| Revision as of 08:20, 3 January 2007 editJsw663 (talk | contribs)1,615 edits →Response to your accusations on my talk page: Shrinking from criticism of your 'infalliable' pro-FG sources?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:54, 23 July 2023 edit undoB-bot (talk | contribs)Bots531,711 edits Notification that File:Wjd3photos.jpg is orphaned and will be deleted in seven days per WP:CSD#F5 | ||
| (446 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{retired}} | |||
| I sacrifice the integrity of wikipedia for my goals? what do you think my goal is?--] 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Havent been banned yet. == | |||
| : Hi Asdfg, I've responded to your Nov. 29 response regarding the Misplaced Pages Talk: Requests for mediation/ Falun Gong. I should also point out that randomly and baselessly accusing others of un-Misplaced Pages behavior is un-Wikipedian behavior in itself. ] 11:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| WP:AE is still in progress and several people have spoken in your defense ] (]) 16:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| haloo, if u used this language '''universal salvation to all sentient beings'''. i ask u did you founder teach (example: the wild dogs, crazy dogs, bunch of wolfs, tiger and shark) with meditation and lecture them did he do that? did the crazy dogs or shark understand his language? so i more considered humanity than universal its look vague to me if you used the word '''universal salvation to all sentient beings''', is there aprrrove or evidance that your founder talk with wild dogs, shark, tiger and suddenly they understand and follow meditation? and suddenly they not eat meat again forever even when times they over with meat? .] 15:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :thx, had meant to respond and explain. I wasn't trying to get out of sanctions (I didn't know it worked like that), just found the process unappealing. --]] 17:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==License tagging for Image:Falun Gong group practice in Paris 1999.jpg== | |||
| ::Retiring for a period to wait out and avoid sanctions is a very reasonable approach. I think it came out wrong I did not mean imply any sinister motivation. ] (]) 17:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for uploading ]. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an ] applied to the ] indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images. | |||
| == Arbitration enforcement topic ban: Falun Gong == | |||
| For more information on using images, see the following pages: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| In application and enforcement of ], per , you are indefinitely topic-banned (as per ]) from ]. I will consider lifting this sanction on appeal after at least a year of unproblematic editing. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| This is an automated notice by ]. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at ]. 22:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Main page appearance: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident == | |||
| == Response to your accusations on my talk page == | |||
| Reproduced here for you: | |||
| This is a note to let the main editors of ] know that the article will be appearing as ] on April 3, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at ]. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director {{user|Raul654}} or his delegate {{user|Dabomb87}}, or start a discussion at ]. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at ]. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below: | |||
| : Asdfg, your actions speak louder than your words. Your edits on the Falun Gong page, by supporting Omido's version, shows that you support a totally biased version and have no interest in seeing genuine NPOV. It has undone all the hard work put in by both sides to reach a consensus. Such un-wiki actions is worrying, because for a while there was a remote possibility that you were willing to adhere to WP:Civility. Accusing others who insist that you adhere to Misplaced Pages policy as supporters of the opposition is also distinctly unhelpful. And finally to address your post, show me some reliable non-pro-FG proof of the above, AND be willing to accept the CCP's rebuttal to such an allegation, THEN we can engage in the "frank discussion" you claim to be promoting. After all, if Falun Gong practitioners were 'defenders' of the 'truth', then what have they got to hide by letting the other side air their views? Why take such drastic steps to hide any criticism of FG? Is there something unworthy that must be hidden? If Falun Gong were really that good, why hasn't the entire world converted to Falun Gong? | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| : In the future, please adhere to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines when editing. If you show yourself to be a trustworthy editor who abides by, at the very least, Misplaced Pages rules, "frank discussion" can be engaged in and maybe a satisfactory compromise veresion can be agreed on. But as long as you support one side's version only despite having agreed on compromise versions on the discussion page of the Falun Gong entry backed up by your support for a version by someone who has persistently engaged in edit-warring and violated the 3RR rule over and over again, a final version will never be reached. Thus arises the question: are you, Asdfg, interested in arriving at a compromise version between the two camps that was a result of a constructive debate that adhered to Wiki policies? If so, please be careful of your words and actions in the future. Insulting admins like Fire Star, for example, is not a good start. ] 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The ''']''' took place in ] in central Beijing on 23 January 2001. The incident is disputed: the official Chinese press agency, ], stated that five members of ], a banned spiritual movement, set themselves on fire to protest the unfair treatment of Falun Gong by the Chinese government. The Falun Dafa Information Center stated the incident was a hoax staged by the Chinese government to turn public opinion against the group and to justify the torture and imprisonment of its practitioners. The incident received international news coverage, and video footage was broadcast later in the People's Republic of China by ]. A wide variety of opinions and interpretations of what may have happened emerged: the event may have been set up by the government, it may have been an authentic protest, or the self-immolators "new or unschooled" practitioners, among others. The campaign of state propaganda that followed the event eroded public sympathy for Falun Gong, and the government began sanctioning "systematic use of violence" against the group. (]) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ⚫ | ] (]) 23:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ==Dispute resolution survey== | |||
| ::: My response to your response on the FG talk page to my response above: | |||
| {| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5" | |||
| | ] | |||
| <big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Survey Invite'''''</big> | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. | |||
| '''Please click to participate.'''<br> | |||
| Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. | |||
| ---- | |||
| <small>You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| == Clarification motion == | |||
| I am happy and pleased to see that you are willing to work on this article to make it of high quality and relatively neutral. However, we must first get over what you pass off as facts, such as a 'genocide' of FG practitioners. FG practitioners via your websites have made numerous allegations but almost every point has been met with an official Communist Party of China's rebuttal. If you question once again whether I'm merely some CCP mouthpiece, it would be wise to remember that the CCP actually denies they are even suppressing FG practitioners; I'm not denying that some degree of limitation / restriction of FG practice/practitioners is going on. This is not the same as genocide. However, it is being exaggerated and when more fabrications are used to support what were initially facts then one is inevitably left to question your intentions. Since the 'clampdown' of FG is tremendously controversial, it would be better for an encyclopedia, in keeping with its NPOV policy, to present both sides' views without pre-determining the information for the public. | |||
| If you agree that Omido's behavior is worrying then perhaps you'd like to join in the mediation case I've initiated against him. I've deliberately NOT resorted to seeking blocks, bans or ArbCom decisions against him because I want constructive debate from both sides. However, if he persists in being unreasonable and you can show that the majority of FG practitioners are not so, maybe some of the negative perceptions of FG can be dispelled. | |||
| Regarding the Fire Star insult point, it was questioning her (?) commitment to NPOV / neutrality. If the user was not deemed responsible then Fire Star wouldn't have been 'approved' as an administrator. Regarding Tomananda, he is only as biased towards the other end as you are biased towards FG. Note that I don't think we have someone who has represented the CCP (the 'official' anti-FG people) view in this discussion yet, so please don't judge me by my introduction of two Xinhua news sources in English that have addressed the issue of FG (although such sites cannot stay on the page with section blankers). In the end, as long as all sides of the FG debate are committed to working towards a GA or better status for this article, we'll have done our role as Wiki editors in improving Wiki as an encyclopedic source. But to maintain this commitment we first need to weed out those who seek to stop our commitment towards this goal! Jsw663 10:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A case (]) in which you were involved has been modified by {{oldid2|631252824|Motion|motion}} which changed the wording of the ] to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --]] 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : My response to your refusal to consider my challenge to pro-FG sources such as the Kilgour-Matas report (also reproduced on the FG discussion page) - | |||
| == ] == | |||
| : Asdfg, you demanded that I read pro-FG sources which I have done numerous times before but never have I done a detailed critique. You then say I cannot qualify my comments without doing so. Now that I've done a detailed critique you say that there's no point replying. Is this the 'constructive debate' pro-FGers are capable of? | |||
| : Did you even READ what I wrote above? Point by point? I said the Kilgour-Matas report reads like a FG propaganda leaflet because it does not base its sources on facts. It draws conclusions based on leaps of logic and a few phone calls. Since it is not based on facts it has NOT, I repeat NOT proven any genocide or persecution as having existed, ever. But then the problem of utter bigotry isn't on my part now, is it - the one refusing to read critique of your allegations is brushed off as 'misguided' somehow. Do you not realize the sheer absurdity of your comments? But then if you did maybe you wouldn't be able to place yourself under the spell of Li Hongzhi. | |||
| : The CCP seems to be stopping any possibility of a personality cult that will personally benefit Li Hongzhi. This is to stop a person who has constantly sought to overthrow the CCP and install himself in power (which he will claim he'll do so 'reluctantly', if he succeeds). There is nothing 'evil' about this clampdown at all but to protect national security. | |||
| : You accuse me of not being neutral although I back up every single point with the appropriate Wikipedian policy or argument point. You claim to be working for wikipedia / encyclopedic content but have no interest in stopping vandals. In fact, you promote their version then claim it was a 'mistake'. You say I have no 'righteous thoughts' although you never base this on anything. Accuse the CCP of something and base it on a fact, then we can analyze it. Accuse the CCP of something, exaggerate it with fabrications then pass it off as a fact, is nothing short of slander. Look at how hypocritical your comments are first. Who's encouraging you not to think for yourself? | |||
| : The 'objective evidence' used is suspect in credibility and one-sided. I pointed out inconsistencies, such as the surgeon's wife's testimony, despite it being 'credible' due to immense 'detail', yet not a single detail could be proven as fact or backed up by a truly independent source, or that somehow the CCP left no traces of killings or torture behind yet they spilt lots of 'evidence' via phone calls. What is your response? To repeat the same tired old propaganda again? Is this the sign of an independent thinker? Can you respond to this question? | |||
| : Asdfg your sheer refusal to air any views not given by Li Hongzhi or pro-FG source demonstrates two things - narrow-mindedness and total lack of independent thinking. This is further supported by a complete intolerance of non-pro-FG supported criticism, or at least drastically reduced in quantity, and only about points which the pro-FG propaganda machine has already addressed via exaggerations and half-truths. I claim relative neutrality and have shown that I deal with both sides' sources equally. You claim relative neutrality yet are totally unable to form opinions of your own, consider sources equally and make excuses like taking a Wikibreak when you cannot find a Li Hongzhi-approved answer. It's time you reflected on your own logic first before you accuse others of being 'evil'. If not, your accusations hold as much weight as all the "facts" and "evidence" used, which essentially consists of wild speculations and outrageous logic-twisting. "Genocide" and "persecution" cannot be justified on a few suspicious phone calls. The least you could do would be to respond to my detailed critique of the K-M report. Shame on you, Asdfg, for not being able to practice what you preach or demand of others. ] 08:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Falun Gong == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692039973 --> | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| Hi. Before I respond to your comment on my talk page, could you please provide a rough demographic background of yourself so I can correctly phrase my response? ]+(]) 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>'''Unused, low-res, no obvious use.'''</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| I wonder how I should put this. Before I go forth I must say I admire your faith and level of understanding in philosophy. I have studied the works of Plato and in fact recently compared it to The Matrix in terms of their parallel philosophies, I enjoyed both works. Whether or not you are actually a 21-year-old living in Canberra I will not go beyond my comfort zone to attempt to confirm, but from my understanding you are not ethnically Chinese. You have been searching for a purpose, an underlying philosophy about life which you seemed to have found in Falun Gong. For this, I say again, I admire your faith. I am here to bring to submission that I have not reached that level of understanding myself. | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| As a subscriber to certain taoist and buddhist beliefs myself, please understand me when I say I find it difficult to relate to Falun Gong. I have read parts of Zhuan Falun, watched many Falun videos while I was in China (long before the crackdown), my understanding of it comes from years of discussions with religious experts, practicing buddhists and taoists, and political analysts, as well as my personal experiences. I have talked to many Falun Gong practitioners myself. I will not attempt to debate with you about your beliefs as I think it would be unfair to interfere with them, as I consider it rude for someone else to come and interfere with my own. What I will say here is that from the empirical evidence I have gathered, Falun Gong's founder, Li Hongzhi, and its practices within China before the crackdown were at best, questionable if not outright illegitimate, bordering on being fraudulent. I am not against any of the major principles of Falun Gong, I am but trying to voice a concern that these principles were abused in a way not generally understood in the West. Every time I bring forth these facts I am always considered a lier and a dog of the Communist Party of China. Anything I say against Li is an attempt at slandering his image on behalf of the CPC. I feel that this treatment is unfair and deeply deprecating of my person and beliefs. | |||
| Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --]<sup>«¦]¦»</sup> 06:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ] |
||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Wjd3photos.jpg== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 02:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Do you have an e-mail? Perhaps it will make our communication easier. ]+(]) 23:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. I just returned from the New Year's party. Anyway, I wanted to communicate through messenger because it would be real-time communication. If you dislike the method then I will simply write more here on your talk page until further notice. ]+(]) 08:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, you can add me on Windows Live Messenger with my account hongshi_fang@hotmail.com if you also use this form of instant messaging. ]+(]) 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I must head out to a New Year's Party. However feel free to e-mail me or talk to me on Messenger with the aforementioned e-mail address. From my understanding your e-mail was asd@mm.st? Perhaps I got it wrong. Cheers, Happy New Year. ]+(]) 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:54, 23 July 2023
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.Havent been banned yet.
WP:AE is still in progress and several people have spoken in your defense The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- thx, had meant to respond and explain. I wasn't trying to get out of sanctions (I didn't know it worked like that), just found the process unappealing. --Asdfg12345 17:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Retiring for a period to wait out and avoid sanctions is a very reasonable approach. I think it came out wrong I did not mean imply any sinister motivation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement topic ban: Falun Gong
In application and enforcement of WP:AFLG#Motions, per this AE thread, you are indefinitely topic-banned (as per WP:TBAN) from Falun Gong. I will consider lifting this sanction on appeal after at least a year of unproblematic editing. Sandstein 23:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Main page appearance: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
This is a note to let the main editors of Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 3, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/April 3, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident took place in Tiananmen Square in central Beijing on 23 January 2001. The incident is disputed: the official Chinese press agency, Xinhua News Agency, stated that five members of Falun Gong, a banned spiritual movement, set themselves on fire to protest the unfair treatment of Falun Gong by the Chinese government. The Falun Dafa Information Center stated the incident was a hoax staged by the Chinese government to turn public opinion against the group and to justify the torture and imprisonment of its practitioners. The incident received international news coverage, and video footage was broadcast later in the People's Republic of China by China Central Television. A wide variety of opinions and interpretations of what may have happened emerged: the event may have been set up by the government, it may have been an authentic protest, or the self-immolators "new or unschooled" practitioners, among others. The campaign of state propaganda that followed the event eroded public sympathy for Falun Gong, and the government began sanctioning "systematic use of violence" against the group. (more...)
UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Asdfg12345. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Clarification motion
A case (Falun Gong) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:FLG highest education status in three cities.jpg
The file File:FLG highest education status in three cities.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused, low-res, no obvious use.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax 06:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Wjd3photos.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Wjd3photos.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
