usually have their identities concealed behind a (commonly shared) IP address. The worst form of injury they can inflict lies not on the articles in question, but rather, in the aftermath of their misdeeds – when innocent users experience collateral damage resulting from the measures implemented to keep those miscreants at bay. I strongly urge IP users to create accounts if they genuinely wish to contribute to Wikipedia.
I have little tolerance for insults, abusive remarks, personal attacks and anything of similar nature. Despite so, it is heartening to see that only a handful among the registered users I have met so far actually attempted verbal assaults on me. In general, by assuming good faith, I find the majority of Wikipedians nice and approachable.
I dislike people who pick on minute problems with my editing (eg errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation) and criticise me for the sake of criticism. They are usually either unaware of how to play the devil's advocate in a constructive manner or are oblivious to the fact that they are making a pathetic (and to some extent, malicious) attempt at doing so. When I try to view their actions from a more objective perspective, I see them making mountains out of molehills and "looking for bones in eggs" – a Chinese saying to describe people who look for flaws that are non-existent – or simply being (overly) anal. Those who flaunt their talent in the fine art of ad hominem will not cut any ice with me; it will only make me (and probably others too) less receptive towards the likes of them, especially if they already have a history of anti-social behaviour on Wikipedia!
I am very picky on Chinese-to-English translations because I have seen extremely revolting work done by editors who almost certainly need to improve their levels of literacy. If they cannot demonstrate a decent command of the English language, I suggest they refrain from editing on the English Wikipedia! They will only make things worse and create a mess for other editors to clean up (if these editors even bother to do so). They may be very enthusiastic about a certain topic and really wish to help, but competence is necessary. WP:IAR is neither a carte blanche nor an excuse for them to produce sloppy writing, add poorly sourced material, or commit other unsightly mistakes, especially if they have already been editing Wikipedia for a reasonable period of time.
If your actions fit into any of the categories of negative examples mentioned above, and you are reading my userpage with a vindictive or resentful mind (and probably with the intention of seeking ways to strike back at me), you are, by having those very thoughts in your mind, taking things too personally and you need to be dowsed with cold water. Acting in bad faith will get you nowhere; it will only hasten your journey towards being blocked or, under the most serious circumstances, banned.
Contributions and interests
I contribute mainly on the English Wikipedia and occasionally on the Chinese Wikipedia. I have also translated articles from Chinese to English. My topics of interest include history, literature, law, politics, religion, philosophy, East Asian cinema and television, and science fiction.
My areas of focus in history are pre-modern Chinese history and European history from the 18th century onward. I have made extensive edits to articles related to the Chu–Han Contention (206–202 BCE) and the Three Kingdoms period (220–280 CE) and I am currently in the process of revamping and revising these articles. I also edit articles on the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1912) dynasties and other eras in Chinese history from time to time.
My preferred genres in literature are wuxia, historical fiction (Dumas) and high fantasy (eg Tolkien, Rowling). Among these, I contribute primarily to wuxia-related articles, especially those pertaining to the works of Jin Yong, Liang Yusheng and Gu Long, and their innumerable adaptations (films and television series). I initiated WikiProject Water Margin in 2009 to promote Water Margin, my favourite of the Chinese Four Great Classical Novels. Nearly all the articles within the scope of this project are maintained by me.
I have created and edited articles on East Asian cinema and television, including pages on filmmakers, actors and singers.
You can check out a more detailed but incomplete list of my contributions, my contributions to DYK, and the awards I have received from other Wikipedians.