Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) at 12:38, 15 September 2007 (→Blocked: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Dilip rajeev, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! The first thing you should know is that we encourage you to be bold. Feel free to edit and improve articles, by clicking any 'edit' link.

If you'd like to test what Misplaced Pages can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

For more information check out our tutorial - it's designed with newcomers in mind, as is the help section. If you'd like to get involved with current projects, have a look at the Community Portal. There are always tasks for users to do, ranging from copyediting to expanding stubs.

I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~.

Once again, welcome!

James Kendall 18:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Falun Gong daughter Page

The consensus is contained within our policies as well as within the discussion. As I stated in my closing notes, I weighed the arguments made, and saw that the consensus lay with deleting the article as per WP:POVFORK, and WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I have asked that pertinent information be added to the article on Falun Gong. Steve block Talk 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The place for the information is at Falun Gong as would be notes on possible health benefits to Tai Chi be placed in the article on Tai Chi. It is a POV fork because it was split off from the main article. As to consensus, I draw your attention to WP:CONSENSUS, namely It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus. I discounted views on the article which did not take Misplaced Pages policy into account, and then decided the consensus lay with existing policy. Like I say, I have suggested that the pertinent information be merged back into the parent article. Steve block Talk 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The level of summarised information in the article did not warrant a simgle article, it is that which made it a POV fork. I appreciate the assumption of good faith on my part, but feel I must point out that long standing policy on Misplaced Pages is that comments can be disregarded depending on the length of time a commentator has been a member, or on the nature of the comment. Comments I disregarded, as I stated in my closure, were ones relating to the fact that they have tried the technioque and it improved their health. Such comments violate original research and have no bearing on the debate, since inclusion in Misplaced Pages is decided by policy and consensus. Disregarding those votes establishes a 12 to 6 deletion count, or 2/3 of the poll, a considerable consensus. The arguments that this information can be presented in a NPOV manner do not neccessitate the article existing, as the information can just as easily be included in the parent article. Steve block Talk 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Washington Monument falun gong vigil.jpg listed for deletion

Image:Fig3smresearchonfalungong.jpg listed for deletion

Image:Fig3smlietalresearchonfalungong.jpg listed for deletion

Image:Fig systemic gene level changes in falun gong practitioners.jpg listed for deletion

Image tagging for Image:FalunDafaExercise1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:FalunDafaExercise1.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 09:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Fire Star 火星 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Dilip, you are now at 3 reverts at the Li Hongzhi article. Unilateral reversion isn't the way to go, because if you revert again in contravention of the three revert rule you will likely be blocked from editing. I suggest you use the talk page to make your case, not the edit summaries. --Fire Star 火星 14:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

Informal mediator WikieZach| talk is preparing to move the Falun Gong mediation case to the Misplaced Pages:Arbcom. I have been asked to alert concerned (to the best of my knowledge) editors about this matter. Thank you. --Fire Star 火星 22:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Falungongpracticearoundworld.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Falungongpracticearoundworld.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 13:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Falun Gong. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Falun Gong mediation

Hello, I'm sorry it's been awhile, but I recently agreed to mediate that case. I don't know if it's a stale issue, so it would be good if a few of you let me know whether or not mediation is still needed. Since there are so many of you, I'm going to assume that all of you agree to me mediating until and unless I am told otherwise. I'm also going to assume public mediation is fine, unless someone asks for private mediation, or I come to think private mediation might be better. I would, however, appreciate it if you just said something there to let me know if you are still around. Also, assuming you are still interested in mediation, please watchlist the page if you haven't already. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

You have edited Supression of Falun Gong three times within the last 24 hours. If you engage in another edit, especially without discussion, then you will have violated the Wiki policy of not reverting a page more than 3 times within 24 hours. Please read WP:AN/3RR for more details. Consider this a warning. Note that this is not your first warning (see the one in August by Fire Star) and you are not a new user any longer. Jsw663 10:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bosnian pyramids

Why do you want that link on that talk page when it's already on the External links section? --Ronz 01:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi

Thanks. I've done my hefty share of Falun Gong research. Scientific, empirical, not to mention socio-economic. Please never talk to me again. Colipon+(T) 20:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong

You clearly did not read a single word of what I wrote in the talk page. Investigate me, by all means! I suspect you may be the one with the "we are the victims" agenda, I have none. You could have called me a sympathiser before this, but now I am beginning to see FG for what it is. Ohconfucius 01:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just to let you know I'm waiting for an answer from you. Ohconfucius 03:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

remember me?

I can see that my hours of effort were not appreciated, for the third time again, now. I am amazed that not only have you not bothered to apologise to me, you never even bothered to engage me on constructive changes, but instead, leaving insulting and blasé comments in the edit summary such as "I see no reason why..." without explaining yourself clearly in the discussion page, whereas I gave you clear reasons why in the talk page and the dit summary.

As an organisation that is allegedly persecuted by the Chinese Government, its "members" (using the word very loosely, for I have been equally accused of introducing concepts alien to FG into the article) seem to engage in it's fair share of the same Stalinist intolerant practices it allegedly receives in the name of "exposing the truth about the CCP". I believe there may be a witch-hunt going on -tarring all those fellow wikipedians who do not toe the official FG line as "in need of investigation". What is being implied?? that perhaps all who dare to utter unorthodoxies are sockpuppets of Samuel Luo? Why is there such paranoia? Where is the charitable tolerance (真, 善, 忍) which its esteemed leader apparently professes? Where is the assumption of good faith?

I am no fan of the CCP, the media censorship it practices, nor its human rights record, but the Epoch Times appears often to carry stories and allegations that no other respectable journal will confirm or even hint at. No-one disputes that the journal is a mouthpiece of the FG, and thus amounts to a self-published source. From what I have read here and in the related pages, quotes and stories lifted from Epoch Times are on the par with Pravda (did you know it means "truth" in Russian) and People's Daily in churning out the propaganda. Despite this, you seem to treat it as "gospel", and insist that everything that can be cited, especially if from Epoch or clearwisdom, or falundafa.org, must never be removed (see my comments on "research" (sic)). What total crap! "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in biographies of living people". Taking a leaf out of your own book, something quite relevant which was sourced, and which potentially embarrasses the cult is now in violation of WP:BLP? One sourced information must be deleted, and the info from self-published sources should not????? Don't make me laugh at such blatant hypocrisy.

All the above, and I have not even mentioned how the article fails horribly to meet the Manual of style, or how the large chunks of quotes and other material copied and pasted could constitute copyright violation, yet you removed the quotefarm tag I placed. I was quite clear in the discussion page that nothing was removed, only moved. But "reinserting paragraphs which were merely moved into sections below, you are indeed making a mess of the article. If you cannot even stomach that, then it just shows me that you are just edit warring in a petty minded fashion.

I will leave you to turn these pages to an extension of the epochtimes.com. I would wish you the very best of luck. Don't you worry, I will drop in from time to time to keep you on your toes. Ohconfucius 11:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong and Falun Gong

Dilip, I notice you reverted all the edits I made to the above articles today with the comment "You alabel a research thesis "minority view"?? "Persecution refers to banning".. these statemnts realy dont make sense. I dont undstnd y u keep replacn well sourced info with OR!!". I have tried to be as transpareent as possible, by breaking down my changes into numerous small edits each with a fairly accurate and detailed summary (when appropriate), and I do not appreciate a wholescale revert with flippant remarks like the one quoted which have no relevance to the majority of changes you reversed. We have been there before, let's not go there again. I am sure you did not object to everything, so after what we have been through, I think what you at least owe me is a well thought out and reasoned edit summary which accurately reflects the changes you objected to. What you wrote may be used to justify replacing all the porter stuff, but in no way justifies you to unwind all my changes. In any event, I have also reasoned my objection to the porter stuff on the talk page. Let's talk! Ohconfucius 09:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have replied to you onmy talk page. Ohconfucius 13:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:False Fire clip.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:False Fire clip.gif. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 14:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR August 16, 2007

Dilip, you are now at 3 reverts at the Persecution of Falun Gong article. Unilateral reversion isn't the way to go, because if you revert again in contravention of the three revert rule you will likely be blocked from editing. I suggest you use the talk page to make your case, not the edit summaries. Ohconfucius 14:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for breaching the 3 revert rule. Neil ム 10:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 48 hours for a 3RR violation on Falun Gong. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)