The task is simple.

Just as the title says — dig into your photo librabries and share your favorite snaps of the man.

I’m sure we can make a nice collection in the comments.

Go.

We just hit 100.

Still small, but that’s exactly there are so many things you can post about — it probably wasn’t here yet! 😉. The space is open, and it’s what we make of it.

If you’re here, don’t just sit back — post, comment, bring something in. Clips, stills, thoughts, whatever caught your attention.

There’s no better place to talk about Zhang Ling He without people side-eyeing or shutting it down.

His features are quite exquisite, if we are to be honest.

Source for images

The Trigger

The conflict escalated after Gucci released a promotional campaign on April 23, 2026, featuring both Song Weilong and Zhang Linghe in very similar styling. This led to intense comparisons and rivalry between their fanbases.

Recent discussions across platforms have referenced a studio statement from Song Weilong in connection with Zhang Linghe, often describing it as a “fandom conflict” or claiming that legal action has already been taken.

Some of that framing is imprecise or misleading, so this is a clarification based on how these situations are described in Chinese reporting and legal wording.

What was actually stated (legal wording)

Chinese-language reporting reproducing the lawyer statement describes:

evidence collection / preservation (取证 / 证据固定), including wording such as

“目前已经完成首批账号取证工作” (the first round of account evidence collection has been completed)

requests to stop infringement and delete improper content

and a notice that legal responsibility may be pursued, including

“保留追究民事或刑事责任的权利” (reserves the right to pursue civil or criminal liability).

-

This corresponds to a lawyer statement / rights-protection notice, not automatically to a confirmed lawsuit.

>Sources:
Sina-indexed report reproducing statement wording
Chinese-language report quoting the same legal phrasing
Song Weilong Official Studio Account

Lawsuit vs. legal preparation

Chinese legal wording distinguishes clearly between:
evidence collection (取证 / 证据固定)
reserving the right to pursue responsibility (保留追责权利)
and:
lawsuit filed / case accepted (起诉 / 立案)
The wording reproduced in reporting reflects legal preparation and warning, not confirmed court proceedings already underway.

Scope: individuals, not a fandom

The statement concerns:
specific online accounts and alleged infringing behavior
There is no reliable basis to extend this to:
an entire fandom
or to attribute those accounts collectively to any fan group

No actor-to-actor conflict

There is no indication in the statement wording or reporting that:
Zhang Linghe himself is involved in any legal action
or that this is a conflict between the actors

Unrelated commentary

Appearance-based claims (e.g. expressions, “natural face,” etc.):

are not part of any legal matter

are not evidence of anything factual

and only add noise to the discussion

No public statements from the actors

There are no confirmed public statements from either Song Weilong or Zhang Linghe regarding this situation.

Communication has been made through the studio and legal representatives, not by the actors themselves.

No statement from Zhang Linghe’s side — and what that suggests

There has been no confirmed statement or response from Zhang Linghe or his studio regarding this situation.
In cases where an issue directly implicates an artist, their official team will typically respond — whether to clarify, deny, or manage impact. The absence of any response here suggests that the matter is not being treated as involving him directly.
This aligns with the wording of the statement itself, which focuses on specific online accounts and alleged behavior rather than any artist.

A note on framing and escalation

As part of these communities, the way discussions are framed matters.
When legal wording is simplified into “lawsuits” or when isolated accounts are grouped into entire fandoms, it can quickly escalate into unnecessary conflict. People may feel pushed to “defend” one side or another, even when the underlying issue does not involve the artists themselves.

• It’s understandable that fans feel strongly about the artists they support. At the same time, it’s worth remembering:
  • every artist is someone’s favorite
  • none of us know these individuals personally
  • and none of us have more information than what has been officially communicated.

Keeping discussions grounded in what is actually stated — rather than expanding it into broader narratives — helps avoid amplifying situations beyond what they are.

Additional context — studio message on online conduct

The image above shows a post from Song Weilong’s studio Weibo account, calling for responsible online behavior in line with broader internet governance campaigns.

The caption reads:

>“Statement: We call on all internet users to actively respond to the Central Cyberspace Administration’s ‘Qinglang’ (Clean & Clear) initiative, to maintain a rational and healthy online environment. While expressing opinions, please remain independent in your thinking, distinguish right from wrong, and do not become participants in or promoters of infringing behavior. A clean online space requires all of us to protect it together.”

The attached document is the legal statement, translation of which I provide further down.

About sources

Sina (新浪) is one of China’s major media platforms and operates Sina News (新浪新闻), a widely used news portal that aggregates reporting and reproduces official statements from verified accounts.

The Sina pages referenced above reproduce wording from the lawyer statement as reflected in Chinese-language reporting and are used here as a traceable source for that wording.

• Keeping the discussion grounded in accurate terminology and individual accountability helps avoid unnecessary escalation and misrepresentation.

NoRecipe

-

-

Full Text Translation of the Statement (for your reference):

Lawyer Statement

>Shanghai Zhengce (Hangzhou) Law Firm (hereinafter referred to as "this firm") is commissioned by Mr. Song Weilong and his studio (hereinafter referred to as "the client") to issue the following statement regarding certain online users infringing upon Mr. Song Weilong's personal rights and other legitimate rights and interests:

>Based on existing materials and investigations, Weibo users "Xie*" (UID: 1534) and "Rong" (UID: 75*28) have posted content containing insulting and defamatory remarks. These contents have negatively affected the client's social evaluation and are suspected of infringing upon the client's personal rights.

>This firm's lawyers, on behalf of the client, solemnly demand that the relevant users mentioned above: immediately stop the infringing acts and take necessary measures such as deleting the relevant improper remarks to eliminate the negative impact. This firm has already collected evidence of the infringing acts based on the client's authorization.

>At the same time, this firm has also noticed relevant content posted by other Weibo users. For those that may contain improper remarks, especially involving insults and slander against the client's family members, it is suggested that relevant users timely self-check, handle with caution, and correct or delete them. This firm will continue to monitor the situation and, depending on the circumstances, legally pursue the civil legal liability of relevant subjects through methods including but not limited to filing civil lawsuits. Under circumstances that comply with legal provisions, the possibility of further pursuing relevant criminal liability is not excluded.

>This firm and the client solemnly appeal to all netizens to jointly respond to the call of the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission's "Clear and Bright" (Qinglang) campaign, maintain a rational and healthy online environment, maintain independent thinking and distinguish right from wrong when expressing views, and do not become participants or promoters of infringing acts. A clear cyberspace needs all of us to guard together.
Shanghai Zhengce (Hangzhou) Law Firm
April 25, 2026

Hi guys, I’m dropping in today with something a little bit… lengthy? I guess 😅
— but the topic has been on my mind for a long time, and I have discussed it in comment sections across different cdramaworld spaces here on Reddit.

For years, discussions about obsessive fandom behavior in Chinese entertainment mostly focused on the biggest stars: blockbuster drama leads, idol groups, and major traffic celebrities.

Now increasingly, the same behavior seems to be affecting Chinese actors from the booming micro-vertical-drama world too.

And some of the stories coming out are deeply unsettling.

——

Not “passionate support” — actual harassment

Over the past months, discussions on Weibo and Douyin have included repeated accounts of:

* fans camping outside hotels and residences;
* actors receiving waves of harassing phone calls;
* private schedules being leaked;
* people tracking celebrities during private travel;
* invasive filming during off-duty moments;
* fans waiting in stairwells, elevators, parking lots, and restaurants;
* individuals following cars or forcing interactions;
* retaliation campaigns after celebrities tried to establish boundaries.

At some point, this stops being “overenthusiastic fandom” and starts becoming harassment.

——

Micro-drama actors speaking out

Several actors from the short-drama space have publicly addressed these issues.

Yao Guanyu shared during a livestream that he received more than twenty harassing phone calls within roughly two hours, severely disrupting his rest.

Chen Tianxiang spoke about invasive tracking behavior involving fans trying to identify or approach his exact location during travel.

Ke Chun faced harassment severe enough that one individual allegedly pried open a car window to force a luxury gift box inside, alongside repeated phone harassment and tracking behavior.

Actress Cao Saiya emotionally described how a “super fan” relationship escalated into stalking, unauthorized recording, and later a smear campaign after she attempted to establish boundaries. According to her statements, the stress became serious enough that police involvement followed.

Actress Yue Yuting was also targeted during a livestream when a caller verbally attacked and cursed family members live on air.

Other names repeatedly appearing in discussions around similar incidents include Zhang Chi, Wu Tianhao, Wang Kaimu, and Ren Hao, among others.

Some studios have already issued public warnings condemning stalking, hotel surveillance, car-following, doxxing, and invasive filming.

——

“They signed up for fame” — did they?

One response always appears whenever this topic comes up:

> “Well, they chose celebrity life.”

I deeply disagree with the idea that public visibility means surrendering ordinary human boundaries.

Actors chose careers involving public attention.
They did not consent to:
* being followed during private travel;
* having strangers camp outside hotels;
* constant phone harassment;
* invasive filming during private moments;
* or living under conditions where ordinary friendships and routines become difficult because people constantly monitor and narrate their lives.

And I think one dangerous thing about these conversations is how quickly people start treating this behavior as inevitable.

“This is just fandom culture.”
“This is normal in C-ent.”
“It comes with the territory.”

But common and acceptable are not synonyms. And I feel like some of us have started loosing sense of that.

——

Why this is now affecting micro-drama actors too

The micro-drama boom created a new kind of celebrity environment:
extremely fast exposure,
constant online visibility,
highly interactive fan spaces,
and audiences who often feel unusually “close” to performers because of short-form content ecosystems.

At the same time, many rising actors do not necessarily have the security infrastructure or institutional protection available to major established stars (and even those struggle to protect themselves from the persistent mobs of fake fans, shisheng, daipai, and the likes…)

That combination can become volatile very quickly.

And social media intensifies all of it:
• livestream culture,
• constant updates,
• algorithmic engagement,
• “exclusive” sightings,
• traffic economies,
• and the monetization of proximity itself.

Eventually, the line between admiration and entitlement starts getting blurry.

——

Final thought

Fandom at its healthiest can be wonderful:
people bonding over stories, performances, music, and shared enthusiasm.

But admiration does not create ownership.

And I increasingly think audiences also need to reflect on what kinds of behavior they reward online — because invasive ecosystems survive not only through stalkers themselves, but through views, reposts, clicks, and viral circulation.

At minimum, I think it is worth asking:

What kind of fandom culture are we helping build?

One centered on appreciation and respect?

Or one where visibility slowly erases personhood?

——

Example clip I’m including for context: actor Ke Chun dealing with invasive fan behavior, including someone forcibly shoving an Hermès gift box through his car window, followed by an example of repeated phone harassment during a livestream.

Weibo clip — Ke Chun incident and livestream discussion

——

And since many people here also overlap with broader C-ent spaces:

If you also watch longer-format C-dramas, follow Chinese variety shows, movies, keep up with industry discussions, actors, or read Chinese web novels/manhua/manhwa and their adaptations, feel free to also check out and join r/ChineseDrama 🙂

Hi,

I moderate a subreddit using Reddit Automations and have configured a rule intended to block crossposts that do not include sufficient added body text / context.

The rule appears to work correctly in Reddit's built-in Automation Preview / simulation tool, and also when I try it out myself from iOS, but in live use by others, users are still sometimes able to submit crossposts that should have been blocked.

Automation setup:
- When: Posting
- Type: Crosspost
- Condition: Post Body → Matches regex
- Regex: (?s)^\s*.{0,99}\s*$
- Action: Block from submitting

A user-facing block message is configured, and in Preview the Automation behaves exactly as expected.

Expected result:
Crossposts with empty / near-empty / too-short added body text should be blocked from submission, and the user should receive the Automation guidance explaining what needs to be corrected before posting.

Actual result:
Some crossposts matching that blocked condition are still successfully submitted live.

Important note:
I do not know what platform / client those submitters are using (Android app, iOS app, desktop web, mobile web, etc.).

My working hypothesis is that Automation enforcement may be inconsistent across posting clients, or that some submission paths are bypassing enforcement even though Preview validates the rule correctly.

Platform used for setup/testing:
- Reddit for iOS
- Version: 2026.18.0
- Device: iPhone
(Sidenote for additional context: this is already my second regex implementation for this Automation. My original regex (`^[\s\S]{0,99}$`) also validated correctly in Automation Preview, but repeatedly failed to enforce reliably in live submissions. I replaced it with the current regex shown above, yet the issue persists.)

Impact:
This reduces transparency and creates avoidable friction for users. When the Automation fails to intercept the post, moderators later have to remove it manually. That means users never receive the intended real-time Automation guidance explaining what was wrong and how to fix it, which can feel discouraging and confusing from the user's perspective.

Attaching images.

——
Edit

ONE MORE ISSUE RELATED TO THE ABOVE

There also appears to be a visibility/display mismatch for crosspost body text.

In the iOS app, a crosspost may show an added body/commentary section above the embedded crosspost preview. However, when viewing the same post in Chrome or Safari — on desktop or mobile web — that added body text is not visible. Only the embedded crosspost preview appears.

This makes the Automation issue harder to diagnose because:
- the iOS app may show added crosspost context,
- web browsers may not display that same added body text,
- moderators cannot reliably tell whether the body field is being stored, displayed, or evaluated consistently across clients.

I am attaching screenshots showing the same crosspost viewed in the iOS app versus browser, where the visible body/context differs (in comments).

Thank you 🙏🏻

By popular demand (in another post), here it is.

This spread was released on May 30, 2025, as part of Vogue China’s June 2025 issue, and it’s easy to see why people kept bringing it up.

The concept moves between earthy, tactile studio shots — clay, pottery, warm tones, bare simplicity — and cleaner high-fashion frames styled with pieces from JW Anderson, Isabel Marant, Camperlab, and M Essential.

What I like is that it doesn’t feel one-note. Some shots are soft and quiet, others sharper and more striking. Different moods, same shoot, and it works.

Credit where due as well:

Photography: Liu Song (刘颂)
Styling: GIDE

Source: Weibo Stars_HauteCouture

Just a test