Talk:Zheng Tianshou

June 2026 edits

I am formally initiating a dispute resolution process following a series of recent edits I made to the article which were reverted by @Pbritti. It follows from an earlier discussion here. I would like to present the facts as they are.

I was previously editing as @~2026-31029-99 and @~2026-27667-12, focusing on mainly copyediting and rewriting pages on Water Margin characters, specifically the 108 Heroes, for clarity and consistency. Besides, my edits also involved applying the {{lang|zh}} template for the Chinese characters displayed on the pages, fixing the link to 108 Heroes (after the page has been renamed from 108 Stars of Destiny), and adding a {{reflist}} tag as I intend to add citations afterwards for each page.

@Pbritti reverted my edits on 2 June, calling them "substantial unsourced changes".

I subsequently created my current account @Watermargineditor to consolidate my edits under a single user, and reverted @Pbritti's changes, writing in my edit summary as follows: "Don’t revert my edits blindly, please, just because I didn’t provide edit summaries. I have been contributing constructively to many Water Margin-related articles by copyediting and rewriting parts to make them clearer."

@Pbritti then reverted my edit, accusing me of using AI and violating MOS:INUNIVERSE. This is absurd since my edits did not fundamentally change the existing content of the page compared to what it was like before 2 June. If anything, I maintain my stance that my edits are made in good faith and focus on improving the article.

I reverted @Pbritti's edits on 3 June, denying the use of AI in my edits and challenging him to produce evidence to support his accusation. Following that, I made a series of edits, adding a bit more information and producing specific citations to the source material. The source material is the novel Water Margin itself, which is available on Wikisource and openly verifiable to anyone who reads Chinese.

@Pbritti reverted all my edits, including the ones which involve the citations I provided,, invoking MOS:INUNIVERSE and WP:FANCRUFT. The irony here is that he is reverting to an older version of the page which is not only not fully compliant with MOS:INUNIVERSE, but also lacks citations from the work of fiction.

Privately, on my talk page, he falsely accused me of using AI tools such as Grammarly, and keeps calling my edits "largely disruptive" and "unsourced" (twice), completely ignoring the fact that I did provide sources in my most recent edits. As I mentioned, the burden of proof is on him to adduce evidence of me using AI. He has sidestepped that and attempted to redirect attention to other trivial matters (e.g. whether I am a sockpuppet), all the while refraining from directly addressing the crux of the dispute: the contents of my edits.

While I can see why some Wikipedia users might mistake me for using AI due to the "speed and content" of my edits, those are not reasonable grounds for indiscriminately reverting all my edits and labelling them "disruptive" and "unsourced", or "AI-generated" for that matter. I acknowledge that perhaps more frequent use of edit summaries may help to reduce misunderstandings, and I have been doing that in my more recent edits. That said, the lack of an edit summary is still not a valid reason for reverting any user's edits when those edits are clearly not vandalism.

On a personal level, I find it rather amusing that I am accused of using Grammarly when I have never used it before in my life and don't see the need to use it ever in my life. Watermargineditor (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Please keep comments civil and concise. You seem unaware regarding policies for sourcing content, especially those related to fiction. Some have already been linked. If you are utilizing and sort of LLM, language translation, or other computer-assisted writing program, please stop. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pbritti For the umpteenth time, I am not using any AI tool, computer-assisted writing program, etc. If you are so bent on accusing me of using these, produce the evidence and get me blocked. Otherwise, stop dodging the real issue and let's get to improving the article. Watermargineditor (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The onus is on you to justify your edits. You did nothing but lament that I observed what looks like a strong case for believing you are editing disruptively. If you want to improve the article, explain how your edits improve the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I have done my best in attempting to resolve this issue amicably. It doesn't seem to be working. Let's try WP:3O first. Watermargineditor (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

You haven't once explained the content that you would like changed here on the talk page. You haven't met the minimum required to seek 3O input. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pbritti I have posted a request at WP:3O#Active disagreements. Watermargineditor (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

As mentioned in the discussion, the onus is on the editor making the changes to justify them. In this dispute, there does not appear to be a sound policy based justification for the changes. I will not comment on the accusations, as they are unrelated to the content dispute. Nemov (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nemov Thanks for your input, specifically in pointing out that the justification for the changes need to be grounded in policy. The reasons have been provided already. Perhaps I need to invoke the specific policies, which I shall do.

WP:BURDEN says:

All content must be verifiable. A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

It has been fulfilled in these edits when I provided specific citations to the relevant chapters of the novel Water Margin, which is available on Wikisource and openly verifiable by anyone who reads Chinese.

WP:BURDEN also mentions:

Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

On this point, my edits were indiscriminately reverted, restoring the page to an older version which is not only not fully compliant with MOS:INUNIVERSE and WP:FANCRUFT, but also less verifiable since it lacks citations from the work of fiction. The onus has shifted to @Pbritti to articulate specific problems with my edits that justify the reversion, including the removal of the citations. Watermargineditor (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's cut the wikilawyering: per WP:ONUS, the burden for attaining consensus still lies with the editor seeking inclusion. The version preferred by Watermargineditor is an article expanded solely using in-universe sourcing. While other sources are listed at the bottom of the page, they are not actually cited. The summarization they added is longer than most plot summaries to major movies and books and unsuitable for encyclopedic purposes due to excessive length, particularly relative to the absence of any established notability from independent sourcing. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Usually verifying claims in sources is right up my alley. Unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese and I'm afraid machine translation of such a long text may not be faithful to the original. You could ask for help at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject China. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)