Talk:Wee Meng Chee

message: All of a sudden, we have made him a celebrity. Does this article really necessary to be on its own?--Zack2007 12:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the argument on Wee's "brief" burst of notability, I want to wait at least a month before determining what action to take on this article. It's too premature to stamp a deletion tag barely a week after the page was created. - Two hundred percent 01:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Other than that, the article is in order with non-trivial citations, aside its overemphasis of the Negarakuku controvesy, and suggestively coatrack-type writing. - Two hundred percent 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The extensive description of the video and public reaction to it seems way like an overstatement of the whole issue to me. Yk Yk Yk 11:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to have a bit of detailed feedback. General comments make it hard to assess what needs to be cut down. - Two hundred percent 16:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The song touches a range of topics pertaining the day-to-day lives of Malaysians from the perspective of Wee and his friends, referencing various aspects of life (including the police and government services), treatment by the Malaysian government and affiliates, and observations to common occurrences in the country. Verses in the song also reference Malay people and Islam." I think that's enough to describe the entire song. Those who want to judge the video should watch it themselves. "The ethnic Chinese community in general exhibits strong show of support." Can you cite anything to prove this? Otherwise the reaction section can be kept. I don't agree that the article should be removed, rather just shortened. It's difficult after so much has been written to say what should be cut down, maybe over time the details can slowly be removed. Yk Yk Yk 03:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Chinese support" line was not part of the original text, it obviously has to be gone. This problem had surfaced earlier in the Negaraku article where someone wrote that the Chinese supported the song strongly while the Malays criticised it; clearly a unsourced statement. Secondly, I have no problem with clarifying the nature of the verses pertaining Malay and Islam. These segments are one of the main reasons groups justify responding with seditious comments against Wee and Chinese people, as demonstrated on YouTube comments. Explaining what these verses are trying to convey is relevant to the issue in hand. Other than that, I'm OK for a cut-down of any degree in the sections, especially the reactions section where redundancies or irrelevant stuff are beginning to accumulate. - Two hundred percent 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is highly notable, after all it got the Prime Minister of Malaysia's attention (and the attention of various Government departments), and they all apparently spent a fair bit of time on his case, rather than fixing obviously "less notable" problems with the Government and Malaysia for example - widespread corruption, which is obviously a less serious problem than some allegedly highly seditious and offensive student in Taiwan. A student whose song is apparently a greater threat to the stability and "prestige" of the entire country of Malaysia. If he's not notable then why did the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, and various departments waste time on him? Could have just let some random cop handle the case and nab him if he comes back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.42.6 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Wee created it much earlier than Negarakuku. The newspaper was wrong, and I'm very sure about it. Kristalyamaki 09:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's it doing here in the first place? The Kawanku segment has to go. It is important to understand the relevance of adding information to the article. In this case, bringing up an older issue as new information is inappropriate and incomprehensive of the issue in hand. The issue is dying down, and so will this article. -Yk Yk Yk 15:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Internal Security Ministry issued a gag order to mainstream media to cease reporting on Namewee. With such a media blackout, the public is expected to forget all this within a period of time. This is not a good indication that the whole thing is dying down naturally. As for the Kawanku song, it hasn't attracted as much controvesy as Negarakuku, although a Malay daily has reported about it negatively. - Two hundred percent 08:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Kawanku the best song of Namewee!! But the facts are not so true ... Izzudin (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kawanku... new?

message: Keb25's edits on the article are not considerably helpful. I wasn't able to raise this issue prior because edit summaries don't allow me to explain a lot. So, referring to WP:MOSLINKS, I must object Keb25 for the following reasons"
* I am aware repeating wikilinks are only useful for long articles, where it can be used in the space of several sections. So far this article does not appear to violate this regulation. Neither are the links excessive. When the number goes over 10% of the total text, then it's a concern.
* The use of the tabloid link refers to the sensational manner of the papers, not the layout of the paper.
* Referring to the delinking of Written Chinese. Without proper wikilinking, "Chinese" can refer to any linguistics, covering anything from Simplified Chinese characters to Traditional Chinese characters. It also strikes me odd that this wasn't done on other language links. Why?
* The revision was devoid of any explanation on how the "Wee Meng Chee" spelling came about, while the Pinyin spelling does. The  template is displayed in a similiar manner, so again, why not an additional field?
* Using something like "Malaysian flag" instead of "Malaysian flag" downright misleads reader on what the link is related to. Instead of the flag of Malaysia, the new configuration implies the "flag" article.
* The August 9, 2007 interview, where Wee apologises was report to come from Taiwan, never mentions it specifically taking place from Taipei. You can read the reference yourself.
* How is using only an abbreviation (i.e. HDB) more helpful?
* There is nothing wrong with red links (as evidenced with Fu Ah Kiow). This encourages people to create an article for said topic. Besides, a few more articles are also connected to this link. It's only appropriate to leave it open for editting.
Two hundred percent 17:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keb25's edits 

message: I deleted the following 2 sentences from the "Biography" section because I felt they were heavily biased and in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy: 
His personality is classified as negative, famous within Malaysian with his talking and speaking by using impolite words and actions out of the culture, human-being and uneducated. Most of Wee published video is classified as negative educational material to the young Malaysian generation to avoid destroying the harmony, mutual respect and oriental society values of Malaysia.
In addition, they also fall under what Wikipedia calls "weasel words" because there is no source given for the statements. As in, who is it who supposedly classified him and his works as negative? If the original author or someone else wants to come back and cite or quote directly some government official or politician that's OK. But as it was previously, IMHO and according to Wikipedia policy, sweeping statements like that are not acceptable.
Malaysians really need to learn how to use Wikipedia properly...so many of the Malaysia-related wiki articles are a mess because people are unable to write about controversial subjects in a non-biased way. Stick to facts!
--Xenobiologista (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stay neutral! 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem