Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:51, 24 August 2009

Archives

Archive 1

Starting Anew- April 30th, 2008

Physics related Edits

In this section, I'll be keeping track of all major physics related edits I've made and will also try to outline the reasons for the edits.

In Uniform Circular Motion

Original:

The above picture shows a point of mass that is moving with a constant angular speed around a center. When the change in angle is ${\displaystyle \Delta \theta }$ , the change in displacement is ${\displaystyle \Delta }$s. Using the relationship of trigonometric functions, we find that,
${\displaystyle \Delta s={\frac {r\sin \Delta \theta }{\cos(\Delta \theta /2)}}}$

This equation is only valid when ${\displaystyle \Delta \theta }$ does not equal ${\displaystyle (2n+1)\pi }$ where n is integer.
Similarly, the magnitude of tangential speed is always the same. Let ${\displaystyle \Delta v}$ be the change in velocity, v be the initial velocity or instantaneous velocity, and ${\displaystyle \Delta t}$ be the change in time,
${\displaystyle \Delta v={\frac {v\sin \Delta \theta }{\cos(\Delta \theta /2)}}}$
${\displaystyle {\frac {\Delta s}{\Delta t}}={\frac {r\sin \Delta \theta }{\Delta t\cos(\Delta \theta /2)}}}$

When ${\displaystyle \Delta t\to 0}$, ${\displaystyle \Delta \theta \to 0}$,

${\displaystyle \lim _{{\Delta t}\to 0}{\frac {\Delta s}{\Delta t}}=\lim _{\Delta t\to 0}{\frac {r\sin \Delta \theta }{\Delta t\cos(\Delta \theta /2)}}}$

${\displaystyle v=\lim _{\Delta t\to 0}{\frac {r\Delta \theta }{\Delta t}}}$
${\displaystyle v=r{\frac {d\theta }{dt}}=r\omega }$ (${\displaystyle \omega }$ is angular speed)
${\displaystyle {\frac {r}{\Delta s}}={\frac {\cos(\Delta \theta /2)}{\sin \Delta \theta }}={\frac {v}{\Delta v}}}$
${\displaystyle \Delta v={\frac {v\Delta s}{r}}}$
${\displaystyle {\frac {\Delta v}{\Delta t}}={\frac {v\Delta s}{r\Delta t}}}$
${\displaystyle \lim _{\Delta t\to 0}{\frac {\Delta v}{\Delta t}}=\lim _{\Delta t\to 0}{\frac {v\Delta s}{r\Delta t}}}$
${\displaystyle a={\frac {v^{2}}{r}}}$

Because ${\displaystyle v=r\omega \!}$
We can substitute into ${\displaystyle a={\frac {v^{2}}{r}}}$
to get: ${\displaystyle a={\frac {(r\omega )^{2}}{r}}=r\omega ^{2}}$

Changed:

Magnitude

Assume ${\displaystyle \omega \!}$ is the angle in radians the body covers in unit time - in other words, the angular velocity of the body. Note that the rotational motion being uniform here we may choose any arbitrary unit for time with no change to the value of ${\displaystyle \omega \!}$ - so, without loss of generality, we assume that our unit of time is infinitesimally small.

The velocity vector, being always tangential to the circle, also turns by an angle ${\displaystyle \omega \!}$ in unit time.

The magnitude of instantaneous acceleration, by definition ,is the magnitude of vector change in velocity in an infinitesimally small period of time. The vector representing this is represented in blue in the above diagram. Since our unit of time is infinitesimally small, for all finite velocities, so will be ${\displaystyle \omega \!}$. Hence, the magnitude of the acceleration vector is ${\displaystyle v\omega \!}$.

Thus, we can conclude that the instantaneous acceleration experienced by a body in uniform circular motion is ${\displaystyle v\omega \!}$.

We may substitute ${\displaystyle v=r\omega \!}$ in ${\displaystyle a=v\omega \!}$ to get:
${\displaystyle a={\frac {v^{2}}{r}}}$

Direction

Since the magnitude of velocity never changes, the direction of the acceleration vector can only be perpendicular to the velocity vector. It can be seen from the diagram that this acceleration vector must point to the center of the circle.

Reason for Edit:

The original derivation was unnecessarily complex and leaves the reader with no feel for the underlying physics. I believe this derivation is direct and elegant - and the same time lets the reader see directly why the magnitude is v*v/r.

In Buoyancy

Original:

Pressure increases with depth below the surface of a liquid. Any object with a non-zero vertical depth will see different pressures on its top and bottom, with the pressure on the bottom being higher. This difference in pressure causes the upward buoyancy force.

The hydrostatic pressure at a depth h in a fluid is given by

${\displaystyle P=\rho hg\,}$

where

${\displaystyle \rho \,}$ is the density of the fluid,

${\displaystyle h\,}$ is the depth (negative height), and

${\displaystyle g\,}$ is the standard gravity (${\displaystyle \scriptstyle \approx \,}$ -9.8 N/kg on Earth)

The force due to pressure is simply the pressure times the area. Using a cube as an example, the pressure on the top surface (for example) is thus

${\displaystyle F_{\mathrm {top} }=d^{2}\rho h_{\mathrm {top} }g\,}$

where ${\displaystyle d}$ is the length of the cube's edges. The buoyant force is then the difference between the forces at the top and bottom

${\displaystyle F_{\mathrm {buoyancy} }=d^{2}\rho h_{\mathrm {top} }g-d^{2}\rho h_{\mathrm {bottom} }g\,}$

which reduces to

${\displaystyle F_{\mathrm {buoyancy} }=d^{2}\rho g({h_{\mathrm {top} }}-{h_{\mathrm {bottom} }})\,}$

in the case of a cube, the difference in ${\displaystyle h\,}$ between the top and bottom is ${\displaystyle -d\,}$, so

${\displaystyle F_{\mathrm {buoyancy} }=-d^{3}\rho g\,}$

or

${\displaystyle F_{\mathrm {buoyancy} }=-\rho Vg\,}$

where V is the volume of the cube, ${\displaystyle d^{3}\,}$

The negative magnitude implies that it is in the opposite direction to gravity. It can be demonstrated mathematically that this formula holds true for any submerged shape, not just a cube.

Changed:

The magnitude of buoyant force may be appreciated from the following argument. Consider any volume of liquid of arbitrary shape and volume ${\displaystyle V\,}$. The body of liquid being in equilibrium, the net force the surrounding body of liquid exerts on it must be equal to the weight of that volume of liquid and directed opposite to gravitational force. That is, of magnitude:

${\displaystyle \rho Vg\,}$ , where ${\displaystyle \rho \,}$ is the density of the liquid, ${\displaystyle V\,}$ is the volume of the body of liquid , and ${\displaystyle g\,}$ the standard gravity (${\displaystyle \scriptstyle \approx \,}$ -9.8 N/kg on Earth)

Now, if we replace this volume of liquid by a solid body of the exact same shape, the force the surrounding body of liquid exerts on it must be exactly the same as above. In other words the "buoyant force" on a submerged body is directed in the opposite direction to gravity and is equal in magnitude to : ${\displaystyle \rho Vg\,}$ ( note that here ${\displaystyle V\,}$ is the volume of fluid displaced by the body )

Reason for Edit:

The original derivation was unnecessarily lengthy and leaves the reader with no real understanding of the underlying physics. I believe this derivation is direct and elegant - and the same time lets the reader feel the physics behind it.

Special Relativity and Time Dilation.. a thought

Pertinent Article:Time Dilation

Just a thought.. it would be completely valid to presume as foundational postulate to special relativity that all objects age/move the same in space-time (dt) ^2 +(ds)^2 is exactly the same for all objects observed in a particular inertial frame.. where dt is how much i percieve the body to have "aged".. while ds is how much i percieve the body to have "moved" spatially in that interval. Distance obviously being measured in 'c' units. Needless to say, time dilation results immediately follow from that assumption. A more elegant way of understanding the result i feel than the usual textbook derivation. Lets the reader appreciate that space and time are not two separate entities but things we percieve as seperate - a limitation imposed by human senses. While the concept space-time is what truly makes sense.

time dilation( and other) results follow intuitively.. ( clock (1) at rest vs clock(2) moving at velocity v:

(dt1)^2 = (dt2)^2 +((v*dt1)/c )^2

dt2=dt1*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sunrise profile dilip.jpg missing description details

Move of Falun Gong and live organ harvesting

I have reverted your "move" because you did it the wrong way, per copy and paste. To move a page, you must use the "move" function at the top of the page, or else the history of the old page won't be carried over. See WP:MOVE. Also, before moving such a page, please make sure that you have consensus for it, and use correct capitalisation: "Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China" instead of "Reports of Organ Harvesting from Live Falun Gong Practitioners in China". Sandstein (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And please use edit summaries with your edits. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi there I've taken the liberty to be bold and archived your talk page from the history. It is bad practice to blank your talk page when you want to start anew, please see Help:Archiving a talk page for more details on how to archive the next time you want to start anew. --antilived 01:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou :)

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiannamen Sq incident

Kindly do not revert when consensus is overwhelmingly against you, per WP:DE WP:EW and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello back

You greeted me at my user page, and I want to say hello back. However, I am presently being considered for a one-year ban from wikipedia, and because this could happen any day, I want you to know that I received your greeting and greet you back. You may be interested in the discussion for the Arb committee on the subject of homeopathy that is presently taking place but may finish very shortly at: You may also want to see the Workshop page and the Proposed decision pages too, as well as the Discussion pages for each of these items. I do not mean to "canvass" you. I would send a similar message to anyone who contacted me directly through my user page and who does not seem to be aware of the Arb case at this moment. DanaUllman 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

CIPFG

If you get some free time, please have a look here, I would appreciate your comments on the CIPFG and Epoch Times, as they relay to the FG series of articles as a whole. MrPrada (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:1999OrganTransplantRise.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1999OrganTransplantRise.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

rfc on bobby

I have notified Bobby fletcher that I will open an RfC on his conduct if he continues. I don't know if this is canvassing, as it's not my intention. Someone else needs to write on his talk page, asking him not to do any more incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, etc.. You may wish to do so. diffs:

1. personal attacks, some assuming bad faith: , , ,
2. attempt at "outing", sometimes with personal attacks mixed in: , , -- Please note, these are only a sample. Attempted "outing" goes back months, and Fred Bauder oversighted it. But the user has continued recently.
3. original research: -- Please note, the user has not aggressively reinserted this after it was pointed out

--Asdfg12345 01:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Please stop and discuss all major changes on the talk page first as it is a sensitive topic. antilived 11:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am only adding well sourced material to the article - especially from danny schechter's reports and reader on the persecution. Kindly review my edits.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You have completely ignored the NPOV policy and instead presented the article solely from the perspective of FLG. The new intro is not an intro at all, and completely discredits the CCP's side of the story ("five people apparently attempted"? "which claimed the immolators were Falun Gong practitioners"??) while stating the FLG side of the story as fact by including extensive quotations from the FLG press release, creating undue weight (why no quotation from Xinhua?). You have removed the {{NPOV}} tag placed by HappyInGeneral when your edits are disputed by other people in talk page, and have been oblivious to the talk page for 3 days when you did your edits. You have removed valid section of "Beyond the Limits of Forbearance" and in general had gone against the spirit of Misplaced Pages of collaboration and cooperation. The article is in a much poorer shape now thanks to your POV additions and subtractions, and you still continues to ensure ownership of the article by constant edit/revert. Is that not enough evidence? --antilived 06:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You can look at commentary from schechter or ian johnson all of them use the same words. The CCP media is the only source to have claimed the self-immolators were practitioners

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The section beyond the limits of forbearance is still there - its entirety. Merely that anoter user:asdf1234 or somebody had changed its title following my edits

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I had mistaken the removal as I saw it on the diff it had been removed, when it had been moved around. But your addition had created huge undue weight towards Schechter reports, being mentioned 18 times in the whole article, compared to 3 to the version before your string of edits. It does not matter that the source used exactly the same words, in fact the fact that you have quoted the reports puts the article to the POV of the source, which is clearly in violation of NPOV. I have put up a notice on WP:ANI on your recent disruptive edits for being completely oblivious of consensus against the change, and I sincerely suggest you to refrain from any further addition until consensus had been reached on the NPOV nature of the addition and that it does not give undue weight to one sourcee. --antilived 08:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Schechter's work is one of the most comprehensive and an award winning work on the topic. It is not his own analysis, h draws upon a wide variety of sources - from RSF to beijing correspondents of international news agencies. I dont think it is accurate to call my edits "disruptive", I merely attempted, in good faith, to add structure to the article, to bring attention to analysis from schechter, wall street journal's ian johnson and also from other reputable sources.

08:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have reviewed this matter, and the ArbCom restriction, and have blocked you for 48 hours so that the edits you have made to the article may be reviewed, discussed and amended as required - in accordance to consensus. At present I am not minded to place you on a topic ban, as I see that you have in the past properly discussed your edits, but should you continue to edit the article without reference to the considerations of other editors it may be an option. I suggest that you return to using dialogue to promote the incorporation of your preferred references. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, you will be blocked for vandalism. I have already warned you on User talk:218.248.68.63. If you continue you WILL be blocked for disruptive editing. antilived 04:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see where he comment from the anonymous IP is soured from - directly from a CCP website. RSF calls CCP the worlds biggest propaganda agency. Further, I don't think its a coincidence that such things show up on this page - US Congress, HR organizations all have reported on how the CCP has extended his propaganda campaign outside of china, even to the point of physical assault of practitioners and supporters - even in new york. Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And see where most of the FLG article sources came from? Clearwisdom? WOIPFPG? Don't you think it's highly hypocritical and biased for you to say that anything from Mainland China is propaganda? The People's Daily reports Olympics in Beijing, does it mean that it's pure propaganda and that the real Olympics is in Atlantis? Phoenix TV as neutral as you can get in China, and far more neutral than NTDTV from what I have seen, and yet you say it's propaganda? It is AGAINST Misplaced Pages policy to remove other people's comments without a very good reason, and your reason is blatantly insufficient and it's highly pre-judged of you to remove everything that goes against FLG on sight, claiming it's propaganda. I can say the same thing for FLG practitioners spreading their propaganda to the point of assaulting me and my friends as we passed by on our daily business, physically stopping me and shoving me with pamphlets. Such hypocrisy. --antilived 05:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty notes that all protests by Falun Gong have been entirely peaceful even in china, even during the period when the persecution was the harshest. David Ownby notes" violence of any sort is so alien to falun gong".

Against this most brutal persecution, where practitioners have lost the lives of friends and their closest family, they have protested only in the most peaceful manner - by passing out flyers, sitting in silent meditation outside consulates, etc. Falun Gong's human rights work has been commended on highly by analysts.

Also, kindly see these pages - they are very much worth reading:

• "Sowing Confusion." The article is also about a user, who has been pushing CCP propaganda, on the articles talk page. The last paragraph of the article is particularly interesting.

• Sowing confusion: embarrassed by reports of live organ harvesting, China's sympathizers launch a high-tech disinformation campaign.(CHINA)

How could we allow such, CCP paid and sponsored disinformation campaign pushers to run rampant on these pages? Invariably that is completely against wikipedia policies. That is the main concern I have against such propagandistic edits.

Also note that just above the propagandistic edit on the talk page, we have a user raising concerns where a neutral editor "omvegan" disappeared after posting his email on this talk page. These are matters of extremely serious and genuine concern.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, "Your time is running out" is so peaceful. Hey, who pay and sponsor FLG media outlets like NTDTV and various sites such as clearwisdom, WOIPFG, faluninfo etc.? And yet they are allowed to be used as sources? Your double standards intrigue me, Dilip. --antilived 06:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A note: Falun Gong have top sources vouching for the veracity of their reportage, like David Ownby, Human Rights Watch, Arthur Waldron, David Matas and David Kilgour, and on and on. Their sources have strong external support. The CCP has none of this, and those same sources state clearly that the CCP's information is pure propaganda. So it's not a legitimate comparison. For the purposes of these articles, Falun Gong sources are still primary sources. Primary sources can be used in articles about themselves, and of course there are various rules about how this is to be done. But Falun Gong sources are regarded as legitimate by high quality, independent sources, and they are far more relevant to the Falun Gong articles than thoroughly discredited CCP sources are. Just for an example, this is from David Ownby's recent book. This guy is like the Falun Gong scholar, like the highest quality source on Falun Gong available: "I fully and openly acknowledge that the Chinese government’s campaign against Falun Gong has constituted and continues to constitute a grievous, tragic violation of the human rights of those practitioners who have been arrested, tortured, and killed… I accept as true much of what Falun Gong publications have to say about the brutality of the Chinese state’s campaign against them… These violations have been exposed and condemned by such well-known human rights organizations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as by numerous Falun Gong organizations, whose quite professional publications have been generally accepted as legitimate and trustworthy by these human rights organizations." (emphasis mine) This is in the introduction.--Asdfg12345 08:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis on "by these human rights organizations". It's debatable whether self-published sources are really good sources on Misplaced Pages, but this is hardly the place to debate about it is it? No one would want to disrupt the talk page of Dilip rajeev for unrelated matter, would they? --antilived 09:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent AIV report

Just letting you know, I've moved your report to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Antilived (moved from AIV). Feel free to continue there. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful what you call vandalism, cause this clearly was not. Cheers, Tiptoety 06:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I had repeatedly pointed out that the source used itself is completely biased and unworthy of inclusion in the article - kindly read the user's response to my comments on the article's talk page. One the surface this may seem like just commntary added from a video, - but the video itself is a pure propaganda piece from the CCP - and that is why I felt the edit was a serious violation of wikipedia policies. The article and related article are on probation by the Arbitration Committe - and addition of such content, despite repeated requests to refrain I feel is clearly disruptive.

I request you to kindly investigate the issue in greater depth.. the matter is not as simple as a commentary from a video being added to the article - where the video is sourced from, it being well documented that the source is engaged in a massive dis-information propaganda campaign; despite repeatedly being pointed out that the source itself is not something that even remotely conforms to wikipedia standards, the user's insistence that the commentary be added to the article - an article that is on probation by the Arbitration Committee - that is what i considered very much worthy of intervention from Administrators. Dilip rajeev (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

re: user talk:PCPP

please desist from posting (or reverting back) false vandalism warnings at user talk pages. Also, reverting back the warning to PCPP not to make edits without good edit summaries is a bit hypocritical, since you yourself as used false vandalism claims in various edit summaries lately. --Soman (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The tag was not added by me - and was added for vandalism on several pages. The tag can, by no means, be characterized a "false tag."

Dilip rajeev (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

in this edit you reverted back two warnings pasted by Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs). One warning on usage of edit summaries (not very apt, considering Asdfg12345's own faulty edit summaries), one obviously false warning on vandalism. Misplaced Pages:Vandalism stipulates what vandalism is and isn't. Content disputes are not vandalism. --Soman (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I could not see any vandalism in PCPP's edits. Please note that content disputes are not vandalism. You and PCPP obviously disagree on many issues, and should try to work for a compromise. Vandalism accusations is not helpful for the process. Since the vandalism warning was clearly faulty, i don't see why PCPP shouldn't delete it from his/her own userpage. Regarding the edit summaries, PCPP's edit summaries are sometimes lacking, a very few times a bit rude, but certainly not outside of WP:CIVIL. 'get lost' was part of a longer sentence (not "get lost!" or something similar). the 'ass' commentary wasn't directed against any individual wikipedian. --Soman (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Communist Party of China. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Soman (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 55 hours for edit warring on Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir,

I am sorry about repeatedly reverting, but kindly note that the edits I reverted were obvious vandalism, identified as vandalism by another editor too. The particular user, PCPP, has been repeatedly engaging in vandalism on these pages. He had engaged in a similar pattern of vandalism on Aug 4, vandalizing almost all Falun Gong related pages on the same day.

The particular edit I had reverted were characterized as vandalism by another editor also and a warning tag had been to the user's talk page. The tag was removed by PCPP, repeatedly, with no discussion.

Please compare the vanalistic edit made by PCPP on Aug 4: to teh one made today - exactly the same - removal of several apragaraphs of text. I believe I was right in assumming this was a genuine case of vandalism - kindly point out to me if i am wrong.

Removal of content of Aug 4:

Removal of content on Aug 16:

Please note that the edits I reverted was genuine vandalism, involving removal of several paragraphs of well sourced text, iamges and graphs.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

this is not vandalism. Tiptoety 17:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, Kindly note that pages of agreed upon content ( very well sourced,all from Amnesty, Kilgour-Matas Reports, US Congress reports etc) were deleted in that edit, several images had been removed, the info box on the right had been removed, almost every section renamed, and some of the well sourced material replaced with almost irrelevant and poorly sourced stuff - all without a single line of discussion on the talk page . - Exactly what the user had attempted to do before on august 4.

Also please note the kind of language the user had been resorting to in his recent edit summaries. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to read Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong, and if you still disagree with my block please request a second opinion by using the unblock template. Tiptoety 17:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I firmly believe what I reverted was blatant vandalism, involving removal of pages of content and data.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have also removed Twinkle from this account seeing as you continually revert non-vandalism edits as vandalism. I hope that by removing the tool you will use the undo button forcing you to create a edit summary. Tiptoety 20:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for being injudicious with using the tool .. Please be assured that I'll be more careful with reverts in the future..

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Unblock

Dilip rajeev (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reverts I had done, I believe, constituted reverting of obvious vandalism. The edit of the user, which I was forced to revert, included: *Deletion of pages of well sourced content - including from Amnesty, Kilgour MAtas Reports, a Yale Univeristy Thesis,, US Congress reports,etc. A 5739 word article, shortened to 3162 words. And addition of an entirely new section, with content that fails WP:RS * Since I believe deletion of 45% of the article ( all of which were highly sourced - from sources of the highest repute on the subject including Amnesty, KM reports etc) without a single word of discussion on talk pages, constitute obvious vandalism, I believe I was justified in reverting it. *Note that the material he appended at teh end of the article was material in completel violation of WP:RS, sourced from a Chinese propaganda website. * Also please note that the user had renamed almost every single section, and completely messed up the layout of the entire article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've taken a look at the article history, and these edits were clearly not vandalism. It was a clear content dispute, and the continuous reverting from you wasn't constructive. The block serves a protective purpose because you clearly don't understand what constitutes vandalism, and what doesn't and edit warred to break the three revert rule. I therefore have to decline this request. — Ryan Postlethwaite 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The edit, which I was forced to revert, included:

• Deletion of pages of well sourced content - including from Amnesty, Kilgour MAtas Reports, a Yale Univeristy Thesis,, US Congress reports,etc. A 5739 word article, shortened to 3162 words and removal of entire sections and a very relevant image. And addition of an entirely new section, with content that fails WP:RS

• Since I believe deletion of 45% of the article ( all of which were highly sourced - from sources of the highest repute on the subject including Amnesty, KM reports etc) without a single word of discussion on talk pages, constitute obvious vandalism, I believe I was justified in reverting it.

• Note that the material he appended at teh end of the article was material in complete violation of WP:RS, sourced from a Chinese propaganda website.

• Also please note that the user had renamed almost every single section, and completely messed up the layout of the entire article.

• Also note that another editor had added a vandalism warning tag to the user's page for the particular edit. This user, PCPP, kept deleting the tag from his talk page, despite repeated requests not to.

• If the lead is not taken into consideration, the user had removed 50% of text in the article. The image he removed, of a graph comparing transplant times in various countries was also central to the commentary in the article

Dilip rajeev (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Kindly note that the edit on which I did the revert included blanking of 50% of the body of a stable, existing article, without a word of discussion on the talk page, and further with a specious edit summary. If that doesnot constitute vandalism - I wonder does ?

Decline reason:

Ryan's advice is sage and you should consider heeding it. The block is justified and stands. east718 // talk // email // 03:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You need to re-examine your interpretation of vandalism. AFAICT, it is rather knee-jerk reaction to anything you appear to dislike, whereas in fact it is defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.". None of the changes you objected to are attempts to compromise WP's integrity, they only challenge a version of the truth as viewed from your perspective. Thus, they are merely content disputes and edit-warring on the part of PCPP and you with the assistance of asdfg, and would appreciate it if you used the term for its proper meaning. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Content blanked by User:PCPP and Response to Ohconfucius

Part of Material repeatedly blanked by User:PCPP without a word of discussion

( please note this is only part of the material removed. The user had removed it with a false, and misleading edit summary and no discussion and had ignored concerns raised to the effect both on his talk page and the article's discussion page. Attempts made to restore the content were countered by the user with completely misleading edits carrying the summary "rv vandalism" and redeletion of the same )

Kilgour and Matas state that one of the “most disturbing” moments in researching the report was the discovery of a massive population of imprisoned Falun gong practitioners who remained unidentified. Falun Gong prisoners of conscience may refuse to give their names for fear of persecution against their families. In these cases, no one outside the prison system knows their whereabouts. They state that there is a significant lack of representation among freed Falun Gong practitioners, from those who failed to self identify while they were imprisoned—these 'disappearances', the authors contend, are ready candidates for live organ harvesting.

Investigative reports from Sky News and BBC add evidence to the findings of the Kilgour-Matas report. The Christian Science Monitor says the report’s evidence is circumstantial but persuasive. The Chinese Embassy in Canada dismissed the Kilgour-Matas report soon after its release as "rumors and totally groundless," stating that China abided by World Health Organization principles. Amnesty International considers this statement "to be at odds with the facts in view of the widely documented practice of the buying and selling of organs of death penalty prisoners in China."

On Apr 19, 2006, Sky News went undercover with cameras inside Chinese hospitals where nurses and doctors confirmed readily-available organs are taken from prisoners, and that the hospital's abundance of donors is due to its close connections with Chinese security forces. Sky News' Website says that "China has been accused of taking organs from executed prisoners to supply the international transplant market. British surgeons say there is evidence that prisoners are being selected as potential donors before they are killed."

The Washington Times also reported on the case. A journalist seeking political asylum in the United States, "Jin Zhong", also claimed knowledge of the harvesting operation, and added that hospital workers had taken jewelry and watches from the dead and sold them.

The report continues that "ndependent of these specific allegations, the United States remains concerned over China’s repression of Falun Gong practitioners and by reports of organ harvesting."Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Kilgour and Matas later accused Wu of bad faith for drawing his conclusions without interviewing the witnesses.

Based on our further research, we are reinforced in our original conclusion that the allegations are true. We believe that there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners.

"He was admitted to the No 1 Peoples' Hospital‑a civilian facility‑and during the ensuing two weeks four kidneys were brought for testing against his blood and other factors. None proved compatible because of his anti‑bodies; all were taken away.” He returned to the hospital two months later. “Another four kidneys were similarly tested; when the eighth proved compatible, the transplant operation was successfully completed... His surgeon... Dr. Tan Jianming of the Nanjing military region... carried sheets of paper containing lists of prospective 'donors', based on various tissue and blood characteristics, from which he would select names.The doctor was observed at various times to leave the hospital in uniform and return 2‑3 hours later with containers bearing kidneys. Dr. Tan told the recipient that the eighth kidney came from an executed prisoner.""The military have access to prisons and prisoners. Their operations are even more secretive than those of the civilian government. They are impervious to the rule of law."

Kilgour and Matas, in their report, point to the information they found on several Chinese hospital websites which they describe as "self-accusatory". For instance, in the 'question and answer' section of such a site is found:

"A: Before the living kidney transplantation, we will ensure the donor's renal function...So it is more safe than in other countries, where the organ is not from a living donor."

"Q: Are the organs for the pancreas transplant(ed) from brain death (sic) (dead) patients?,

A: Our organs do not come from brain death victims because the state of the organ may not be good."

The FAQ section from another chinese organ transplant website, referred to by Kilgour and Matas in their report, states:

"As for the kidney transplantation , it may take one week to find a suitable donor,the maximum time being one month. Although the procedure to select a donor is very strict, the transplant operation will be terminated if the doctor discovers that there is something wrong with the donor's organ. If this happens, the patient will have the option to be offered another organ donor and have the operation again in one week."

Many such websites show graphs with soaring organ transplantation figures—these start going up after 1999, when the persecution of Falun Gong began. In addition, many such website state that the organs can be found "immediately". The CIOT website advertises the waiting time for a kidney transplant as being "as short as a week and no longer than a month", while the average waiting time for such a transplant in other countries is more than 5 years.

• Please note that this is only a partial listing of the content removed by the user without a word of discussion. A lot of the critical and central information in the article had been either deleted out or shortened down to one or two lines. I have not mentioned the "shortened" out critical commentary here.

• Also please allow me to point out that I am not at all arguing against the recent block for edit warring I had recieved. I am only attempting to point out some of these concerns of mine - mainly because the user, PCPP, who deleted all these stuff, when prompted for an explanation, had run around posting baseless accusatory stuff, against me on other talk pages as he had done on User:Ohconfucius's talk page.

• Also note that the user had simultaneously deleted out a lot of information from another pages pertinent to Falun Gong, which he "self-reverted" whenadmin attention was brought to the issue.

• Also note his edit on Aug 4th - when he had engaged in an exact same pattern of disruption and deletion of content on the same page.

I fully agree with the administrators that that the above block was justified in light of the edit-warring that had happened and because I had failed to make clear the reasons for the reverts I was doing in the talk pages and in my edit summaries. But I beg to differ from what you( "Ohconfucius") are saying above particularly about the last few edits by the user PCPP to the page on organ harvestation.

• The user never made a word of mention that he had literally blanked 50% of the body of the article - not even in his edit summaries.

• The content he removed - included material pertinent to reports from Amnesty, UN Special Rapporteur's on Torture, an Image which I mention on the right, central conclusions and Evidence from the KM reports etc.

• When 50% of text is blanked without even a mention to the effect in even his edit summaries - especially when the blanked content was content of central relevance to the topic from International Human Rights Organizations and experts on the topic I believe we cannot dismiss it as 'content dispute'. I point out on the right some of the paragraphs removed by the user. A lot of content deletion involved cutting short very relevant commentary - which I am not listing here.

• For this blanking of content edits another user user had added a vandalism warning tag to PCPP's talk page:( Please See ) - which he kept deleting repeatedly - despite requests not to blank out the tag.

• Immediately after doing all this, when prompted for an explanation by another editor and myself, he rushes to User:Ohconfucis's talk page and posts a message saying "taking action against dilip"

• He had simultaneously vandalized other Falun Gong related pages - which he himself restored when Admin attention was brought to the issue.

• Such removal of content is characterized by The Misplaced Pages as Blanking Vandalism: " Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary."

• It also belongs to the category of Sneaky Vandalism: "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), using two or more different accounts and/or IP addresses at a time to vandalize, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even follow their vandalism with an edit that states "rv vandalism" in the edit summary in order to give the appearance the vandalism was reverted.".

• User:PCPP's pattern was that he would cover up his blanking edit with a false, misleading edit summary. Then attempts to restore the content he deleted, he would obfuscate with a "rv vandalism"(Please See: ) edit summary and re-deletion of the restored content.

• It seems to me that the user himself is very well aware that his actions constitute vandalism as he restored the pages from which he deleted content in a rush when admin attention was brought on the issue(Please See: )

Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting stuff you don't like on your talk page?

That's unorthodox. Do it if you want though, I don't care. You've been challenged on the use of that term, though, and I was just pointing it out. My thought is that it creates unnecessary juxtaposition, whereas discussion is better, and in time can prove things out. --Asdfg12345 07:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Two things

1. If you are talking about material related to an SPA which I blanked out - I did it, after considering the suggestion of another user, to protect my identity - realizing that it was in the best interest of my physical safety in the "real-world" to just stay away from that topic.

2. Second, if you are talking about your recent baseless comment - my talk page is not a place for you to come and label my edits the way you want. I understand, attacking other editors is an easy way of improving one's image(don't know if that is "orthodox" though) on wiki but before you make such accusations you may want to read up wikipedia guidelines on the issue. "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary"-WP:Vandal. When you are using my talk - not for any productive purpose - but to characterize my edits in a particular manner, apparently to thus achieve your ends, I believe, I have the full right to get those statements - which I consider nothing but an intentional, blunt mis-characterization of my edits - out of my talk. If you have an issue with it - please raise it on Administrator noticeboard or elsewhere more appropriate. I'd be more than happy to clarify things there. Thanks. Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Final warning on editing Falun Gong pages.

Further to a recent complaint I received regarding your editing at the Falun Gong subject area, I am issuing you with a final warning against improper conduct when editing those articles. Whilst editing articles on this topic, please bear in mind Misplaced Pages's prohibition on using the revert function to remove changes to the encyclopedia that you do not agree with. This applies even where the changes appear to be undoing information that is reliably sourced; in such a case, you should contact an administrator and ask for assistance in having that editor dealt with, rather than blankly revert. I'd also remind you that Misplaced Pages's purpose is to present verifiable articles in a neutral point of view; deliberately introducing a non-neutral viewpoint into an article is quite contrary to what the project stands for, and will not be looked on kindly. If any section of this warning is breached, or your actions on a Falun Gong article gives reason for concern, then you may be, (a) blocked from editing; and/or, (b) reported to the Arbitration Committee, per the arrangements at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, with a request to have you banned from the subject area. It's disappointing that I'm having to issue blocks to experienced editors in this case, but there truly is a lack of professionalism and camaraderie in the working relationships between a number of editors working on this article. Regretfully, AGK 10:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:20090315 Divarttwo0315.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:20090315 Divarttwo0315.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI

I'm sorry to put you through this again, but the recent goings on have been making curious reading. There are certain facts which remain unclear about your use of Inactive user account 001 (talk · contribs), and your comments are solicited here. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That was the old alternate account, just renamed under the suggestion of an admin. I have not logged in to the alternate account since. Please see contribs. Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Analysis Tianenmen False Fire GIF.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Analysis Tianenmen False Fire GIF.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

File:ImmolaterStillfromFalseFire.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:ImmolaterStillfromFalseFire.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies

Dilip, I apologize for jumping the gun and accusing you of something that may have been an accident. I did not assume good faith, and for that, I am sorry. I would like to invite you to join the discussions for the Sathya Sai Baba page here. We are currently making a decision about the reliability of Asian Voice, and if we should have the videos on the page. Thanks, Onopearls 16:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Onopearls.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Case

Here's the link to the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dilip_rajeev. Radiantenergy (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would invite you to visit the noticeboard and comment on the merits of the complaint. Thanks, AGK 16:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Onopearls 17:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Dilip, listen to reason. I dont want to report any of the editors (you, Sbs108, or Radiantenergy) for edit warring. Please take your concerns to the talk page. Thanks, Onopearls 17:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Am not making any more changes today. But what is happening on the page is blanking out of material with misleading edit comments.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, and there is nothing I can do until you are willing to go to the talk page and discuss your concerns. That is at least your tenth revert on that page today. I really hope you will go to the talk page before you get into another edit war. Best regards, Onopearls 18:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not every edit or revision is a revert, friend. Count the reverts, not my edits. Second some I fixed were major changes made under miselading edit comments - which wikipedia referst o as "sneaky vandalism" - and fxing of which I dont think would count as a revert. In your last edit to the article, for instance, see the amount of changes you make under the misleading edit summary "took out videos, no consensus." Such editing is being dishonest. Further, the videos you mention were in the article for almost 6 months and were very recently taken out without consensus.

You'll find such sneaky blanking in many recent edits that happened while I was working on the article. I am quite sure fixing them and continuing with my edits does not count towards a revert.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you added most of the criticism on that page without discussion, no? The videos should not have been added without a consensus, but they were. And there really was not chance for an editor to revert them, as you made dozens of edits in succession. And the consensus on the videos on the talk page was to not add them yet, until we can come to an agreement. You, however, chose to ignore Misplaced Pages protocol in favor of starting an edit war. And yes, if you remove info that was re added in the edit prior to yours, while adding the same info that was removed, it does count as a revert, although you didnt use the undo button.

I make no apologies for reverting the changes, as you added info that was taken out with an edit summary over a week ago, after a discussion, I might add. You also removed info that you didn't like, under the claim of "advertisement". The teachings section belongs on the page, as it is a key part of what SSB does. You also added info from bcskeptics, which was found to be unreliable by the 2nd ArbCom. You have already been warned to not add the info again, I do believe. This will be my final word in this discussion, so you may have the last word. In the future, go to the talk page before making controversial edits that are likely to incite an edit war (I'm sure you know what I mean), and don't allow yourself to be pulled into another edit war, because you know as well as I do that it will not help anything. Thanks, Onopearls 18:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did I add any info from BCSkeptic? I did not remove anything related to teh teachings but added academic stuff ( From anthropologist Lawrence Babb and The Times) to the teachings section. It was advertisement for the organization and purported charity that I moved to the page on the movement. I make this clear on talk and edit summaries - don't I?

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You made 8 reverts to the page that I know for a fact were reverts. You added the bcskeptics stuff to another page 1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam. Thanks, Onopearls 18:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

These are not reverts - but content disputes on different parts. Some plain blanking done without any rationale while I was engaged in editing the article. Call it an edit war if you must. But these are not "8 reverts". Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Was BC Skeptics found as an unreliable source for 1993 Murders in Prashanthi Nilayam? I thought BLP concern was the main argument for keeping it out of the Sai Baba article. It was done unconsciously anyway. I restored delted info and had pared out poorly sourced stuff such as to Priddy - but guess I would have missed this source. Could you pointout where exactly it is being used? Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked once more and I dont see BC Skeptics in the list of references of that article. Are you sure it is being used? Dilip rajeev (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you think a revert is, but using the undo key to get the page back to how it was before is a revert. You can say you didn't, but the edits say otherwise. Bcskeptics- Thanks, Onopearls 19:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, that edit is dated to 12th May! That content, I believe, isnt in the current version. Why do you bring a month old edit up now? BC Skeptics was not considered a bad source back then - was it? And these edits you point out are not all "undos".. the scenario in which the edits were done were a little more complex than that and these are not reverts to any particular version/ state of the article.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The information is on your arbitration case. I would suggest you make that point to the committee. :) Oh, and yes it was, as it was banned from SSB and related articles since either 2006, or February 2009 (I get my dates confused when I have a headache). Anyway, this will be the last you will hear from on SSB and all related articles. Best wishes and happy editing, Onopearls 03:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Arbcom_did_not_comment_on_Bayerstein . Arbcom had not mentioned anything on Bayerstein. There were mixed comments on WP:RS noticeboard.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Notice Board

You have been mentioned here by me. You may want to take a look.Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Academic views on Falun Gong

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Academic views on Falun Gong. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Academic views on Falun Gong (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to comment here.

Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Requested_move_2 Irbisgreif (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

==Speedy deletion nomination of File:SaiBabaBedroomMurderVictims.jpg==

A tag has been placed on File:SaiBabaBedroomMurderVictims.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section I10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:SaiBabaBedroomMurderVictims.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:SaiBabaBedroomMurderVictims.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:KilgourandMatasPresentReportAtNewsConference.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:KilgourandMatasPresentReportAtNewsConference.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:WangbinKMReportspic2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:WangbinKMReportspic2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Mr Kilgour in press Conference.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Mr Kilgour in press Conference.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Atlanta proclamation honorary citizen.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Atlanta proclamation honorary citizen.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Irbisgreif (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:20090315 Divarttwo0315.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:20090315 Divarttwo0315.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Post1999OrganHavestingRise.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Post1999OrganHavestingRise.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Post 1999 Raise in Liver Transplants.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Post 1999 Raise in Liver Transplants.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

I wish to inform you that an arbitration enforcement case concerning your bahaviour has been filed here. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The Red Wall - A Documentary on the Persecution of Falun Gong
2. ^ Kilgour and Matas, "Bloody Harvest: Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China"
3. Sky News, Suspicions Raised Over Organ Donors, accessed 1/12/07
4. The Monitor's View (August 3, 2006)"Organ harvesting and China's openness", The Christian Science Monitor, retrieved August 6, 2006
5. Amnesty International, Falun Gong Persecution Factsheet,
6. Sky News, Suspicions Raised Over Organ Donors, accessed 1/12/07
7. Gertz, Bill (March 24, 2006) "China harvesting inmates' organs, journalist says", Washington Times, retrieved July 6, 2006
9. Archived Chinese Transplant Website
10. Page 26, The Kilgour Matas Report
11. Chinese Version of International Organ Transplant Website Reopened, Epoch Times
12. Website of The British Colombia Transplant Society