Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:18, 19 February 2010

Page Moves

Please stop making disambiguations "less ambiguous." If there's another sort of game by those titles, then it may be necessary, but "game" to "computer game" is unnecessary, really.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, articles should not be moved, as you did to Characters in Devil May Cry, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Boradis 05:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I have also found that you have gone around and some weasel changes in articles related to Falun Gong. A very small number of them were legitimate. I will go around and change the rest back when I have some time. I am referring to instances where the original article would say "people", and you have changed it to "Falun Gong practitioners", for example re the self-immolation. The whole question is whether they were actually "Falun Gong practitioners" or not, that is what is in dispute, so characterising it that way from the beginning is not acceptable. You also did some other dirty things which I will rectify. I also urge you not to continue, because it is working against wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 13:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I would not like to make this sound like a criticism, but more like an encouragement to do even better. I think it would be better if you made slightly more proactively constructive edits on the Falun Gong pages, rather than simply reverting to earlier versions. I can certainly see that while in parts you are making worthwhile changes, at the same time, sometimes you have deleted sourced content or perhaps reduced more complete explanations. It would be better to invest a little more time and make the appropriate enhancements, rather than reverting. I am undoing your edits with the hope that you do it that way. By reverting, it means someone else has to do that work of comparing the two versions and using the best of each. I think we should just make changes that are positive for wiki, none that are not. In particular, deleting a lot of sourced text from the History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002) page, I don't think that is the best approach. Maybe you agree with some of what I said. Happy editing!--Asdfg12345 23:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

hello. I think you may have inadvertently deleted a section on the overseas page. We are obviously editing from slightly different perspectives, but we can get along fine. I think one thing we can do to make that easy is to be transparent in our editing, leave clear summaries, and basically not delete legitimate stuff without comment/discussion. Of course, if it is out of place, irrelevant, unsourced, whatever, of course that is fine, no problem, because we should edit responsibly and improve the articles. In the most recent case I think you accidentally deleted that section on Saskatoon and Falun Gong. I don't have too much time to scrutinise the edits and compare the two versions, work out which belongs and which does not, then re-add the parts that were (inadvertently) removed, so I have just reverted to the previous version, and I hope you understand why. If you state clearly in your edit summary what you did, or if there are not enough words just quickly on the talk page, then that will make it heaps easier to identify what is going on. Right now I just reverted in the hopes that when you re-add the awards significance section (which will at some point need to be made NPOV with some firmer discussion/analysis) you will not do so at the expense of what is already there. Maybe we could make our editing style easy if we just do one "action" per edit, then leave an edit summary explaining. So one edit we rewrite a paragraph--then save that and write summary. then right away add in new one--save again, edit summary. Then delete a paragraph-save again, edit summary. I will try to keep to this at least because it will make it easier. Also, if you exlpain further it helps. So with this latest thing, it is a good idea to have it here, and if you just re-add it in its own section that will be fine, and then some scholarly discussion on the issue of Falun Gong's awards and recognition outside of china can ensue. Of course, it will be analysis of the meaning of these, whether one says they are worthless and easy to get, another says they are hard and meaningful, whatever, we should show all viewpoints. Anyway, just a friendly note about this point. Happy editing!--Asdfg12345 15:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong edit wars

I would like to add a few words of encouragement to you for your efforts. You will have noticed it is not a sane environment to hang around in. There are FG sympathisers, FG apologists, CCP supporters and also some blatantly anti-FG vandals out there, all of whom make working on articles very difficult. None of the edits are stable, and I have not seen anything like this scale of push-pull elsewhere on wikipedia. Dilip, in particular, reacts rather violently to large scale changes and reverts of edits, and he has falsely accused me several times before, but I think we are all right now. In response to his accusations, I have tried to remain calm, and to make all my edits as transparent as possible. I find it helpful as an editor, and estimate that I now make maybe 30 edits instead of 3 as I was accustomed to do before, in order to have as detailed and accurate an edit summary as possible. Not everything pleases everyone, but at least I can no longer be accused of stealthily putting stuff in or taking stuff out.

What I still do have a major problem is is the volume of stuff which no other respectable journal is carrying for whatever reason, some of which is non-encyclopaedic, much is from Epoch Times. I disagree with some editors who insist that in building an article nothing should be deleted; others insist that what is reported in Epoch is true/fact, and removal thereof would be POV. You will also have noticed that a few apparently neutral editors have been scared off working in this destructive environment. I intend to stick around, and I hope you do too. Happy editing. Ohconfucius 02:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sydney

Cool, yes I'm from Sydney too (but currently in London until the end of the year). I've noticed you are active on the Falun Gong pages. I admire your courage. =) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries :) Have you been involved with FLG much?--PCPP (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Political cult

Please comment here . Thank You --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the Luthern paster who vandalized my user page

Thanks!

ps - also here are some facts about:

The Sujiatun/Kilgour report: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/observer/story.html?id=2c15d2f0-f0ab-4da9-991a-23e4094de949&p=3

Epoch Time's financial connection with Falun Gong: http://sujiatunfactorhoax.blogspot.com/2006/08/so-whos-paying-for-all-this-propaganda.html

(Epoch Times, NTDTV, SoH radio's FLG affaliation are also mentioned in Thomas Lum's CSR report "China and FLG")

Falun Gong's link with the CIA: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_308.shtml (if you don't know who Col. Robert Helvey is, Google him: http://www.google.com/search?q=Falun+Gong+Robert+Helvey+NED)

Bobby fletcher 2:18 17 December 2007 (PST)

Please stop disruptive editing

Hello. This is to request that you stop deleting sourced content from the Falun Gong cycle of articles and leaving spurious explanations. It is against wiki policies to delete sourced content for no reason like that. Frequently you do this without discussion or serious explanation. If you don't stop doing it there are internal mechanisms for community review in wikipedia, which can be initiated to assess your conduct. Editors can be banned for disruptive editing. Please stop deleting sourced content without discussion.--Asdfg12345 10:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I reverted several of the edits you made to Falun Gong and live organ harvesting because I felt the changes you made were not in the best interests of creating an encyclopaedic article. You appear to have re-posted (C&P) paragraphs containing views which were already present, and which interrupted the flow and coherence of the article. I have been watching the changes you made to Falun Gong, Persecution of Falun Gong and Third party views on Falun Gong. Whilst I agree with some of the changes you proposed, I feel that there may be a better way of editing by consensus. Thus I would ask you to play some ping pong, rather than engage in aggressive and continual edit-warring. You may have noticed that your approach may be counter-productive -the AfD for CIPFG started off on the wrong foot because other editors reacted aganist your edit history, I fear that I will be unable to swing the argument even though it genuinely appears to fail WP:ORG because your intentions were brought into question from the outset. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The user review request

I'm going to put this off again because it would take a while to look at all the diffs and present the evidence. I will just use this note, now, as another way of please urging you not to do this kind of thing again. It's now clear that there is a problem, and you have repeatedly been asked to stop the disruptive editing. If it happens again then I will go through all the diffs and start an rfc.--Asdfg12345 06:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I have brought up the issue of your continuous page vandalism despite AfD consensus at WP:ANI. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong page moves

I think you're going about this all wrong. I've seen the ANI, and I think nobody will back you after edit-warring on page moves. If you want to move a page, I strongly urge you to try arguing your case on the talk page first.

There is certainly a problematic one here, which needs to be put back to Falun Gong and live organ harvesting, IMHO. How do you move a page over redirect? That page needs to be restored, but I can't seem to do it. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't discussion about this proposed move go to the relevant talk page? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is. But you guys got so good at moving pages over redirects (I can't seem to) that I thought I'd solicit some technical advice. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PCCP, some editors are asking for opinion on POV flag for the organ harvesting page. I don't care what your opinion is, just that your opinion is heard Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you couldn't stay away, and decided to get your hands dirty with CIPFG! Although I suspect he may be a FG person, I cannot tell what Ave Caesar's allegiances are. However, I think he is succeeding in tainting you. I would urge you to keep low for now. You may be surprised at the outcome if the temperature stays cool. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:23, 4 June 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) 18:12, 6 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)

Shoot

Go ahead. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pls discuss changes

thx--Asdfg12345 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question:

Arthur (Soul Calibur) is essentially a design element of Mitsurugi (Koreans ban samurai) and has no relevance. It ends up failing WP:N too due to lack of third party sources covering the subject.

The WP:N issue applies to Valeria (Soul Calibur), Hualin, Edge Master, and Li Long. I'm not wild about the policy, but it's better than losing all of the articles and these are just plot pieces.

If you want to object, find third party coverage from reliable sources and cite it in the articles to show notability for the subjects.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record that was a request on the matter that if you can find some sources put them up instead of using the redirects. If you're interested in the current merge discussions on the matter, see Talk:Soul (series). Also note TTN's response there...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 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 16:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

re: Jossi's 1 week block over Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, I was blocked previously by Blnguyen back in May over the same incident per , and I have never touched the article since. Please shorten the block per Tiptoety's block

Decline reason:

You weren't blocked for edit warring on Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, you were blocked for edit warring on Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China, which you were. Request for unblock declined. — _Gb 17:36, 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.

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

Request reason:

I was in fact already blocked by Tiptoety for 24 hours along with two other users involved over reverts at Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong in China, and this block is fair and I'm not contesting that. I'm referring to Jossi's one week block which clearly stated that I was blocked over an old incident at Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun back in May , which I was already blocked for by Blnguyen. , which was failed to be take into account. I'm not actually asked to be unblocked per see, but simply reverted to the original 24 hour block per Tiptoety.

Decline reason:

Block shortened to the original expiry time of 24 hours. I fully agree with jossi, and any continuance of edit warring will result in an immediate and longer block. Please be more careful in future. Thanks. — PeterSymonds (talk) 21:17, 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.

Having glanced around a bit, I don't see anything obviously justifying the extension to a weeklong block; a bit more discussion might be in order? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with Jossi that this user was being disruptive (seeing as I blocked him) I am not sure that a week long block is really justifiable here. The other two users that I blocked for edit warring on the same page blocks were not extended and remain at a length justifiable by their previous actions, and after looking at PCPP's block log I really do not see a whole lot of history with this issue. Also, take a look at all the other block lengths at the RfAr, this block by far (other than the one idef) exceeds any of the other lengths, and most of those users there are far more disruptive . I personally think that the block should be reduced back to the 24 hours. Tiptoety 20:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A week is possibly too long for this activity, so I would support reducing it. I'd wait until jossi comments before granting this request. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No objection, with this caveat. Any further edit-warring or other disruption will result in an immediate block of one week. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong persecution article--3RR

You are not the only editor getting this message, but as of right now you are in violation of 3RR on the Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China‎ article. Further reverts to this article within the next 24 hours will most-likely result in a block--and, as I see above, it won't be the first time, so the block will probably be fairly substantial. Rather than reverting any more, please DISCUSS the changes you wish to make on the article's talk page, and wait until consensus is achieved before making any large-scale or controversial changes. Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 13:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

PRC

The language regarding FLG in this article for a very, very long time. I don't think it's POV to call a spade a spade. If you disagree with the language, take the disagreement to the discussion page instead of engaging in an edit war. I am always open to NPOV language, and if we can build consensus for a change, it will be reflected in the article.LedRush (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording in the article to hopefully come to a compromise on the "persecuted"/"banned" issue; my comments are here. —Politizer /_contribs 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Stargate games

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Stargate games, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Stargate games has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Stargate games, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

FG an "important phenomenon"?

Hey there, could you please take a look at this discussion? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2008 (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)

Regarding your recent edits

Regarding your recent addition to the article "Cult Suicide." Please note that among the academics who clearly state the incident was fabricated is Danny Schechter: "CCP's charges are unsubstantiated by outside parties." All later third-party analysis clearly state it was a fabricated incident. Also note reports by Ian Johnson, analysis by David Ownby, statement of Clive Ansley, Chair of CIPFG and China Country Monitor for Lawyers Rights’ Watch Canada who states: ".. we ultimately found out that it was a fraud anyway. It wasn't real, the people involved weren't Falun Gong members, it was completely staged by the government." Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is a view held by the above people and should be termed as such. What you're trying to do is present opinions as fact.--PCPP (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My point being there is not a single academic/human-rights source which calls Falun Gong a "cult" let alone one which claims the incident was a "cult suicide." All good third party sources state the opposite. The most extensive analysis available, Danny Schechter's clearly state "CCP's claims are unsubstantiated by outside parties" - thats an authoritative statement on the issue - by no means a personal opinion.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The suicide was alleged, hence it was listed under disputed suicide section. Schechter is one one person, his views remain that, views. Stop trying to masquerade opinions as factual.--PCPP (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is regarding this particular edit of yours on the article "Sound of Hope":. There is no need add a non-factual "alleged" here and there. Please note that Amnesty, HRW, The US Congress as well as All Major Governments ( Ref: David Ownby ) clearly state this is a major human rights tragedy. Amnesty has released reports on the persecution of hundreds of practitioners, and many western countries grant asylum to practitioners. In light of all this data, you may want to remove the adjective "alleged" you have inserted at a couple of places in the article. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

So China violates human rights, does that make all accusations of human rights violations in China factual? By removing the "alleged" label, you're saying that everything SOH says on human rights violations are facts, which they are not.--PCPP (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please review your edit - the "alleged" there says the human rights violations are alleged - which, you know, is not true and contradicts all sources I mention above.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to twist my words. I've clearly said that SOH's claims of China's human rights violations cames from their own perspective. Nothing states that their claims comes from the sources you listed above. SOH does not collaborate with Amnesty and HRW etc.--PCPP (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two instances of "alleged"

• It has also come out with an audio version of the Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist Party, an attack on the CCP and its alleged actions throughout history.

-This is fine, the alleged term labels that the allegations from the authors of the Nine Commentaries.

• In depth reporting also focuses heavily on alleged human rights abuses by the Chinese government against practitioners of Falun Gong.

-I've changed this from alleged to reported ie what is widely reported to be HR violations by the PRC government.--PCPP (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would remind you both that my warning regarding professional editing in the Falun Gong subject area stands. AGK 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Academic views page

A couple of reasons. The most obvious is that it makes no sense to have an article that is from one set of sources--articles shouldn't be themed by sources, but other, meaningful stuff. Secondly, because it's not really useful. Your idea about "Reception" is good, but in my view that would be even better as a section of the Outside Mainland China page (since we're not talking about reception in China, right?). --Asdfg12345 07:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Work in Progress

I took a gander and it's looking quite good. If only the majority of articles on this vocal ARG were as impartial as this one. Here's to hoping it becomes an indexed article soon. (Not everybody in North America drinks the koolade that Epoch Times mixes.)Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Response - Neutrality in FLG articles

Um, yeah. I put in a quote from the new york times. The individual quoted was Li Hongzhi. It's the one where he told his australian followers that babies of mixed ancestry would only go to heaven if they followed him... It got deleted. Unsure why since it was topical and quoted directly from Hongzhi by a newspaper that ranks up with the Guardian for accuracy and impartiality.... Especially odd since the article I quoted from was critical of the CCP more than the FLG. Le Sigh. I have mixed feelings on this. I dislike religious propaghanda cluttering up the encyclopedia but I'm not sure if there is any point to fighting this. I would be happy enough to just see the entire page flagged as confirmed non-neutral and then just ignore it.Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there is a mediator at Talk:Falun Gong now. See if you want to join in the discussion--Edward130603 (talk) 21:08, 22 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) 01:12, 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)

Removal of material from Falun Gong page

The article in question is under existing sanctions, which means that any uninvolved admin can take action against editors who have behaved less than well. Your recent removal of sourced material without any discussion from the article in question could very reasonably be seen by many people as being an example of less than appropriate behavior. I believe that the content in question could reasonably be questioned on the talk page, but have to say that your own unilateral removal is not appropriate. I am not myself going to necessarily block your or request your being blocked in this single instance. However, please behave more in keeping with wikipedia's rules and guidelines in the future, or the sanctions may be imposed. Actually, although I haven't myself requested that they be imposed in this instance, they could still be imposed by someone else anyway. Please do not engage in such conduct again. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as is indicated below, it is desired that you edit the articles, and there is now talk of even a dedicated work group devoted to this subject. I used to call myself "Warlord" or more specifically User:Warlordjohncarter here because of my, well, occasionally belligerent tone. Don't freak out too much over that, OK? Your input is more than welcome, and if you have information which would indicate that there are other specific subjects related to Falun Gong which would meet notability criteria, or would be willing to work on some of the logical "child" articles, that would be particularly useful. I do get the impression there is a fair amount of material out there regarding this subject, and it looks like a lot of people are trying to cram it all into just a few articles. That generally doesn't work very well, and I don't think that it would here. Any input, but particularly of notable practicioners or opponents which don't already have articles, would be greatly welcome. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

I was quite hopeful that this mediation would result in something so I will wait for a week or so. Arbitration is a long process, takes lots of evidence gathering. By the looks of it you have positioned yourself on a direct front against the "pro-FLG" side and therefore it would make your own position very precarious. Although I am inclined to assume good faith, your own edits sometimes can be seen as very POV-oriented, especially by the pro-FLG camp. I would almost suggest that the best way to fix the article is just to get all the regulars topic-banned, on both sides. If you are willing to take part in the evidence-gathering process in the lead-up to a mediation, please do so. I would advise you to refrain from making any edits to the articles in the mean time and avoid edit warring. Colipon+(T) 18:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not myself sure that I would agree to that. I did on the talk page indicate a few other fairly respectable sources which could be used. I also have offered to help any person get articles of JSTOR if they request which articles they want. I do think that adding additional well-sourced material to the various relevant articles would be a very good idea, and, like I've said, if you want any help getting ahold of any of the JSTOR articles, let me know. I should be able to get them e-mailed to you within at most a few days. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying, "give mediation a try first. Don't resort to arbitration if it's unecessary."? Colipon+(T) 19:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, PCPP, the other route is obviously thru enforcement of the previous arbitration case closed in 2007. Most of those principles and decisions from that arbitration are being violated anyway and very few have actually made the effort to report it to arbitration enforcement, opting to go to things like RfC, RS/N, and NPOV/N instead, which seems to me like it's being less than effective. Colipon+(T) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, mediation is actually, so far as I can tell, more or less over. I'm not a mediator, I'm an outside party who came in at the request of Vassayana to help try to develop the article. I think several others were asked to do the same, but most that have responded seem to have declined. Regarding enforcement of the ArbCom sanctions, yeah, it seems to me that they aren't being enforced right now either. As a newcomer, I'm not sure how many of the regulars would still be able to edit the subject if they were being enforced, which is why I didn't call for enforcement. But I do agree that not seeking ArbCom enforcement more regularly doesn't seem to be working to the benefit of the content. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If the arbitration is actually over then yes, there seems to be a need to seek for alternative methods of dispute resolution. The article's content, as it seems, is very far from conforming to WP:NPOV, the POV-pushing is rampant. Every point regarding an RS, UNDUE, FRINGE etc. will be argued from a strictly POV-pushing fashion. This is what is discouraging me from actually working on the article because every time I have tried to insert sourced material there is opposition from people like Olaf and asdfg, using some crafty argumentation to stall edits, followed by a few personal attacks. I am just terribly, terribly discouraged. Plus to any third party editors it should be clear by now that there are 4 very specific SPAs who deal almost exclusively with FLG-related content. Some more extreme than others, but all quite discouraging to editors from different backgrounds (OhConfucius, Mrund, myself, Simon, PCPP). To John Carter I have a question... is there a way to report specific and problematic users who are civil POV pushers? I am unconvinced at this point that anything other than a user ban will be effective. Colipon+(T) 19:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If they are civil but still violating some other policy or guidelines, then they're probably violating the terms of the article probation. If any parties are seen to be making any "disruptive edits", including me, they can and should be repoted to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Falun Gong

Please join the dicussion at Talk:Falun Gong, both about the Singer material and to participate in the process as we try to focus on moving forward. If I can answer any questions or be of assistance, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have to admit that I do like your draft version of the article better. Regarding the possibility of setting up sandboxes for the various articles, that would probably work, but there might be a few problems. Vassayana has suggested that we create a work group with the intention of hopefully drawing additional editors in, and I personally wonder whether seeing that the articles were uniformally being worked on as sandboxes might scare some potential editors off. I'm in the process of starting the work group's setup, so it might be a good idea to hold off on the sandboxes idea until and unless we see if there are many newcomers to the discussion. John Carter (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I also like your revision of the article. It may be the best way to re-write the Falun Gong article as well. Colipon+(T) 19:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev enforcement case

Kindly note that an Enforcement case has just been filed against Dilip rajeev here over his editing at the Falun Gong family of articles and elsewhere. You might like to comment. Please note that this is a permalink; any commenting should be done only after clicking on the 'Project page' tab. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Greeting

Hopefully we can collaborate. Right now I am trying to promote Economic history of China (Pre-1911) to an FA from GA. I wrote the whole article. Take a look.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems well written to me, unfortunately I'm not quite knowledgeable in ancient Chinese economic history and can't add much :(--PCPP (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed

...at Talk:Republic of China#Proposing Article Title Change. Thanks! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

CCP vs. CPC

Thanks for the heads-up. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dilip rajeev arbcom case

hi -- I saw that, too... the archiving is apparently done by a bot (MiszaBot II) after 2 days of inactivity... it usually shouldn't have an impact on the outcome (I hope...), but even the bot must have noticed how it's been stalled... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Must watch video

Arilang 16:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) (ctrl-click)">http://uradio.cybercampus.hku.hk/player.php?1=1&programid=256 Arilang 16:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anti-communist mass killings

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Anti-communist mass killings. 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 Misplaced Pages:Notability and "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/Anti-communist mass killings. 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) 01:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Right on!

I love it! I know exactly why you made that one... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Asdfg12345 15:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)